Some questions that come up on another read through of the book

[petercooman]

Got a few queries that i hope can be answered. I'm giving up hope that the author will answer these, but maybe Leon or some of the playtesters can answer them.


1: changing the base sizes

Now i know these are open and you can use whatever you want, but from my understanding pendraken planned to make army packs with the bases included, hence the question.

Why did these change? For one, hq's lost their AA attack, but got a bigger base.Shouldn't this be smaller, seeing that their AA units are 'left out', so they would take up less space on the table?

Another one is the vehicle base, this was narrowed by 5 mm.
This is a pendraken tiger 2 on a 50x30 base.


Good luck getting that on a smaller base.

Also, with two editons behind us, a lot of people used the old conventions, why change that now? makes no sense at all!


2:  why did the command blunder table change?

This was not needed, and feels like change for the sake of change. Not better balanced either. 2 of them result in a free shoot action for one of your units now...

3:   artillery blunder table, same thing. And really bad at that too! The 5-6 entry comaes straight out of bolt action as well i think.
Absolutely not good for me. Failing to request an air strike can make your entire battery bugger off and be counted as knocked out??

4: counter battery fire extremely simplified.Just roll a six and opposing battery is knocked out.too easy?

5: no air support blunder table anymore.They just blunder the same way as a battery of guns. but that is because the FAO/FAC FO merge i guess. didn't mind this at first, but the more i read into it, the more i hate that change.

6: coordinate air is a new thing, and although very simple i like that one, this is also the only way you can shoot down a plane now. Since AA units can only drive them off. Completely not right. So a side that has no planes in the fight can never take the enemy plane down? Maybe i misread this one, but if it is so, this is absolute bollocks to me. AA fire procedure  has been scrambled too much for me anyway. Just roll a six on one of your dice and a fire point is removed BY YOUR OPPONENT!!! So if my flakvierling on the left flank hits, my opponent can remove an air template on the right flank?  
Or this rule was not intended to be like this, and it was just written down in a bad way, or the rule was intended like this and makes no sense at all!

7: changes to the attack values of artillery. Heavy artillery units for british NWE in bkc II: 6 attack, in BKC III: 9 attack.  Did history change and gave them bigger shells? These things coupled with standard deviation, no matter how far off the target, just 'breaks' artillery. It was never a bad option before, why make it overpowered?



These are the first ones that come to mind. Not thrashing the rules at all, i really want to use them, but these are just things i want to know. Maybe there is a good explanation for the changes?

[Dr Dave]

So you're still reading them? Reading the words on all those pages won't help at all. I gave up about a week ago. The straw that broke the camel's back for me was the unlimited mules for the British Airborne. All those changes you mention - there's no real reason for them at all. Just quietly close the book, put it to one side and reach for BKC-II. It's all that simple. 

[petercooman]

Well if people are demanding a reprint, they have to go through the book and ask questions about the changes.

Just saying 'this one is no good,bring me another one' does not automatically result in succes.

I voted errata/pdf by the way 

[Jimbo94]

As you can no longer get the pdf/hard copy then no one is going to be able to give their considered opinions other than the initial purchasers.
The rest of us can only form our opinions from those who actually have the rules

[Techno]

I think we missed welcoming you to the forum, earlier, Jimbo.

So......A very warm welcome.

Cheers - Phil.

[Matt J]

With my, admittedly limited, gaming experience I would suggest going back to basics. Go to BKCII look at the points that needed tweaking refining then see how/if BKCIII approached these issues and whether it was successful in doing so. Then look at BKCIII at what was added and see if any of these things were worth keeping and bin the rest - scenarios, army lists included.

I think it'll probably need doing sooner rather than later. Everyone is saying take your time etc etc and I get that but from a business point of view I think Pendraken have to act quickly (and I expect behind the scenes they are). Over 500 copies of BKCIII have been sold. You can't get it anymore which would suggest Pendraken are going for option 4 and reprint and I think this is the only realistic option.
Now that leaves 500+ people wanting a replacement or their money back, that's £10K+ Pendraken would have to pay out, a massive deal for a small business. Now if Pendraken come out and say look bear with us you'll have a replacement in 4 or 6 months I'm guessing most people will go ok I'll go with that. If they say 12 or 18 months a lot more people are going to go no thanks I want my money back.   
The book layout and presentation is of a really good standard so that is covered and won't need much additional work.

I think Pendraken need to go back to what they really intended before they got lead down the garden path by an unscrupulous individual who seems to have hit them over the head, rifled their pockets and run off with their trousers. 

just my tuppence

[Jimbo94]

Many thanks Phil

Does anyone play BKC in and around Manchester?

[AJ at the Bank]

Jimbo makes a very good point I had not thought about -  not the bit about Manchester  .

