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.
(http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff441/petercooman123/DSC02975_zpse25b2554.jpg) (http://s1236.photobucket.com/user/petercooman123/media/DSC02975_zpse25b2554.jpg.html)
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?
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. ;)
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 :)
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
I think we missed welcoming you to the forum, earlier, Jimbo.
So......A very warm welcome.
Cheers - Phil.
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
Many thanks Phil
Does anyone play BKC in and around Manchester?
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
Quote from: petercooman on 05 May 2017, 09:34:59 AM
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.
Quote from: Dr Dave on 05 May 2017, 12:52:09 PM
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!
Quote from: petercooman on 05 May 2017, 09:02:24 AM
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.
Quote from: AJ at the Bank on 05 May 2017, 12:28:31 PM
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.
Quote from: Matt J on 05 May 2017, 11:55:29 AM
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.
Thanks for the reply Leon.
Quote from: Leon on 05 May 2017, 01:35:51 PM
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 '.
Quote from: Leon on 05 May 2017, 01:35:51 PM
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 )
Quote from: Leon on 05 May 2017, 01:35:51 PM
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 ;)
Quote from: Dr Dave on 05 May 2017, 12:52:09 PM
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!
Quote from: petercooman on 05 May 2017, 02:42:27 PM
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.
Quote from: Dr Dave on 05 May 2017, 04:11:14 PM
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.
But are these rules for WW2? If they are, the FO controls air, land or naval support, not all of them or even two of them. The first coordinated all singing all dancing observers AFAIK are the ANGLICO teams that the USMC use and they date from the 21st Century, not 1939 or even 1945. At Arnhem, the paras couldn't even communicate with their HQs back with 30 Corps, let alone talk to aircraft controllers or the pilots flying overhead. In 1944, the British FAC was carried in his own vehicle with a mass bank of radios netted in to RAF control networks. The FAOs carried man pack radios netted in to army artillery radio nets and NGFO spoke directly to ships under command (I'm not aware of them having a dedicated radio network for fire control ship to ship at that time).
If your playing with a 1000 point army, do you need to call in artillery and air, wouldn't you just have either artillery or possibly air support, not both. If you had to have both in your 1000 point army, have one as a scheduled strike.
Anything else and it stops being WW2 and becomes Sci-Fi or Fantasy or Steam Punk. We could always play FoW or 40K with Tigers!
Cheers, Andy
Having played BKC almost from the initial printing of BKCI, I have found little that needed fixing in BKCII. There were some omissions that were corrected in the errata and some rules that needed clarification. I strongly object to combining FAO's and FAC's. As others and I have pointed out their equipment and training are entirely separate. In fact modern armies while making it easier to direct artillery fire without using FAO's still assign specialist FAC's to missions. I regret that at the time BKCIII was being developed that I did not have the time to participate in the play testing as I would have raised questions about what was being done.
That's why I propose the special rule that makes you choose your branch when buying an FO.
Look. I don"t like it either. I thought we were getting an update not a rewrite. But if we can't get it back the way it was, we might as well try to get the best out of it.
And Leon, you are a stellar chap, and I'm very sorry for how this turned out, but please think about this one. It has been a point of discussion in a lot of threads about the new edition. Is that no indication there's something wrong with this ruling? No offence, just saying.
I agree with the above statement.
There's a whole lot of discussions going on at the moment, for all sorts of different things, so that's what we need to work through. Some of the changes will need to be reverted back, and some will stay, but it's important that we give each one a good look. As a rough guide, if you saw one of these changes as an existing rule in a different ruleset, would it prompt the same reaction or would it simply be accepted as the way that ruleset decided to do things?
There's always going to be debate on things, but at this point we need to make sure we make the right decisions for the right reasons.
Bkc is no other ruleset Leon. I think you have to look at it from a different perspective.
But if you want to look at it that way, think about this. How many warhammer players are now playing kings of war, or are sticking to an older edition of the rules? There were a great deal of changes in warhammer too.
Again, saying this with the utmost respect Leon, I just want you too succeed on this one!
