Important Announcement about BKC-III - Please Read

[petercooman]

crikey BKCII already had the stuff in the lists!

This came to my mind too

[smallchild139]

Agree with all the above but can I add that I personally am quite happy to wait for as long as it takes to get the rules and lists "right" (if such a thing exists in wargame rules).  Please do not rush anything out and make things worse.  Another 6 months just gives me more time to paint lead!

Good luck

Mark

[sjb1001]

I think that the list fix should come first as a PDF - I will buy the revised set to continue supporting Pendraken as I have over the years by buying figures - once it is firmed up in the fullness of time but think the relatively minor rules issues is the reason we have errata, also some of the 'issues' are based on preference anyway (like me on AT rifles).

[nikharwood]

Thought it was about time I waded into this one - all my comments below are essentially slight edits of email exchanges I've had with Leon in the last few days. For those of you who don't know me, I'm a long-time fan / player of the Commander stable of games - getting into BKC I & Pendraken way back in the day; I helped Pete with the development of CWC, FWC & BKC II - including playtesting, reality-checking, offering daftness and painted figures into the mix (not necessarily in equal measures). I encouraged Leon & Dave to look seriously at the viability of purchasing Specialist Military Publishing when Pete decided to sell - because I saw my favourite set of rules fitting beautifully with my favourite figure producer as they looked to develop their business.

I have a long-standing relationship with Pendraken, including some figure & terrain painting - and previously have spent inordinate amounts of time on this forum - that (unfortunately) has waned in the last couple of years as my personal and professional circumstances evolved (living on Exmoor with no internet access, breakup of marriage, new role in 2014 as CEO of the largest youth work charity in Somerset etc).

All of that is by way of context & background for the following....

First email - ahead of the announcement at the top of this thread:

"Hi Leon
Just had a browse of the forum - there does seem to be a whole load of issues with the lists; really sorry that I didn't get time to have a good look through the lists beforehand. To be honest, I don't quite understand why the lists seem to have been changed so drastically by the author: with BKC II pretty much all the feedback from the forum was included and the lists refined - and I know Pete used some really good knowledge (both his own & others) to get these balanced. If I'd had a chance to spot where the lists were so way-out, I'd have shouted long & hard to you as a caution. I know you had some issues with the author - and (this is probably not for me to say, but I'll say it anyway) I'd advocate a degree of caution in using him for CWC / FWC if he's going to want to rewrite those lists wholesale as well.

It does appear that factual / historical inaccuracy has crept in and this can be such a huge deal-breaker for historical gamers of course. You definitely need to head this off at the pass or you're going to spend a ton of time, effort and resource responding continually to issues etc.

I'm not sure how you're going to respond - essentially you can go with the "this is where we are" and we'll issue errata / updates online; depending on numbers of printed copies, I suspect you're not in any position to redo quickly and reprint.

I think, probably, an upfront and honest acknowledgement of where the lists may be 'off' and that you'll work to correct in time is probably the way forward. It might well be sensible to offer a free PDF of BKCII lists to all purchasers to give options (pretty sure those lists will work fine with the new rules?)

Certainly it's a lesson-learnt and I'd urge absolute caution on changing the CWC lists: there was an absolute *ton* of work that went into those - probably worth gathering info from the forum (and the additional lists on the site) but I'd be very wary of any rewrite of stats and lists I think.

Hope that helps - in my experience of any uncertainty / dissatisfaction being apologetic and honest is the most sensible thing to do."
-----
Second email (yesterday):

"Hi Leon

Thanks for coming back to me - if nothing else, what you're seeing is an out-pouring of support for you guys (in the majority) - which is awesome. I *will* add my voice to that on-forum.

From here - I think the poll is sensible, but also actually reinforcing that you have the final call on anything (business does not equal egalitarian democracy!) - it's worthwhile letting the comments rack up to some volume before you comment I think...

As for the author, I guess my (corporate, business-minded, protect-the-feck-out-of-your-Pendraken-reputation-at-all-costs) opinion would  be based on a binary decision: either you can (will) burn the bridge with him, or you can't (won't).

