Again it is the way it works in FWC and CWC as standard.

[T13A]

Hi

I have been following the various discussions on the forum closely since the publication of BCK IV and think the re-design team have done a good job. I also appreciate the time and effort put in to answering the queries coming up (and I must admit, still not understanding everything). That said, not having or played FWC and CWC I am just beginning to get a bit irritated by the, "Again it is the way it works in FWC and CWC as standard", as if that should solve all the queries.

Apologies, sometimes I just need to get things off my chest (mild rant over).

Cheers Paul

[fred.]

I’ve noticed the same. And while it is good that the rule sets are coming into alignment with each other, as someone who has only played various iterations of BKC, it’s not very helpful to keep getting told this.

These differences in the rule sets feel like key things to have made sure where explained in BKC4. Its the age old problem of when you know something it’s hard to check if the document accurately reflects it.

[Norm]

Paul, I get the impression that the statement is just meant to re-assure the forum that the rule in question is long standing and core and that the value of saying so has become necessary because of the number of questioning posts that cropped up in relation to the new version IV.

Before I got my copy, I was bothered about the number of version IV questions flooding this forum, especially having regard for the history of version III. Perception and reputation are everything and the last thing that Pendraken needs at this point is a forum that runs to a beat of too much questioning of IV, as it can put potential buyers off (me). It is too easy to hit the e-ink and ask a question that need not be asked if a little more thought was applied to it.

So, I am guessing to bat ‘none’ questions off and help preserve the reputation of IV, it has become necessary to ‘remind’ some posts that the rule / principle has always been like ‘this’, even though a poster may not have had any experience of the sister games and know that - it is just necessary to re-assure those sitting on the fence.

I of course have no real insight into decisions taken on the matter, but I do have a general beef with forum content that can undermine the value of game by unnecessary questioning, I see this quite a bit in the boardgames world, in which the Q&A can run to several pages and it has put me off some games ..... only to find out later that the designer has published EVERY question ever asked, no matter how dumb or counter-intuitive it was and by being so helpful, the designer has actually undermined their own sales by the game looking errata ridden.

I do smile when I see a designer reply with something like ‘Yes - as per rule 9.4.1’ etc.

Catching good errata is good, but sometimes it can get drowned out by other noise.

Glad I bought my copy, it os just a nice thing to own in its own right.

[T13A]

Hi Norm

I'm afraid I cannot agree with you on this one. If someone doesn't understand something or wants confirmation that they are doing something right, then they have a right to ask for clarification/confirmation (even if the answer is obvious to others), providing, of course, that they are not being malicious in doing so. If the rules in question are prompting a lot of queries then that is, as far as I am concerned, an issue for the writers and publishers and not those asking the questions.

Just my tuppence worth.

Cheers Paul

[petercooman]

I understand both reasonings, but i must admit that i am more likely to buy a game if there are lot of questions asked/discussions. It mostly is a sign that the game has an active community. much more interesting than a dead one 

[Big Insect]

It's a fair cop chaps ... I'll stop using it 

Cheers

Mark

[Big Insect]

As a general principle, what I am trying to do is establish (or re-establish after BKC III) a set of common principles that can be used across the upgrades of all current Commander rules sets (no names mentioned) and that can then become the base for the planned future releases.

Unraveling BKCIII was a difficult challenge. Had we just been able to jump from BCKII to BKCIV we would have done so, but there was already a group of new players happily playing BKCIII that we also needed to be mindful of. In some instances some of the older established mechanisms were accidentally omitted in the transfer across to BKCIV and spotting these in the many proof-reading and play-testing proved to be almost impossible. But we are getting there.

One of the issues with some of the questions that have been appearing recently is that there have been questions around how a longstanding mechanism works and is it consistent or the same as it was in this or that previous addition. Hence my resorting to referral back to the original sets or their companions sets covering other eras/genres.

What might help me greatly is if members submitting a question could identify themselves as a veteran player or a relative novice ... but then that might be too much to ask.

All queries and errata are much appreciated and valued.
If this sounds defensive that is unintended.

Many thanks
Mark

[Ithoriel]

Whether it's wargames rules, board games or computer games, I like to see a vibrant community, an engaged designer and a reliable supplier.