Quote from: Leon on 05 May 2017, 05:13:08 PM
(...) As a rough guide, if you saw one of these changes as an existing rule in a different ruleset, would it prompt the same reaction or would it simply be accepted as the way that ruleset decided to do things?
(...)
The more we love, the more we'll discuss ! ;)
I had some rules who changed ( ie.
Ambush /
Force on force,
Johnny reb etc. ) Sometimes for the better, sometimes I didn't liked the changes. I drifted away to other rules when needed.
I think we are a bit disapointed because the rules were
almost OK.
And the changes sometimes make no sense. ( May be we're wrong ! But the author(s) should have written a statement of intent (1) )
Some rules really modified the game. We can hardly understand why (again, may be we're wrong).
Some new changes can be discussed ( ie. the breaking points, as seen in other threads). Some changes are.... strange.
I understand how difficult it must be for all the people who wrote the rules, work and play tested. And specially for you Leon.
I hope you don't feel ''attacked'' by our posts. Some people here wrote with passion... ;) ( (And because we know you can do a very good work, and were waiting for a better game)
(1) I hope that's the right word.. I'm a bit tired.. I mean : write something to explain their choices, their feelings and how they tried to translate this or that in the game. I sometimes work with indie RPG writers, and it's a good thing to explain what's the point..
To be honest if I saw a set of rules with a combined observer role I'd think it very odd and also think that the author didn't understand the use of supporting arms.
If the author has the basics wrong, what else have they not researched properly or been sloppy about. It's then that you dig and claw and find the deeper stuff. With the lists starting at bkc3 is a really bad place. Bkc2 is a good place. Discover what's wrong with bkc2 lists and fix that. Fixing bkc3 lists will take months of research to get the right units and stats back into the lists, but you have good lists already in bkc2. Starting with 3 and you're making a rod for your own back. Are the bkc3 rules any good? In places, pinch those. Sack the crap. Sort the recce. Bin the daft special rules that will stop a game: lumbering tanks that are already moving 15 for starters, sort doctrine. I've written lots of published papers and reports and that's what I'd do.
Starting from a bad place and trying to improve is a long tough journey. You're trying to polish a tur@
Start from a good place and improve from there.
If I saw any rule set that combined a FAC & and a FAO in WW I'd be wondering what was going on. I could just about rationalise a single "command element"/HQ for a large enough formation that was treated as a combined assemblage of functions, under the assumption it represents not just the organic formation HQ but also the attached or embedded extra functions including whatever observers, logistics, medical etc were historically present.
So at the least that would several stats in BKC terms - a CV for command, a CV for arty, a CV for air (if applicable), an ECM/counterbattery location/medical or repair (remove suppressions/hits/whatever) value etc.
As it was BKC did a good job of SIMPLY modelling all the various factors AND the friction involved - Indirect/supporting fires are a complex area, and it dealt with them well. Armies which had n o ability to plot flexible air/art support relied exclusively on assets. Simple, works. Armies with limited flexibility or slow systems have low CVs, better ones have more potential observers and higher CVs. Observers were easily split - air, or arty. Complex fires (more guns) get harder. Job done.
It could be made more accurate in detail, but the overall outcome worked fine - it was simple and it was accurate enough. It produced the right result with ease of play. Now it's a weird thing - it's both non-historical AND doesn't seem to make sense in rules?
In the scheme Of things to sort, it was a non-issue.
However. It's an easy "fix" either officially (split them back, put a keyword "Air - this unit may only call for supporting aircraft" or "Artillery - this unit may only call for supporting artillery") or house rule it for those as want. It's not anything that needs major rules changes elsewhere?
I wont comment on other actual rules issues - I don't have a copy. But most of the other actual queries seem to be wording and intent driven, whilst this is a simulationist/historical thing (I'd also suggest that assets worked well, but people comment they've gone?). The army lists sadly sound like they were knocked together badly for whatever reason. With those fixed, and rules tweaks clarified, and things like the FAC/FAO set up driven to reflect historical practice in a simple fashion, then here's probably a good chassis to run out! Certainly the couple of actual battle reps I've read seem to suggest that.