As I said to you a while ago, I think the author made a load of changes that weren't necessary - and (IMNSHO) has taken a well-tested & respected ruleset backed by a well-tested & respected company (that's you BTW) and used that as a platform to get 'his' rules published. I frankly think that this is f**king disgraceful and that he's taken a serious liberty here - for his own vanity? Who knows... The rules are a long way away from where they were - and the lists (and, again, I am *so* sorry I didn't give these attention) are bonkers going from opinion from folks who are *way* more knowledgeable than I.

I *really* hate the way that he's clearly aware of what's going on - but choosing not to engage, and as you say, keeping his head down. That's shocking - and unacceptable. At the moment, you're (Pendraken collectively) taking the brunt of the feedback - and that's simply wrong.

For me, for what it's worth, I think I'd be tempted at this point (several days passed etc) to call him out and ask him to comment (and f**king apologise, quite frankly). I really don't think there is any merit at this stage in shielding him - unless you want to use him in future (please don't!). I have absolutely no idea whether you've factored him into your on-going rules development, but I would avoid at all costs at the moment. I would even be prepared to offer to find time / capacity to work on CWC / FWC for you - and I'd do it for free. Or some figures

Hope this isn't 'ranty' - but I love you guys, your figures, your service, your company - and I *really* *really* don't want you to suffer because of this."

----
Third email (tonight):

Hi Leon

Don't beat yourself up on this - I think your experience of Warband (massively positive all-round) led you to think that you had the right person to do the job on BKC. You could not have forseen just how this has developed. For my part, I wish I'd been *much* stronger with my initial feedback to you on the changes that were made - I know I talked about change for change sake and not needing to fix something that fundamentally isn't broken - some constructive feedback (I hope - that's the spirit I offer it in) - is that Pete *always* kept a very small, tight, trusted and known group for rules development and playtest; the old adage can apply here: "A camel is a horse designed by committee!"

I think that you had a load of feedback from people who didn't have depth of knowledge of BKC - and therefore you got support to make changes that were simply not needed. The lists are another thing entirely.

As I said before, I'm more than happy to work on CWC - and I know who I'd recruit to help Probably worth a call at some point to discuss if you like - or maybe I should scoot up and see you guys for a conversation - about bloody time I did anyway ​

Keep smiling, my friend, keep smiling

Nik"

[petercooman]

Hi Nik, been a while!

What i don't understand is, nobody spotted the flaws in those list. First thing i did was check the new lists vs the old lists. At least for the armies i have. Although i can't talk about point cost changes before trying them, i can tell that the limits are off and some things are just missing.

Might sound funny, but first thing i did was count the entries in the old list and the entires in the new list (british NWE). When the new list came short a few entries, while i knew the old list even had some additions in the errata that i didn't count, something didn't seem right.

Also if an entry has a 6 limit in the old and a 1 limit in the new, then that's a substantial change. if there are a lot of those around, something should ring a bell.

Lists aside, i'm still going through the book, and will try to get a solo play in this weekend, and see if they still work fine. I'm guessing feedback right now will be valuable as to see where the rules stand.

[sediment]

Thanks for the additional insight.  It supports a lot of "reading between the lines" visible on the forum.  What a great pity it's turned out this way.

I know the Cold War Commanders group would be more than happy to help in generating the CWCII ruleset.  We've played a lot of big games, testing the CWC ruleset almost to breaking point with entire divisions on the tabletop, and come up with a whole bunch of house rules that we find very playable and again with the right feel for commanding Cold War armies.  We've found CWC such a lot of fun that we're happy to invest time in making any revision a usable product that's fun to play.

Hope it all turns out well in the end.

Cheers, Andy

[cardophillipo]

Thanks Nik for sharing this.

As Andy (Sediment) says the Cold War Commanders would be more than happy to help in any development of CWC. We are all long time Commander series players, not as long as Nik by the sound of it, but we total a few years between us. We have played CWC on a huge scale with over 300 sq ft of terrain and have come up with a very playable set of House Rules that draw from both BKC II and FWC. Among our members are the fine gents who run the annual FWC Boot Camp in Slimbridge so i'm sure any FWC issues we will be more than happy to assist with.