If others can no longer get hold of BKC3 - then there is a limited group that are going to be able to comment and point out improvement options / issues etc.

That said - if there really are 500 odd sets of rules already out there with customers - I am v surprised to not have heard from far more people on this Forum (unless there is a v active forum elsewhere for example?).

In reality - it's a handful of people voting, commenting and even less coming up with issues/suggestions.
Either the majority are pretty much fine with the new rules and their games work (unlikely I would assert but possible), or they haven't picked them up yet. Or, it's a silent majority who agree that it's quite broken (unfortunately not play tested) and some would like to help in voicing what/how to fix.

We do need a bit of direction here please Leon (see other post on what Next Steps we can take to help).
Either keep trying to swing away usefully with this - or be advised to put down the bat and stand by for direction in the next few days.

If left longer - I'd assert those already participating and those reading will get increasingly confused and maybe fed up - put things down and not bother to pick up again ... Which would be the biggest shame.

Thanks
Adam

 

[Dr Dave]

Well if people are demanding a reprint, they have to go through the book and ask questions about the changes.

Just saying 'this one is no good,bring me another one' does not automatically result in succes.

I voted errata/pdf by the way 

You cant start BKC-IV from III. It's just too nonsensical and broken. The next author needs to start from II and look to improve it. III has too many errors to be a start point.

[Ithoriel]

You cant start BKC-IV from III. It's just too nonsensical and broken. The next author needs to start from II and look to improve it. III has too many errors to be a start point.

Absolutely!

[Leon]

1: changing the base sizes

Now i know these are open and you can use whatever you want, but from my understanding pendraken planned to make army packs with the bases included, hence the question.

Why did these change? For one, hq's lost their AA attack, but got a bigger base.Shouldn't this be smaller, seeing that their AA units are 'left out', so they would take up less space on the table?

I can answer this one, most people are used to having a recommended base standard in rules.  It's something we get asked about all the time, at shows and by emails, so it's better to have a 'suggested' sizing ready to point people towards.  We can then package the bases in with the rules as well.  As far as the game goes, it doesn't really matter and you can use what you like, but we've always found that people prefer to know what's recommended.

As for your Panther, it is a bit tight on there!  The T-35 definitely doesn't fit either so we've supplied an 80x30mm base in the starter packs.

That said - if there really are 500 odd sets of rules already out there with customers - I am v surprised to not have heard from far more people on this Forum (unless there is a v active forum elsewhere for example?).

In reality - it's a handful of people voting, commenting and even less coming up with issues/suggestions.
Either the majority are pretty much fine with the new rules and their games work (unlikely I would assert but possible), or they haven't picked them up yet. Or, it's a silent majority who agree that it's quite broken (unfortunately not play tested) and some would like to help in voicing what/how to fix.

We do need a bit of direction here please Leon (see other post on what Next Steps we can take to help).
Either keep trying to swing away usefully with this - or be advised to put down the bat and stand by for direction in the next few days. 

And that's another good point, is the reaction here on the forum indicative of everyone who purchased a copy?  There's maybe 20-30 members contributing to the feedback threads here, 80-ish have voted in the poll, so that's a lot of copies/buyers who have got their copy and are either happy with it, will modify it themselves, or simply haven't read it. 

I think it'll probably need doing sooner rather than later. Everyone is saying take your time etc etc and I get that but from a business point of view I think Pendraken have to act quickly (and I expect behind the scenes they are). Over 500 copies of BKCIII have been sold. You can't get it anymore which would suggest Pendraken are going for option 4 and reprint and I think this is the only realistic option.
Now that leaves 500+ people wanting a replacement or their money back, that's £10K+ Pendraken would have to pay out, a massive deal for a small business. Now if Pendraken come out and say look bear with us you'll have a replacement in 4 or 6 months I'm guessing most people will go ok I'll go with that. If they say 12 or 18 months a lot more people are going to go no thanks I want my money back.   

At the moment, it's looking like we'll have to go with a full reprint and I'd want that done within the next 2-3 months.  We've had a ton of emails from people wanting to help and get this back on track, so we're going to assemble a group of folks (mainly from the original BKC playtest group, plus some additions) and we'll work through the whole BKC-III book page by page and fix/amend where necessary. 

I still believe that some of the changes are positive and we need to identify those and keep them in place.  There are some changes which have had a negative response that we need to look and decide whether that reaction is justified or whether it's people just not liking a change.  I've mentioned the FO one already, there's some tweaks needed in how that change has been implemented, but having a single FO unit instead of FAO/FAC isn't a radical change that massively affects the way the game plays.  You've still got FO units, who command the same off-table support, in much the same manner.  The benefit is that you only need one per battlegroup who can direct everything, leaving more space (points wise) for other units.  It simplifies the process and is a method used in other WWII rulesets without as much negativity.