Perils of posting whilst toddler wrangling, crossed with Dr Dave! A mild tidying up of the wording, some tweaks and some working up of list errata /corrections from BKC2 would have been spot on. There's probably some good ideas come up from BKC3 but I'd agree with updating from BKC2 with the good bits instead of rewriting BKC3 essentially from scratch.
I actually like "keywords" idea as a concept, as it makes it easy to see the relevant important things for a unit that are applicable across multiple dissimilar things. All guns are lumbering, say - and you know immediately that's one move max. Tank Buster means you know it was a particularly good AT weapon - it gives a nice easy way to differentiate them other than raw dice. Etc etc, above is example only and so on :)
And as I don't have a copy of 3 I'll now *really* shut up, sorry Leon :£
Just a bit sad that the lumbering keyword doesn't explain what it does when said lumbering unit is towed
If the gun is towed then it's moving as a truck - which presumably ISNT Lumbering :D
Quote from: toxicpixie on 05 May 2017, 07:56:37 PM
If the gun is towed then it's moving as a truck - which presumably ISNT Lumbering :D
You know that, I know that. Does someone who is wetting his toes in the world of wargaming know that? No. It needs to be clearly written. When you have played lots of games over the years, you learn to read rules 'between the lines'. Always account for those who don't have that ability (yet)
From Leon...
"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'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."
This sounds great Leon!
So, for clarity - we should stop going through the new rules now - stop posting queries/suggestions...and wait for the potential reprint?
or.....we should continue to raise queries/suggestions and post them here....but to be aware queries likely not answered until new rules out?
"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."
Personally I would draw the simplification line at the point of historical inaccuracy...and simplify game mechanics rather historic unit abilities.
Please may I request that rule setters considering impacts of simplification, think of (I) what is gained (ii) consistency of simplification degree through the rules (III) impact on game balance.
BKC is already popular as a rule set that maintains good historical integrity.
Imagine how popular your WWII tank models would be, if you simplified ...and used the same wheels and tracks on them all - well why not...they are only wheels and tracks!
I'm sure it's a rubbish example ...but you get the point.
Adam
Quote from: petercooman on 05 May 2017, 08:34:36 PM
You know that, I know that. Does someone who is wetting his toes in the world of wargaming know that? No. It needs to be clearly written. When you have played lots of games over the years, you learn to read rules 'between the lines'. Always account for those who don't have that ability (yet)
Ok, got the book with me now and went to look at it.
p31:
mounting/dismounting
...,and artillery units may limber or unlimber their guns using a MOUNT/DISMOUNT action. these actions count as a tactical move, unless specified otherwise
transporting a unit
mounted units will move with the vehicle during any moves the transport unit takes. The only action the mounted unit can make will be to dismount...
So looks like the moving with the vehicle isn't counted as a move action. But mounting and dismounting is. So i stand corrected. It was in there somewhere. However, seeing as al artillery guns have that rule, i would have put a sentence in the explanation of the keyword in the abilities list. "note that units being transported are being moved by the transporter, so the lumbering rule does not come in effect in that situation"
Just makes it instantly clear!
Unfortunately though, further on the page there is a mounting example where a pak 35/36 (wich according to the army list has lumbering) mounts a truck, moves 40 cm and then dismounts.
Since mounting and dismounting both are considered a tactical move, this means that example is illegal according to the rules as written. Lumbering units can only take one move action, so they should wait to dismount untill the next turn.
Also has a mix-up in the last paragraph of the example,:
"finally, your AT unit has the deploy special ability, meaning it cannot fire untill it takes a dismount action"
---> clearly this should be 'untill it takes a deploy action'
Now in all honesty, for me the lumbering rule may just be removed all togheter, and the speeds reset to BKC II standard.
Let's take a pak 40 for example.
In BKC II it had a move of 5 .
In BKC III it has a move of 10
So to reposition a pak 40 10 cm away in BKC II you needed 4 actions
deploy action to pack it up
2 move actions to move 2x5
deploy action to get it ready to fire
In BKC II it needs 3 turns
deploy action to pack it up, it's turn is over (a deploy action is a move action so triggers lumbering)
move action to move 10 cm, it's turn is over (it moved, so lumbering kicks in,and it can't deploy anymore because that is also a move action)
deploy action to set it up again.