Despite inevitable glitches I'm really happy with BKCIV. None of the glitches are game breaking IMHO. Besides, as I said elsewhere on the forum, our little group will no doubt soon have house-ruled them. "Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools" after all

As to questions, the "this says this and that says that and I can't reconcile the two, am I missing something?" type questions are to be encouraged but people who either clearly haven't bothered to read the rules or, worse still, have read them but still insist on asking a question to which they clearly know the answer really grind my gears.

[fred.]

Mark - I realise that I am asking a lot of nit-picky questions. But when I read stuff, and I read other stuff that doesn't agree, or doesn't gel, then I need to ask questions to get a fuller understanding. I know it can be very detail oriented but that is the way my brain works.

I have played lots of BKC1 and a fair bit of BKC2, but not FWC or CWC. I keen to play BKC4.

I've also played loads of other games, and within our group am often the one he takes the book and reads it to get that understanding of the rules, that the others then use for their understanding of how to play.

I think that getting a core set of Commander mechanisms is a good thing. Its not a bad thing to say that something has been copied across from CWC or FWC, but what I think a number of us are pointing out is that we can have played a lot of BKC, but not the other rules.

And you definitely aren't coming across defensive, which is to be commended, as we are a picky bunch and you (and the team) must have put a lot of effort into the rules.

It seems to be a simple fact that with publishing, as soon as you get the book printed, people with found errors. Years ago I worked for a publisher and despite having a multi-layered production, editorial and proofing process, as soon as a book was printed, someone in the office would open a fresh copy, and immediately spot a typo!!

[T13A]

Hi Mark

For the record I think you personally are doing a great job with this 'project' and can only applaud your oppenness and honsty when replying to queries.

 With regard to the errata when it comes out, I'm hoping that there will be specific ammendments to the wording in the rule book to clear up any inconsistencies or mistakes in the mechanisms that crept in during the re-write, or indeed were there in BKC II (e.g. see my post about 'Deploy Action': http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,18480.0.html).

Incidentally, it's only these kind of things (and see recent posts on linear terrain, low area terrain and visibility as another example) that were unclear, to me at least, in BKC II, that I was hoping BKC IV would clear up. Hope that makes sense (happy to have another go if it isn't)!

Anyway keep up the great work.

Cheers Paul

[Big Insect]

Thank you all ... support much appreciated

I am aware some things are unclear - either around new (although very heavily play-tested) BKCIV mechanisms and also some older mechanisms.

Leon has committed that we will update the PDF set of rules, once the list of errata has come down to a trickle.

There are some major changes - or what seem like major changes - such as the Recce rules, suppression, the Low Profile -1d6 and the terrain/visibility contradictions.

If I am honest the Terrain section nearly drove me to drop the project as it got more and more complicated and less and less clear.
Personally, I'd have opted for a Wood is a Wood and a Hill is a Hill principle, but that seemed to be far too bland.

Terrain is an area that needs to be reviewed alongside visibility - I'll commit to doing that.

However, I'd please ask if some of the mechanisms that are a challenge especially around the Low Profile and Suppression can be played through a bit in a few games ? Then come back to me with your findings ... that would be much appreciated.

I am away abroad on business over the next 4 days so I will be 'radio-silent' around answering queries.

Many thanks folks

Mark

[paulr]

I am away abroad on business over the next 4 days so I will be 'radio-silent' around answering queries.

Pendraken are sending you abroad on business
Have a good trip on the day job and enjoy a short break from BKC

[Big Insect]

I am back

A good trip to Tuscany - managed to squeeze in a walk around Sienna and into the palace to see the medieval frescoes - lovely.

OK ... so back to business.

I'm aware I need to resolve the Dug-in question and also the which AT guns are low profile. But I'll do that on their respective threads.

I have also come up with a new massed infantry command mechanism (long flights are ideal time for rules contemplation) and we will be play-testing this ahead of its inclusion in the up and coming SCW and Korean War supplements.

Thanks for keeping the peace whilst I was away folks 

Mark

[ianrs54]

Mark - low profile A/T guns is going to be difficult. You could go  on calibre, your break point would be around about 75mm I suspect, 17pdr and US 3" would then not be. Also no dual purpse weapons should be low profile. Then there are infantry guns - all except the SiG18 should probably be low profile. However there may well exceptions 

IanS

[Dr Dave]

If a man (infantry) is low profile, then a 17pdr should be as well. Although I'm going be memory, don't tankers often complain about how hard it was to spot AT guns?