We are happy to help in anyway we can there is a massive amount of play experience, historical knowledge and technical knowledge among us. Most of all an enthusiasm to see Pendraken and the Commander Series be a the success they deserve.

It's late and i'm rambling but you get the message.

Cheers

Richard P
Cold War Commanders

[Sandinista]

Errata and pdf lists are fine by me, It's not too big an issue in the scheme of things. Yes, a little disappointing but as others have said I'd rather see Pendraken spending it's money on new figure ranges than an unnecessary reprint.

Cheers
Ian

[Itinerant Hobbyist]

Mom - so good to see you here. You've always been an inspiration to my gettingvinto BKCII. I was one of the proofers and I have learned a lot from this experience.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Agree with both Andy and Richard - we would like to help....with both.

IanS

[weredoomed2003]

Well we finally had our first true playtest of BKC3 at our gaming club and this unfortunately reinforced our disappointment with the rule set.  In fact after two moves we abandoned and reverted to BKC2 as we didn't want fo waste an evening.  Previous comments have highlighted all the issues with the army lists and the numerous errors and contradictions with the main body of the text.  What we found after trying to play was perhaps more insidious in that even if 'corrected' the balance of the game has been altered for the worse.  As an example we abandoned after my German opponent called in 2 models of 105mm as off table support on to my Soviet infantry that were stuck in the open (without the +1 for ordering the same action my Cv7 has only a 41% chance of a second order).  The values for the off table support have been doubled or more than doubled from 2,3 and 4 dice (for 75mm, 105mm and 150mm) to 3 dice, 6 dice and 9 dice.  With just 2 105s hitting thats 12 dice hitting on a 4-6, an average of 6 hits per stand -  enough as an average to wipe out all the infantry.  It's totally unbalanced and I can't see how playtesting could have missed this change?  We didn't agree with the ground attack rules and lack of choice between area and concentrsted fire - this seems not in keeping with the choice of say a 109 to bomb an area or go jn to straff a single target.  This is an example of a rule change that is not an error or contradiction but a simplification that doesn't add to the game in our opinion.  Similar issues lie with the spcial abilities so for example a Panther has 6/100 and the tank buster ability that reduces the save kf the opponent by 1,  why have tbis extra complication when each gun has different number of attack dice to represent their effectiveness in any case?? (Why a Panther is rated higher than a King Tiger or Jagdpanther I can't see either but it is amusing to see a Pz35t with same  attack dice as a Tiger....
Unfortunately our conclusion was to put the 3 sets of BKC3 on the floor, write off the £60 spent as a bad loss and get on playing BKC2.  I don't know what the author was thinking in changing the rules, it seems from our point of view a need to make changes for changes sake to justify the rebranding as a Pendraken ruleset.  But the end result is at best a very poor ruleset strewn with errors of which over half is armylists that are a waste of paper, and at worst (especially if you have not played BKC2) an unplayable set that only serves to confuse.
Apologies for being blunt but being experienced wargamers with years of putting on games at shows this is our honest opinion.   I myself will now be very circumspect about future Pendraken rulesets (please please do not make the same awful mistake with our beloved CWC!!!)and certainly won't go near anything by the same author.  I know this may be harsh and I must reiterate that I love Pendraken models and think Leon, Dave and the team are great, but my verdict on BKC3 is that I can't belive it's still being marketed and sold given the acknowledgement that it's such a poor product and if I could return my copy and get a refund I would. 

[petercooman]

It has been marked as unavailable on the main website.

[weredoomed2003]

Sorry -got a bit fired up at the end there and it reads a bit more severe than I intended...

[Orcs]

I would like to add my support to Dave, Leon and the team at Pendraken.

Please do not take the negative comments to heart.All of the online comments are not against you as either individuals or  Pendraken the company , but the BKC3 rulebook. 

You have a good company with a formidable reputation for its products and customer service, which in my opinion has only been enhanced by your statement. 