Now arguably, the sequence in BKC II could be done in one turn or in more depending on the command rolls, but the same goes for the BKC III example. If you miss any command roll for any of the 3 actions you are looking at a 4 turn-process of shifting a gun 10 cm. That does not make the game simpler, it just makes it drag on.
Of course, that does explain the massive point reduction from 105 to 25!
What is the procedure for folks who bought a copy at Salute to get the future revised copy?
Sorry to read there seems to be so many problems with the rules. One issue I noted is with the off table support would seem to suggest that AFVs in the open would be hit on a 456! In BKCII it was 6. The rules mention a Fixed target Numbers but doesn't give any examples.
Martyn S
Quote from: simmo on 05 May 2017, 10:08:01 PM
What is the procedure for folks who bought a copy at Salute to get the future revised copy?
Once we've got them reprinted, you'd need to send the old copy back to us and we'd exchange it for a new one. Unfortunately we'd need to do that to prove the purchase, otherwise we'd get a load of people claiming they bought one just to get a free copy. We'd reimburse you the shipping costs as well.
Can we just straight up buy a new one as well Leon? I didn't vote for a reprint, don't feel like you guys owe me that :)
Quote from: petercooman on 05 May 2017, 11:36:14 PM
Can we just straight up buy a new one as well Leon? I didn't vote for a reprint, don't feel like you guys owe me that :)
I think we'd prefer to send everyone a new copy for free and then everyone gets treated the same. When the time comes we can chat to people individually if they want to collect it a show, or want us to put it in with a regular figure order, etc.
Very glad to see the repy from Leon that there is a plan in place to look at all the issues that have been raised.
The question has been raised about the small group that have fed back. Maybe my experience is typical so here goes.
I had heard from others that the rules were to be produced for Salute and several of us went to the show. 3 of them bought hard copies and because I have made a decision to go electronic I bought the pdf. Of the 4 copies that I know of I am the only one who has read and played with them. As soon as I did so there were questions and I then joined the forum. I have just raised a few issues but would be quite happy to make a list of all the issues I have come across.
Having said that I like the basic concept of the rules and am having a game with another person who bought the rules next Wednesday. The purpose of that is so that we can come to a conclusion on a way forward.
What I draw from this is that the rules basic concept is fine but there are major issues with a lot of good will to fix them. Also, I would suggest that this forum is a good representation of people who have taken the time to explore the rules. You will never get all the purchasers to contribute. After all just think of all those rules we all have that we have never really played with.
Quote from: patwarg on 06 May 2017, 08:20:48 AM
. After all just think of all those rules we all have that we have never really played with.
Don't go there, my wife could read this!
One of the big improvements of pdf copies I believe. Cost less to eplore, and don't clutter the house if they don't work out.
Quote from: Leon on 05 May 2017, 11:47:47 PM
I think we'd prefer to send everyone a new copy for free and then everyone gets treated the same. When the time comes we can chat to people individually if they want to collect it a show, or want us to put it in with a regular figure order, etc.
That's very (overly?) generous! I'd suggest a free PDF with option for a discount on a physical copy - at the least, cover the costs of reprinting (as much as is reasonable - if your cost to print is £24 on a £25 rule book a quid discount is not much use to the punter!). That way you should retain goodwill, assuage the early adopters who feel burnt, and not go bust...
I have no idea if business insurance would cover this?!
As I said, I don't feel pendraken owes me a new book. I got this one at pre order price.
That means I got a discount for getting the rules before there would be reviews and opinions. The discount means you get a better price for a 'jump in the dark' so to speak. If I don't like em,tough luck. Should have waited for initial impressions and paid the full price then.
Also I paid that money for a printed book, shipped to my door. And guess what, I got that. Transaction done for my part.
It's very generous of pendraken to do what they are willing to do. But I wouldn't like this to set a precedent. Before you know you get al kinds of crazy demands for refunds on all kind of things.
Just a note. That's my personal opinion of course, and i don't want to meddle in Leon and dave's bussiness!! Their company not mine!