[petercooman]

Thanks for the reply Leon.

I can answer this one, most people are used to having a recommended base standard in rules.  It's something we get asked about all the time, at shows and by emails, so it's better to have a 'suggested' sizing ready to point people towards.  We can then package the bases in with the rules as well.  As far as the game goes, it doesn't really matter and you can use what you like, but we've always found that people prefer to know what's recommended.

As for your Panther, it is a bit tight on there!  The T-35 definitely doesn't fit either so we've supplied an 80x30mm base in the starter packs.

I understand wanting to offer a basing convention, but why deviate from the two former editions. Was so easy. Biggest command was your co,smaller ones hq.now everything is the same, so can get confusing.

Anyway, it's only optional, but those are the things that could invoke the feeling of 'change for the sake of change '.

I still believe that some of the changes are positive and we need to identify those and keep them in place.  There are some changes which have had a negative response that we need to look and decide whether that reaction is justified or whether it's people just not liking a change.  I've mentioned the FO one already, there's some tweaks needed in how that change has been implemented, but having a single FO unit instead of FAO/FAC isn't a radical change that massively affects the way the game plays.  You've still got FO units, who command the same off-table support, in much the same manner.  The benefit is that you only need one per battlegroup who can direct everything, leaving more space (points wise) for other units.  It simplifies the process and is a method used in other WWII rulesets without as much negativity.

About the FO thing.

Having only one observer means that if he fails, you get nothing. Big game difference as opposed to having both separately.

Now why don't you fix this with one of those keyword special rules??

"observer : When buying this model choose one of the 2 to control : Air, artillery. You must stick with your choice for the battle."

Or just mke two separate special rules. "air controller" and "artillery Observer". That way you can easily amend this in the lists that didn't have an fac originally. Just add the correct one to the profile of the fO.


The most important thing for me right now is that we get info about our feedback. Is it helpfull? Is it worthwhile to playtest the new book or is it pointless? When you say you are going to take the BKC III book and start from there, I think feedback will be appreciated.correct?

Just to be sure, would hate to start trying it out, only for you guys to fall back to bkc II ! (wich wouldn't necessarily be a bad choice )

[petercooman]

only need one per battlegroup who can direct everything, leaving more space (points wise) for other units.  It simplifies the process and is a method used in other WWII rulesets without as much negativity.

Other rulesets are not BKC  

You cant start BKC-IV from III. It's just too nonsensical and broken. The next author needs to start from II and look to improve it. III has too many errors to be a start point.

About this. I do believe that you have to start from bkc II for the lists at least. They were so very well done. Don't understand why th author was even given the approval to rewrite them!

[Dr Dave]

About the FO thing.

Having only one observer means that if he fails, you get nothing. Big game difference as opposed to having both separately.

Now why don't you fix this with one of those keyword special rules??

"observer : When buying this model choose one of the 2 to control : Air, artillery. You must stick with your choice for the battle."

Or just mke two separate special rules. "air controller" and "artillery Observer". That way you can easily amend this in the lists that didn't have an fac originally. Just add the correct one to the profile of the fO.


The most important thing for me right now is that we get info about our feedback. Is it helpfull? Is it worthwhile to playtest the new book or is it pointless? When you say you are going to take the BKC III book and start from there, I think feedback will be appreciated.correct?

Just to be sure, would hate to start trying it out, only for you guys to fall back to bkc II ! (wich wouldn't necessarily be a bad choice )

Many armies would have different FAC and FAO command values. Listing them on different stat lines can't be too much of a problem surely. It seems that you might be trying to drift away from the bad BKC3 rule and not quite make it to a correct and authentic BKC2 system. Note no one ever complained about separate controllers in BKC2. No one ever. Ever. Note: I'm going the whole way and painting an FOB to spot for my naval gunfire. The FAO couldn't do that either! If someone is playing a small game the argument is that they can't afford all these controllers. Tough. Would a bttn attack be supported by HMS Erebus? Probably not, but a brigade would. I guess this is part of the problem inherent in pointed games. Fancy stuff costs.

[petercooman]

Many armies would have different FAC and FAO command values. Listing them on different stat lines can't be too much of a problem surely. It seems that you might be trying to drift away from the bad BKC3 rule and not quite make it to a correct and authentic BKC2 system. Note no one ever complained about separate controllers in BKC2. No one ever. Ever. Note: I'm going the whole way and painting an FOB to spot for my naval gunfire. The FAO couldn't do that either! If someone is playing a small game the argument is that they can't afford all these controllers. Tough. Would a bttn attack be supported by HMS Erebus? Probably not, but a brigade would. I guess this is part of the problem inherent in pointed games. Fancy stuff costs.

I know, it seems a daft ruling too me as well. But I have the feeling they don't want to revert to the old system. So trying to find a middle ground.