Important Announcement about BKC-III - Please Read

Started by Leon, 01 May 2017, 09:10:41 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Which option would you prefer to fix the issues?

Option 1 - Errata
9 (7.8%)
Option 2 - New PDF Army Lists
43 (37.4%)
Option 3 - New Printed Army Lists
5 (4.3%)
Option 4 - Full Reprint
58 (50.4%)

Total Members Voted: 113

Voting closed: 08 May 2017, 09:10:41 PM

Genom

I've been keeping quiet so far because I don't tend to articulate very well when it comes to things like this.

I think the main issue is very much a case of what everyone was expecting vs what actually happened. I think the expectation was that someone was taking BKCII and working through the errata and clarifications from the SMP forum to update the ruleset in one document.  There were probably some minor rewrites required to work through for instance Recce rules.  I don't think anyone was expecting such a wholesale change of stuff that worked perfectly fine.

Now as for the options, I've gone for option 2. I had only ever intended to buy the PDF to check through the expected minor changes between the versions to see what we were going to use in our games as we still play regularly.  I've still not managed to read through it properly, but it seems like the army lists are a bit of a write off and I honestly don't like the idea of Pendraken having to ditch 10K + of investment as that would cripple or bankrupt most wargames companies.  I think Pendraken are probably more financially stable than that but you know what I mean it's still a lot of money and I rather like Pendraken as a company and I'm willing to write it off as I know they will do their best to fix things.


Nick the Lemming

Trying to salvage what's good, I'd use the opportunity to run an open playtest for those who bought BKC 3; get feedback from them when re-writing it. I presume Pendraken won't use the same author, for BKC3.1 or CWC, and I'd consider not using the existing playtesters either, unless they were routinely ignored by the author despite arguing against the changes he made. As for the editing and proofreading team, I'd get new ones since the previous ones obviously weren't up to the job. I'm sure you could find volunteers here if you didn't want to go the route of professionals.

Steve J

QuoteI'd consider not using the existing playtesters either, unless they were routinely ignored by the author despite arguing against the changes he made. As for the editing and proofreading team, I'd get new ones since the previous ones obviously weren't up to the job.

As one of the feedback team, I'd refer you to Leon's opening post on this topic, which is worth reading in light of the above. I can understand your comments, but believe me when I say that we spent a long time giving feedback on various issues through out the whole process. Whether they were taken on board by the author is another matter entirely.

Zbigniew

I received my copy today. A quick look at army lists that interest me most revealed the problem. I got a notion the author underestimated  difficulty of writing new army lists for the whole war.

petercooman

Quote from: Nick the Lemming on 05 May 2017, 09:08:49 PM
Trying to salvage what's good, I'd use the opportunity to run an open playtest for those who bought BKC 3; get feedback from them when re-writing it. I presume Pendraken won't use the same author, for BKC3.1 or CWC, and I'd consider not using the existing playtesters either, unless they were routinely ignored by the author despite arguing against the changes he made. As for the editing and proofreading team, I'd get new ones since the previous ones obviously weren't up to the job. I'm sure you could find volunteers here if you didn't want to go the route of professionals.

Quote from: Steve J on 05 May 2017, 10:11:45 PM
As one of the feedback team, I'd refer you to Leon's opening post on this topic, which is worth reading in light of the above. I can understand your comments, but believe me when I say that we spent a long time giving feedback on various issues through out the whole process. Whether they were taken on board by the author is another matter entirely.

To say everyone that worked on it should be replaced is a bit unfair i think. We don't know what people were instructed to look for, or wich feedback was given/ignored or even what were the goals/key objectives in the process.

Also, seeing the way the lead author deals with the comments (so actually ignoring everything), makes me think he didn't care much about feedback from playtesters either!!

jaunty101

Can i still get a copy Leon
I personaly think your makeing a rod for your own back, becuase if the next set of rules doesnt fit some ones idea of perfect then you and the wider communaty will be sat here with no rules becuase a few did get the rules or couldnt be assed to read them.

that said haveing played since BKC 1 then 2 editions of BKC2 Id be shocked if you got it right first time, and iam a little supprised that people acted so negtively haveing read what people have put(around the net) i can honestly say that most of these people wouldnt be happy with any thing you put out.

And being a guy that would rather not play then play with flames of war iam a little upset iam not getting my ww2 fix.

paulr

Quote from: Nick the Lemming on 05 May 2017, 09:08:49 PM
Trying to salvage what's good, I'd use the opportunity to run an open playtest for those who bought BKC 3; get feedback from them when re-writing it. I presume Pendraken won't use the same author, for BKC3.1 or CWC, and I'd consider not using the existing playtesters either, unless they were routinely ignored by the author despite arguing against the changes he made. As for the editing and proofreading team, I'd get new ones since the previous ones obviously weren't up to the job. I'm sure you could find volunteers here if you didn't want to go the route of professionals.