Something's strange here :-\ : I AGAIN agree with Peter ! ;D
;)
Quote from: ronan on 06 May 2017, 11:03:21 AM
Something's strange here :- : I AGAIN agree with Peter ! ;D
;)
not strange, sensible :P
I don't think it's true that lumbering means you can't deploy/mount/dismount in the same move. If you look on page 24 they are all seperate actions. Lumbering only means no two (tactical) move actions.
Quote from: OldenBUA on 06 May 2017, 11:18:39 AM
I don't think it's true that lumbering means you can't deploy/mount/dismount in the same move. If you look on page 24 they are all seperate actions. Lumbering only means no two (tactical) move actions.
p67
LUMBERING
May only take one move action each turn.
p14
Move actions
-assault move
-support move
-tactical move
-mount/dismount
-deploy
Now ifthe ability on page 67 read "tactical move action" i would agree.
If I play a game with my Matilda regt. I should get say 1.5 orders of every turn. With a move of 15, to simply cross a 4ft table would take my boys about 12 turns and they'd probably not fire during any of those turns. Now if the objective is to cross and not fire I'm ok. But any manoeuvring or need to shoot back might mean that I'm faced by a very long (unplayable) game. A pal of mine is setting up the counter attack at Arras in a few weeks and he can't use these rules.
I notice that Matildas are lumbering but Churchills, Crocodiles and Valentines aren't - despite all having the same (near as damn it) top speed.
"Lumbering", as it stands, is daft. Lumbering was already in BKCII - "manhandled guns can only move once"
Applying it to already low cv, slow vehicles is, to put it mildly, going to break the game.
Quote from: Leon on 05 May 2017, 01:35:51 PM
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)
Also make sure that one person doesn't control the rules, otherwise you'd end up with a re-run of the current BKCIII debarcle.
An "authoring team" is far better than a one-man band!
Quote from: petercooman on 06 May 2017, 11:45:45 AM
Now ifthe ability on page 67 read "tactical move action" i would agree.
Fair enough. Doesn't make sense as written. Should be 'tactical move' in my opinion. And quite a few units that are now lumbering shouldn't have it applied to them. Slow moving plus the vagaries of the command system means that units are pretty slow anyway.
I also think that for some of the units the whole deploy then fire, and deploy then move can be a bit much.
Indeed. Especially for mg teams!
Lumbering Matildas will also be outstripped by men on foot!
But, we are all discussing a set of rules that the publishers have acknowledged are broken, not fit to use and are going to replace. All that needs to happen now is a diligent team need to spot all the mistakes. :'(ŵ
"Lumbering Matildas"! Sounds like the title to a song ;D
>:(
"Ladies and gentlemen, welcome on stage the Lumbering Matilda's and their hit song Every German Tank is a Tiger!"
don't make fun of my Matildas! >:(
If you look at the bit about ground scale and time scale, it seems that a lumbering vehicle with a move of 15cm can manage about 1.2 km / hour (less than 1 mph). And that'sbeing generous, could be even less.
I know there were some slow vehicles, but not that slow.
Yeah lumbering really is an unnecessary addition IMHO.
It slows the game down, and at the meantime provides a huge advantage to a Defender.
It would seem that the lumbering special rule brings the points of an anti tank gun WAY down. In a defence an anti tank gun that is in a prime position and who doesn't need to move will be as potent as it used to be at a quarter of the price in points!
Quote from: Dr Dave on 07 May 2017, 06:30:21 AM
don't make fun of my Matildas! >:(
Actually poking fun at the special rule that shouldn't be. Or is that the special rule which should not be named?
The "special rule that shouldn't be". Which one exactly? ;D
Could be a Monty Python skit. Oh, I'm a lumbering and that's okay, I don;t move far and sleep all day. :D
"Who'd take Matildas? Who'd take Matildas?
Who'd take a Char B or KV too?
"Lumbering" is bollox,
Little better than a pillbox,
I think we can fix this, I really do! :)
=D> =D> =D> =D>
Gentlemen, we have our new Kipling!
I like a Matilda. Especially against Pz I, II and the Czech stuff - the majority of Pz Divs in 1940.
Do you like Kipling?
I don't know, I've never Kippled.
Goon Show, 1965