Important Announcement about BKC-III - Please Read

[paulr]

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

[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?

[toxicpixie]

Just a minor note, but blind testers who have NOT played BKC (or whatever the game may be) before are vital. Only they will catch the assumptions that experienced players breeze through but first timers stumble into and fall.

Also, this is not "my BKC" revision - it's not my house rules and assumptions, but a new edition for everyone including brand new players AND grognards.

It takes both... same with in depth subject knowledge - the specialist is too narrow, and as BKC is very top down you need someone to sanity check that the fiddly crunchy simulationist bits work in context for the uninitiated and the curious but novice.

[Leon]

Just as a note on the playtesters, the author had a group of people at his end and then we sent the rules off to a further/wider group of people at our side.  Our group was a wide mix of ex-BKC players, current BKC players, non-BKC players and also rules authors of established sets already on the market.  There was a variety of feedback that came back on all sorts of areas and it was all sent on to the author to look at and amend where he felt necessary.  We then had a final face-to-face meeting before we went to print to iron out any outstanding feedback issues and points raised.  As I've said before, I didn't see any problems during this process, our feedback group were all helpful and constructive people and we went to print confident that we'd done everything we needed to do. 

Obviously it hasn't worked out that way, but any blame for that lies with us as the publishers, not with people who gave up their free time to help us out.

[williamb]

Leon, you are correct in that you do need to have those who have never seen the rules try them at some point.   I have seen the situation where those who have been involved from the start being used to the rules and missing flaws.

[Ithoriel]

Now that I've calmed down a little, I think what's frustrated me most with BKCIII is that it's done reasonably well with the difficult bits and then fallen down completely on what should have been the easy bits.

I like the bulk of the recce changes (though abilities you can't get close enough to the enemies to trigger is a slight oops!).

I like the idea of special abilities rather than notes, though some seem a little odd to me and several seem to be being applied rather too liberally.

The Close Assault rules seem better drafted than before.

But then artillery seems to have become equipped self-targeting MIRV rounds and is controlled by anyone with a walkie-talkie (OK, OK slight exaggeration ... but not much!)

The army lists are a nightmare.

However, between BKCII and BKCIII there is clearly a wonderful set of rules struggling to get out. I'm up for assisting in getting the butterfly out of it's cocoon, if I can. Even if that does consist of shutting up, sitting down and waiting patiently!

[T-Square]

First props to Pendraken for getting out front and accepting responsibility.  This indicates the team is willing to make things right.  Piling on does not help fix the issues.

Having trouble shot a few major projects here are some recommendations on how to get it done. 

1.  Put out errata for the rules to allow wide play testing by all interested parties.  They can provide feedback on the forums.  Provide updated errata regularly to ensure you get feedback during the entire process.
2.  Have a trusted team of play testers provide intimate feedback to the people rewriting the rules.  (This includes people totally unfamiliar with the rules.). These need to be individuals who won't pull punches and you will listen to without rancor entering the equation.  (The authors may hear some things they don't want to hear.)
3.  For army lists right now use BKC2 lists.  Provide errata for command units to use with those lists.  (This should make an initial errata much easier.)
4.  Have a separate team work on the Army lists for future publication.  (As an errata PDF or other.) (play test, play test, play test)
5.  Once you are satisfied with the results, publish BKC 3.1

Hope this helps,

Keep smiling

I've got a bunch of guys coming over Tuesday with the new rules to have a go.  We play BKC2 and FWC regularly.

(First post here.  I've got a few over on the BKC/CWC/FWC forums.)

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Its even more insane here - Hi T_square.

[baggagetrain]

Hi again all,
Last Thursday we again tried BKCIII, to give them a fair chance since being told that we could opportunity fire in command moves. So, with prearranging the we decided to do Scenario 9.
Well first off, we had to decide the size of each force as there is nothing in the Scenario other than the attacker can have 4 off table support units for free if the defender opts for any defensive terrain, then how many turns there are and the weather options in the end we decided that the attacker would have overwhelming points odds of 2-1 in that the Germans had 2000pts and the British 4000pts. We play at a lower scale in that one infantry stand = 1 section (10men) and 1 AFV or Gun = 1 AFV or gun.

The Germans set up in concealed positions and with the British deploying 20cm in. the first Three moves went okay with the German bringing in mortar fire on one section of infantry and inflicted 2 hits he then tried to fire again but blundered and the whole command had to fall back from their positions in a village that they occupied.  The start of the third move and the Germans decided to open up with opportunity fire on one of the Churchill's (Good Armour) advancing and showed its flank to the concealed Panther (Tank Buster) and dished out 2 hits and the Panther then placed on the table, the rest of the British forces moved up. Two tank troops (two Cromwell's and one firefly in each Troop) moved up and then opened fire on the now seen Panther, no more Panther! The Germans did not do any more opportunity fire. In the Germans third move he placed one more Panther and a Tiger first firing with the Panther he hit one of the Cromwell's giving it 3 hits and suppressed it, the British then decided to use opportunity fire with the said two troops minus one Cromwell and a Churchill 95 two Cromwell's one firefly and the Churchill were under half range, another dead Panther. The Tiger then fired on another Churchill and dished out 2 hits but was unable to suppress it. So, the Churchill then opened up under opportunity fire with 3 25pdr guns brought in by an FO with line of sight of the Tiger gave it 2 hits and suppressed it. This is the point that we stopped, the German player not looking too happy, though I do not know the makeup of his forces I don't think he had much left. The game felt clunky and did not seem to flow.