Disparaging the people who volunteered their time to help provide the warqaming community with a set of rules that was planned to give years of enjoyment is unhelpful at best
Lord Lensman of Wellington
2018 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2022 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2023 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!

Leon

Quote from: jaunty101 on 05 May 2017, 11:25:15 PM
Can i still get a copy Leon.

Send me an email and we'll a copy sorted out for you.
www.pendraken.co.uk - Now home to over 7000 products, including 4500 items for 10mm wargaming, plus MDF bases, Battlescale buildings, I-94 decals, Litko Gaming Aids, Militia Miniatures, Raiden Miniatures 1/285th aircraft, Red Vectors MDF products, Vallejo paints and much, much more!

Nick the Lemming

Quote from: paulr on 05 May 2017, 11:52:18 PM
Disparaging the people who volunteered their time to help provide the warqaming community with a set of rules that was planned to give years of enjoyment is unhelpful at best


Read my post again. I specifically said that if they provided input and argued against rules changes, but were ignored, then that's a different matter for the playtesters, but to allow so many errors through on the army lists in particular suggests that either the proofreaders didn't have a clue what they were doing or did a half-arsed job, neither of which should be lauded or allowed to continue. Letting the same people do the same shoddy job is just asking for more trouble, and is more than just "unhelpful."

I've helped playtest other rules, and I've done a lot of proofreading. I haven't always been listened to when I've given feedback, so I know how that goes, but if I saw the mess that the army lists were in, I'd not just be reporting it to the author, I'd be reporting it to Leon too, with detailed examples of why they were a mess. Volunteers can be useful, but if they aren't up to the job, they're just wasting everyone's time (and sadly, in this case, money too).

jaunty101

sorry iam turning the edit filter for this so i hope it makes sense,

What every body as seemed to have forgten is the guys at Pendraken have heald there hands up and said your not happy we will change it.

If this was any other wargames company you wouldnt have got a say you got a faq ect and thats it, your lucky that the guys care  and not just looking to take your money.
haveing talked to friends there are parts that dount seem to make sense (but they do if you look at them propley) and this game is by no means the worse for this 40k is full of contradictry rules and age of sigmar 4 pages of rules and i think its now 14 page faq.
(and you never get the chance to till gw what you think btw)

and before some one asks I dount know any one at Pendraken

rant over.

paulr

Quote from: Nick the Lemming on 06 May 2017, 01:51:20 AM
Read my post again. I specifically said that if they provided input and argued against rules changes, but were ignored, then that's a different matter for the playtesters, but to allow so many errors through on the army lists in particular suggests that either the proofreaders didn't have a clue what they were doing or did a half-arsed job, neither of which should be lauded or allowed to continue. Letting the same people do the same shoddy job is just asking for more trouble, and is more than just "unhelpful."

I've helped playtest other rules, and I've done a lot of proofreading. I haven't always been listened to when I've given feedback, so I know how that goes, but if I saw the mess that the army lists were in, I'd not just be reporting it to the author, I'd be reporting it to Leon too, with detailed examples of why they were a mess. Volunteers can be useful, but if they aren't up to the job, they're just wasting everyone's time (and sadly, in this case, money too).

Nick, I read your post carefully, more than once and you have repeated the same assertion, picking your most polite example "... but if they aren't up to the job, they're just wasting everyone's time"

Neither you or I know what was reviewed or what feedback was given and so I would again politely suggest that assuming "they aren't up to the job" is unhelpful.

I will leave that judgement to Leon and co who are in a much better position to judge
Lord Lensman of Wellington
2018 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2022 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2023 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!

williamb

06 May 2017, 06:34:07 AM #101 Last Edit: 06 May 2017, 06:36:06 AM by williamb
I have play tested and helped proof read a number of rule sets over the years.   Rule authors do not always listen to the play testers.   There are times when they have already decided how the rules will be and are unwilling to make changes that are suggested.  Fortunately, that has not been the case with those projects I have worked on.  

Play testers can also be a problem.   I know of at least one who was given a copy of the rules with a number of obvious error who reported back that everything was fine.  The play testers should be fully informed as to the intent of the project by the person who is requesting the project and not an intermediary, such as the author in the case of BKC3.  

In the case of going from BKC2 to BKC3, the play testers should have only included those who had copies of and played BKC2 more than a few times.  If it was to be a minor rewrite with missing items being added to the army lists and clarifying some rules that is what they should have been told.  If it was to be something else then they should have been informed of that.  By doing that, if the author of the revision steps outside of the intended guides, then they would have known, raised objections, and informed Leon about what was happening.  An example of this being what happened to the army lists.