[Malbork]

I would like to second Orcs' comment.

[williamb]

Finally read through the rules and decided on number four.   I agree with a lot of what Nick Harwood and weredoomed2003 have posted.  It appears that the person who was given the rewrite of the rules has failed to do what should have been done.   There are some changes that might have been good, but there are too many unnecessary changes.   The scenarios lack force ratios.  Army lists are missing items.  Doctrine and formation are gone.   Field defenses are free!?!?!?  I regret pre-ordering the rules.  If I had seen what has been posted before deciding I would not have bought them.  While I would like to see CWC and FWC redone so that the stats and lists are similar to what is in BKCII I am not going to pre-order them.

[sjb1001]

I think we really need to let Leon and the team concentrate on the issue at hand which they are doing admirably and not start putting a cloud of doom over CWC-II before the work has started.

[T13A]

Hi

I just wanted to say thank you to Nik for his insight above into what has been going on with regard to BKC-II/BKC-III and just say that I agree with everything he said. In particular:

"As I said to you a while ago, I think the author made a load of changes that weren't necessary - and (IMNSHO) has taken a well-tested & respected ruleset backed by a well-tested & respected company (that's you BTW) and used that as a platform to get 'his' rules published. I frankly think that this is f**king disgraceful and that he's taken a serious liberty here - for his own vanity? Who knows... The rules are a long way away from where they were - and the lists (and, again, I am *so* sorry I didn't give these attention) are bonkers going from opinion from folks who are *way* more knowledgeable than I".

Personally, as I have said elsewhere, I think the problem is more than the mistakes, omissions etc. in the rule book and lists but with the 'new' rules themselves. I would suggest this is backed up by the people saying that they will not use/cannot use BKC-III and will carry on using BKC-II (myself included).

Perhaps a way forward would be to go back to BKC-II and simply check out what really needed changing and starting again. If you agree with Nik (as I do) then this might not be as onerous as it sounds.

For my part, and again as I have said elsewhere, I was just looking for a bit clearer explanation in the new rule book about:

•   visibility and concealed troops (and judging from an answer to a previous post of mine, clearer explanations are readily available somewhere already)

•   Fighting in Built-Up areas

And just to emphasis, I do not think the rules need changing or to be made 'simpler', (I really do not think you could make any worth while set of WWII rules simpler than BKC-II, if you did they would become 'Fantasy' rules (IMHO)), just clearer explanations as to how the rules actually work.

If I was sure that was what was going to happen, I for one would happily put down the money I have spent on BKC-III to 'experience' and pay Pendraken again for BKC-IV or what ever you chose to call it.

Just my tuppence worth (or is it sixpence worth by now)?

Cheers Paul

[Jimbo94]

The publication of BKCIII had really rekindled my interest in WW2 gaming and as I had armies ready to use from BKCII I would be able to get straight on and start playing after a quick read of the new rules.

I was just about to purchase them when I started to read this forum and held off as a result.
Given the general impression created it looks like the author has managed to make a excellent set of core principles largely unworkable.

Given this the only real solution is to carry on with BKCII and wait for a complete re write.

Good news for me is I am getting the Finns and Russians out for the first winter war game for about 5 years so in some ways that is still a positive outcome of all this.

[Gwydion]

First, I just want to say thanks to Leon for the way he handled this, the options he gave me in his email and the speed with which he resolved my reply.

Secondly, I will continue to support Pendraken and play CWC and BKC II and look forward to revised versions of both.

That is the point though - I want revised versions of sets of rules that work in a unique way amongst WWII and Modern sets. I don't want a new style of rules, I want the (small) errors in BKCII correcting, the clarifications and tweaks from players over the years incorporating in an integrated format and updated lists in accord with those clarifications and changes.

I voted for a new print version because as far as I can see a pdf of the lists isn't going to help the mistakes and unworkable changes in the rules.

If cost is a problem, and I can see it might be under the circumstances, I would rather have a printed book of rules with pdf lists.

My preferred option though is the full package I was looking forward to.

Best wishes