What is happening with BKC?

[Leon]

This question has been one of the most common asked of us this year, so we'll quickly run through what's going on!

The plan from the beginning has been to revamp all three of the Commander rulesets, tweaking the rules themselves where necessary, changing the layouts and formatting to make them more modern, and rebranding them with our products/logos, etc.  The army lists will also be revised and possibly reduced (at least in the main rulebook) and altered to suit our ranges where we can.

So, the current jobs list is as follows:

1.  Changes/tweaks to the rules themselves.
2.  Fixes to anything raised in feedback on the BKC site and on our Forum here: http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/board,92.0.html
3.  Changes to the wording where necessary to make them easier to understand.
4.  Look at the army lists to see if we can make any minor changes to better fit with our ranges, but only whilst maintaining historical accuracy!
5.  Reformatting of the layout and new photos throughout.

We're aiming to have 1-4 done by the end of December, then we'll take care of the formatting and photos ready for a reprint in January hopefully.  Now this is a little later than we'd originally planned and we apologise for that, but this is a big job and we want to get it right.

Once BKC has been done and re-released, we'll carry out the same process on Cold War Commander, which will be sometime mid-2016 we expect.   Then finally Future War Commander will be the last to get the treatment, end of 2016 hopefully.

Obviously there will be some questions on all of that, so let us know and we'll do our best to answer them.

[Fenton]

Could you explain point 4 a bit more please. Sounds a little strange concerning a WW2 game as in we don't currently make this so it won't be in the army lists

I know this is going to be wrong but the way its worded that's what it reads like to me

[Nick B]

Definitely agree with Fenton. Not in include lists because you don't do the ranges is (IMO) short sighted and will reduce you potential audience. How will you do updates as you roll out additional ranges? PDFs? One of the great things about BKC was always that all the rules and lists were in one book - no need to buy constant add ons and supplements.

Cheers

Nick

[Ithoriel]

Yeah, if this means "we'll add product codes for the things we currently make" then more power to your elbow but if it's "lists will only include what we make"* then I'd have a problem with the rules.


*Pretty sure that's not the intention.

[Leon]

Thanks for the comments, I thought that one might raise some queries.  As an example of what I mean, we don't currently do M20's or Staghound's but they appear in a few of the lists.  So we'll have a look and see whether we a) get the missing item designed, b) remove that item from the army list, c) change the listing to a similar vehicle we do produce.  That's what it'll be in a nutshell.

There will also be some changes to the number of lists in the main rulebook, which I know is going to split opinion, but things need to be done from a business standpoint as well.  We want to be able to put together all of the armies from our ranges where possible, so we need to look at whether to still include everything in the previous BKCII.  Would it be better to go with a basic British (Europe / North Africa / Far East) and then include others in a supplement?  If we include a Chinese list then will people expect to be able to buy a Chinese army from us?  And will people expect every army listed to be available pre-packaged at the shows? 

Of the current BKC armies listed on our website, there are a handful that have never sold once, so people either aren't buying them from us or aren't using that army.  So then does the list need to be included in the main rulebook?  Or can we pare things down, produce a smaller (and cheaper!) set of rules, and then release free/minimal cost pdf's of army lists in the future.

[Nick B]

Personally I think the concept of designing a rule set based on what models you have in production rather than historical accuracy is doomed to failure and absolutely crazy. So, just as an example, you would drop Staghounds from an Italian front list if you didn't make them even though they were extensively used?

Is your intention then that going forward BKC is to be used with the Pendraken range of 10mm figures only. I play in 15mm so I should obviously not be utilising BKC going forward?

[Leon]

I knew this was going to be fun!

Personally I think the concept of designing a rule set based on what models you have in production rather than historical accuracy is doomed to failure and absolutely crazy.

Not really, as GW, Warlord, Mantic, Hawk, etc, etc, etc all seem to have done it rather successfully.  The trouble we've got is that we've bought someone elses rules, a set that weren't designed with any particular range in mind so could have numerous and extensive army lists included.  We need to take that and find a happy compromise that
works with our products as well.

So, just as an example, you would drop Staghounds from an Italian front list if you didn't make them even though they were extensively used?

No, I said we'd look at what to do.  In that specific situation there aren't many alternatives that could be proxied in, so we'll likely have to get a Staghound sculpted in the near future.  

Is your intention then that going forward BKC is to be used with the Pendraken range of 10mm figures only. I play in 15mm so I should obviously not be utilising BKC going forward?

Again, not at all, but the rules will primarily be designed to go with our ranges, otherwise it makes no sense from a business point of view. Why would we pay out a huge chunk of money to buy the rules and then tell everyone to buy their figures somewhere else?  We need to be able to provide and fulfill as many of the army lists as we can so that we're recouping that outlay.  If people want to use figures from another company or in a different scale, then that's completely fine with us, but we won't cater the rules to someone's products, it just doesn't make sense to do that.

[kustenjaeger]

Leon

1.  If the vehicle/gun was in active use in reasonable numbers and enough to form a stand within a commonly used formation, then it should be on the list regardless of whether it is currently made by Pendraken or not - if it isn't then it's existence on the lists may drive requests for 10mm. You will also lose sales if people want to play in 6/15mm and the lists are a historic.  However where a model could be substituted for another then you could say so - so if you had armoured cars where the game stats are the same you could say 'Sdkfz 221/223 armoured car' and it would not matter you did not make the 223 except for purists.

