Wednesday, December 4, 2013

Podcast #7 - New Dice!

What's this? What's this? A podcast in the air? Join myself, Heretic, and Godfrey as we have a free form and open table discussion about the state of 40k post C:SM, and do a little though experiment about the dice we roll.


  1. I think I actually agree with Godfrey here in general when it comes to the tournaments. Let people play. I dislike the FW models because those things slaughter my armies, but if they make them and people buy them, let it go. I am worried about the Lords of War being standard, because my marines will be F'ed. You guys know how often I win tournaments. That being said, I feel like Corvus makes a good point as long as it is used sparingly, and only in extreme conditions.

  2. Apologies for the Audio quality here folks. I am not sure why it is so bad as compared to previous podcasts.

    We'll work on correcting this next time.

  3. I see both sides. I'm down for letting everything be fair game... Until quadtide/screamerstar/next big thing dominates an unfun portion of the scene. When you look at a 5 round event and you're basically told "You /will/ play army X at least once statistically" (considering 20% being said list and a 5 round event), that to me is very very damaging.

  4. Yea, I understand, but it is what it is. If it is a tourney, then you should be preparing yourself and your army for those stupid lists that are running the tables. The point there is to win, usually. i know a lot of people would still like to have fun, but if you don't enjoy just playing, regardless of the other army, then I think you have the wrong hobby. I am more likely to say no to those lists in friendly games, as it shouldn't be about winning.

  5. Having come from MechWarrior, where a simple tactical change could help topple the one list I saw that was "that list", it's frustrating to still see so much emphasis on list construction, rather than tactics. And it's not just quadtide/screamerstar. Land Raiders and Wraithknights in the current meta are almost entirely based on looking at your opponent's list, looking to see if they have an answer to that single model, and if they do, you probably lose. If they don't, you probably win.

  6. Got excited there for a second when I heard gretchin getting mentioned. Oh well, guess I'm going to just sit on my little green thumbs until Q2...

  7. Filip SzczepankiewiczDecember 7, 2013 at 2:32 PM

    Thanks for the podcast! I like your perspective of the game... cerebral and self-aware! (too bad your dice-plan exploded)

    This is probably not the place to ask but: Is there anything we, as a community, can do to attenuate the immature bitching and moaning about every possible aspect of the game? Now that lots of new things are introduced in "standard" 40k, all I see is the common jerk reaction to piss all over GW and 40k without considering how we might make it a better experience by, perhaps, realizing that a rule set this complicated is not meant for pedantic playing?

  8. This is the perfect place to ask. I personally agree. As much as there are new things, I'd personally like to play against them and see how it actually effects the game. Some things are starting to feel kinda silly, like super heavies in 40k, but I'd still play against it just to see how it all plays out. Even thought it may seem silly, it opens the gates for more scenic or narative themed games.

    "My lord, the Imperial Bane Blade is awaiting a transport, and it is the perfect time to strike and seize it for our own."

    "Acolyte, status report on the xeno Titan...
    It appears to be guarding this entrance into the hive city. If we can take it down before their reinforcements arrive, we should be able to establish a foothold."

    "Dem hummies tink de'z can stop us wit der big fancy tankz. We'z gonna show dem da power of a real fightin' army. GRAB YA CHOPPAS BOYZ! "WAAAAAAAGH!!!"

    See, even if it looks dumb on paper, you can approach it with good spirits and just take on a new challenge. Overall i still feel like it is becoming increasingly hard to keep up with units, rules, abilties, etc., but that comes with both good and bad. Bad because we as players have more chances to screw up the rules and misinterpret things, but great for the chance to have a variety of things to shake up the game from becoming stagnant.

    As much as i can gripe about some things feeling too good (Tau + Eldar... or Farsight + Tau), to me the best way to counter that is to allow more things than just standard usual units to compensate.

    Who knows what we as players can do to stem the time of community pissing matches. To me it's trying my best to lead by example. I'll try to play a lot of different units just to see them on the table, especially if i like the unit (see Penal Legion and Mandrakes). In the end, You gotta play to enjoy the game, win or loose.

    Play what you love, and love what you play. Thanks for the comment.


  9. Yeah, Id love to play against a super heavy tank or something... It's obviously a satisfying thing to bring down, although I can see why getting beat by a single model over and over again might become tiresome.

    I'm too inexperienced to see any obvious solutions in terms of restrictions, e.g., max of one flying MC, one flying vehicle per FOC and so on... and I have heard that striking any new balance in this way becomes a manner of arbitrary limitations...

    I would love for you to bring this up on your podcast... maybe you can create a game-standard using some well-behaved restrictions to the FOC, or perhaps comment on the ones that are out there?