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

[sediment]

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

[williamb]

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.  

[petercooman]

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.

[ronan]

I agree with the above statement.

[Leon]

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.

[petercooman]

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!

[ronan]

(...) 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..

[Dr Dave]

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.

[toxicpixie]

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.

[toxicpixie]

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 :£

[petercooman]

Just a bit sad that the lumbering keyword doesn't explain what it does when said lumbering unit is towed

[toxicpixie]

If the gun is towed then it's moving as a truck - which presumably ISNT Lumbering

[petercooman]

If the gun is towed then it's moving as a truck - which presumably ISNT Lumbering

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)

[AJ at the Bank]

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

[petercooman]

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'