An additional item that I have noted on the forums in the increase in the deadliness of artillery.   While artillery was quite effective, the values in BKC2 were reasonable.  Those in BKC3 seem excessive.  

Scenarios do not have force ratios.  Do both sides get the same amount of points?  Even if one is making a pre-planned attack and the other defending?   Deployment by points?   Why do I need to have a calculator for this and for break point, when previously all I had to do was count the units?

I don't object to rule revisions, having gone from WRG IV through WRG VII, Empire I through III, etc.   What I do object to is taking a rule set that only needed some clarifications and additions and making whole sale changes that have major effects on game play.  I have seen this have some detrimental effects.   Field of Glory became a very popular set of rules for ancients.   Then Slytherine revised them and released a second edition.  I do not know what the changes were, but the players were extremely upset and FOG has lost most of the people who played it.   Warhammer went through a major change and while there were people who were upset,  Games Workshop was not concerned as their whole purpose is to make changes and get people to keep buying new figures.

There are some changes in BKC 3 that look like they would be good, but there are others that are contradictory and have made me hesitant to even sit down and play it.

Sunray

In these circumstances, the priority is that the course of action taken by Pendraken allows BKC-III to become a playable set of rules with as little hassle and cost as possible.  If it was a car it would be recalled.  

I have voted for Option 2 - the nearest thing to a recall that allows existing rules to become viable.  I have my own list of amendments for BKC-II that I use for post war gaming - like (a) revision of the M4 A3 E8 Sherman against the T-34/85 as vindicated by experience in Korea and the Middle East, and (b) rules that allow intel gathering to shape the operation with role play for special forces/agents.  
It all bows down to the roll of the dice and the + or - factors.

On the longer term, the next edition will rectify the errors, as subsequent editions tend to do.

Can I applaud Leon & Dave on their transparency on this issue and appeal for a bit of solidarity as we get through it.

+1 Pendraken , +1


James aka Sunray


sebigboss79

Phew what a rollercoaster.

First of all I have not played BKC in any edition, I know Leon and the team have been madly busy doing this and being a Pendraken customer for 8 years (ordered my first SciFi sets 2009 iirc) give me some opinion on this matter.

First and foremost welcome to the internet. Besides Entitlement it is generally the case that negative word of mouth travels a lot faster and one bad review outweighs 7 positive ones. That to say, without having had a look at the game itself, I am not implying that there are no issues ever with a new release. I am however arguing a good deal of it is blown out of proportion.


Secondly, Leon and Co. HAVE been busy on this not because he says so, but because we all know they were. Regardless, knowing this insomniac ;) , I doubt he could ever "do something" without committing 100% to it. So effort is certainly not an issue.

However the result seems to be criticised and an initial scan reveals (to me) the general problems as follows.

1. Playtesting: My counterargument to "lack of rigour" is that you simply cannot playtest all potential scenarios. I remember playtesting another ruleset for 6 months after the team had done it for 12 already and we ran into three issues right after release.  Issue one was a non starter. Without detail (which would reveal the game) we decided to leave the issue to resolve itself via tactical gameplay. Second problem was a change in armylists, causing a problem for one army and one specific tactic in another. We allowed a wider interpretation of a special rule and restricted another type of tactic. Resolved.

2. Competitive gamers will always find a way to break the game/ argue that x is broken because. Nothing you can do there, literally. Having been around acouple of years I applaud Geedubs attitude of "we don't care".  My point is no matter what you do there will be some people upset for whatever reason.

3. Typos: Not nice but having to edit a document you have seen a million times simply has this problem. Anyone doing editing saying otherwise should be avoided like the plague.


My vote therefore would be for Errata and armylists in pdf. Rationale is that competitive gamers will always research the latest gamewinning strategies and casual gamers will solve the remaining issues as gentlemen while gaming. It would also free resources in that fashion that instead of reprinting BKC III the errata and potential changes could be the starting point for BKC IV :-

My personal opinion is people should chill out a little and not run the risk of a heart attack OVER A GAME! Agreed the situation could be improved (Leon will be the first to agree me presumes) but pointing, shouting and wardancing for lightning strike in the Pendraken HQ will NOT solve your (perceived/imagined) problems. How about being constructive instead? IF I were a BKC afficiando and unhappy about the status quo, I would have emailed Leon (yes he does read your emails) and politely suggested to change x to y because of z. And going one step further I would have asked if I was welcome to do so and report back on the issue.

My 0.02 €

Norm

From memory (which could be wrong), some months ago, it was thought that BKC III was ready to go, but feedback at that time was that the rules had departed too far from the previous BKC sets and so another rewrite was embarked upon. If all of that is right, is it a case of the rules still need to move closer to earlier versions or are the new rules themselves OK as a new edition, they just need to be better presented?