First off is, what is the point of Tank Buster? Give them an extra dice or a lower to hit number or even re-roll missed hits. the stats should be where this shown not an extra rule

Good Armour? Give them better armour save rolls or again re-roll unsaved hits again the stats should be where this shown not an extra rule

Vulnerable? This makes no sense at all APC classed as this, really? APC's were and are designed to fight against small arms fire, okay open topped APC's should be Vulnerable to mortar and indirect artillery fire but not to small arms, a rethink is needed on this one.

Sighting once the unit is on the table and the enemy has LOS it can be seen, even when it is cammed up! When I was in the army we learnt how to Camouflage, not just one day or even one week a year, it was constant and major part of the job and believe it or not the Germans late in WWII were brilliant at this, as too were the Japanese, but to fire one shot and then to be seen by all troops with LOS is a tad unlikely and this needs to be looked at. Personally, I think there should be a roll for sighting for anything that moves or fires over 15cm away. This can be as simple as rolling 1D6 and if in the open seen on a 3,4,5 or 6 in light cover 5 or 6 in hard cover seen on a 6 if the stand is dug in add +1 to this, if in hard cover and dug in reroll any 6 and must then get 4,5 or 6 to be seen, just a simple addition.

I had hoped that Artillery would have been sorted out in BKCIII but it is still the same only some stats have changed a bit, I do not like that if the templet lands on 10 stands, just for instance Navel guns' fire, it gets 120 rolls of the dice and if only one stand then 12 dice. I have never agreed with this even under BKCII. I think one way would be that the guns roll no more dice than their stats give so if they have 12 then they can only roll 12 dice but the firer should have the option to say where his dice will hit either one stand or all stands so if the templet covers 6 stands he can choose either one stand to take all 12 hits or all stands to take 2 hits each.

I am sorry Leon but I have voted for option 4, not just for the issues that we have seen, but the layout of some parts of the rules are just completely mind boggling and just doing an errata will take up so much time and to have cross outs and have hand written blocks all over the book is not what I really want so early on with rules. If you want a completely Unbiased play testing group for any revised set please let me know. 

[ronan]

I agree with some points, BUT on others, I feel you didn't like BKCII  .
I don't think the game should change that much ( new rules for visibility ?...   Or the artillery fire.) (1)

I wrote on the forum that I was not very happy with some parts in the new rules, But we can't blame everything 


(1) may be it's the scale, that's wrong for you ?

[baggagetrain]

nope nothing wrong with the scale or BKII, I enjoy using them both. so much so I have not used any other WWII rules since BKC came out. I find them very easy to use and get a very good outcome in most of the games I have played, though there are just a few things I find that don't represent what I have read, seen or heard but then again no set of rules will ever represent warfare as it is and all we can hope for is a close proximity. by the way i was not the German player in our last game, and I found it immensely unfair for him.

[Dr Dave]

"I had hoped that Artillery would have been sorted out in BKCIII but it is still the same only some stats have changed a bit, I do not like that if the templet lands on 10 stands, just for instance Navel guns' fire, it gets 120 rolls of the dice and if only one stand then 12 dice. I have never agreed with this even under BKCII. I think one way would be that the guns roll no more dice than their stats give so if they have 12 then they can only roll 12 dice but the firer should have the option to say where his dice will hit either one stand or all stands so if the templet covers 6 stands he can choose either one stand to take all 12 hits or all stands to take 2 hits each."

But that's exactly how artillery works. It's an area weapon. If you're in the area then you're potentially affected. What you suggesting would mean that having fewer units - so you're more spread out - would make the off table guns more effective? Arty is now much much better in bkc3 anyway. BUT, we're all discussing what in effect non rules. They're all going back for a swapsey when the new version comes out. It will be like they never existed.

[baggagetrain]

yes I agree it is an area weapon, and there are two types of firing, converged where all the rounds land in the same place or within a meter or two and a battery spread where the rounds land as the battery is laid out which normally be in a zigzag pattern with gun having a set distance between each other this would also depend on the calibre of the guns, light guns would be about 4 meter frontage so when the shells landed with an 8 gun battery it would cover an area roughly  32 meters by 12 meters and the 8 rounds will land in this area. so if you have a section in the first 12 meters not all the rounds will hit them but converge fire they would, and that would all depend on the OP and the fire mission he requests, and how many rounds he wants. so if he asks for 5 rounds fire for affect, this would be a standard battery spread with 40 rounds hitting the ground. so how do you purpose it is represented in a set of rules?

[toxicpixie]

What dr Dave said on arty effects. You don't want to get caught clustered, it's an FAOs dream. What was Pattons comment in Tunisia on the panzer grenadiera making even  an armoured assault in close formation? "Murdering good infantry", iirc.

Discussion does seem to be veering from actual rules/lists issues (even if historical based than crunchy how Ro's) and
More into "I don't like it" territory.

From what I read there's definitely a good chassis there to get on the road once the extraneous body work issues are looked at

[baggagetrain]

They're all going back for a swapsey when the new version comes out. It will be like they never existed.

I think a swapsey as you say, is a little unfair to Leon, he has pulled these at great cost to Pendraken. If they are to be revised and then put out in the same quality as these then I have no problems with a trade in offer, may be like I give back my set of BKCIII and £10 and get the new revamped set. this way Pendraken will not be completely out pocket as much as just doing a straight swap.   

[williamb]

I got the pre-order discount and would be willing to pay the difference.   Most of what is in there is direct copy from BKC2.   I did see that most of the optional rules from page 132 did not make it.

[Dr Dave]

I think a swapsey as you say, is a little unfair to Leon, he has pulled these at great cost to Pendraken. If they are to be revised and then put out in the same quality as these then I have no problems with a trade in offer, may be like I give back my set of BKCIII and £10 and get the new revamped set. this way Pendraken will not be completely out pocket as much as just doing a straight swap.   

I'm quoting Leon. I'd just like a copy of something that improved on bkc2.