Another option is to mark a vehicle/gun as 'rare' (if this was the case) which would also justify you not making it. 

2. I think that one of the advantages is having the lists in one place though I can understand putting some of the minor nations in supplements if you have to where you do not have models yet.  You will already have models for: Poland 1939, France 1940/43-45; Finland 1939-40; 1941-44; Germany 1939-45; Romania; Soviet 1941-45; Italian 1940-43; UK/Commonwealth 1940-45; Japan 1941-45; U.S. 1942-45.  On that basis I can see China 1937-45, Belgium 1940, Norway 1940, Dutch 1940 & East Indies 1941-2; Hungary (though you have a Toldi), being in supplements.  

3.  There are so many permutations in BKC lists that you can realistically only include an army pack per list using the most common components which you should normally have available (and you could include this as an example list in the rulebook that a customer could turn round and order and start play immediately. 

So, for example, you would only have one pack for French, Polish, BEF 1940, early German, early Soviet, British early desert, Italian early desert, German desert etc.   I do not think that the fact that you haven't sold an army pack should impact the existence of a list as I will collect lots of Pendraken for BKC but wouldn't touch a pre-done pack as currently constituted because the compositions don't fit what I want.  

4. I suspect that you might be well served by re-organising the WW2 pages of the website on relaunch to make it easier to find items as well as get some of the items described in the same terms as the lists.

Kind regards

Edward

[Dr Dave]

Of course it also means that if you drop a vehicle from the lists because Pendraken currently don't make it, then should you ever produce the model in the future then you'd have to reissue the lists? 

Plus.... I love Staghounds!

[Nosher]

Im with Nick and others.

Whilst i can understand dropping certain lists I cant get my head around dropping something from a list purely because its not made by Pendraken.

[Leon]

Whilst i can understand dropping certain lists I cant get my head around dropping something from a list purely because its not made by Pendraken.

It's never going to be purely because we do/don't make one, it'll all be decided as we move along and based on a lot more criteria than that.  We don't make a 6pdr portee, or a Pz III with the short 50mm, but we're not going to remove them from the lists just because of that.

We would:

a) get the missing item designed, or c) change the listing to a similar vehicle we do produce where possible.

[petercooman]

I knew this was going to be fun!

Not really, as GW, Warlord, Mantic, Hawk, etc, etc, etc all seem to have done it rather successfully. 

3 of the 4 you mention Are fantasy / SF, so you can't compare that to a historical conflict! Making up unit types for something that doesn't 'really' exist is something completely different than removing stuff that actually was used in that particular conflict and that particular time.


I have a nice and big collection for bkcII, and out of those, i think 3 are non-pendraken vehicles. I bought them because you didn't make them.

I Can understand your viewpoint, but bussiness wise it might be more profitable to have someone buy the ruleset and half an army as he mixes and matches with other ranges, than someone just skipping it entirely because it leaves to much out.

If people want to use figures from another company or in a different scale, then that's completely fine with us, but we won't cater the rules to someone's products, it just doesn't make sense to do that.

You don't cater the list to someone else's product, but to the historically correct facts.

[Leon]

3 of the 4 you mention Are fantasy / SF, so you can't compare that to a historical conflict! Making up unit types for something that doesn't 'really' exist is something completely different than removing stuff that actually was used in that particular conflict and that particular time.

Whether they are historical companies or not isn't really the point, it just happens that the bigger names in this industry tend to be Sci-Fi/Fantasy oriented.  I could have said Baccus or Spectre, the point is that packaging products and rules together is a sensible thing to do.

I Can understand your viewpoint, but bussiness wise it might be more profitable to have someone buy the ruleset and half an army as he mixes and matches with other ranges, than someone just skipping it entirely because it leaves to much out.

That's going to happen regardless of what we do, but we can do our best to make sure we can supply as much of it as possible.

You don't cater the list to someone else's product, but to the historically correct facts.

Of course, I'd have thought that was obvious though?  We're not going to swap a Staghound for a Panhard and say 'Ah well, close enough!'

[paulr]

Of course, I'd have thought that was obvious though?

A comment that often appears part way through a heated argument fuelled by misunderstanding 

[Ithoriel]

Personally, if I don't like BKC III I'll happily stay with BKC II and I'll still buy Pendraken figures and models because they are a scale/ quality/ price I like. So the twopence ha'penny you'll lose in not selling me BKC isn't going to affect Pendraken's bottom line.

If posting here, I would consider it bad manners to openly bad mouth the product or send people off to other manufacturers though if someone asks a direct question I'm not going to tell them that <insert nation here> never fielded <insert troop/ vehicle type here> and that's why they're not in the list if they did.

Similarly, off this forum I'd campaign for people to use historical lists and point them at sources of the appropriate items, preferably from Pendraken because I'd like you to stay in business, but from elsewhere if you don't make the item in question.

The "you can only use our figures" approach is why I don't buy GW stuff any more and have never bought from Mantic or Hawk and why all my Warlord stuff was bought second hand from EBay so they've made nothing from me.

All this said, the limited cash I have spare from my pension means I'm never going to make you rich and you have to make a living so, whatever you decide, all the best with it.

Mike