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 (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.
8)
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
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
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.
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.
:-\
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?
:-\ :(
I knew this was going to be fun!
Quote from: Nick B on 01 October 2015, 04:22:44 PM
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.
Quote from: Nick B on 01 October 2015, 04:22:44 PM
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.
Quote from: Nick B on 01 October 2015, 04:22:44 PM
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.
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
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? ;D
Plus.... I love Staghounds!
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.
Quote from: Nosher on 01 October 2015, 07:36:58 PM
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:
Quote from: Leon on 01 October 2015, 03:30:59 PM
a) get the missing item designed, or c) change the listing to a similar vehicle we do produce where possible.
Quote from: Leon on 01 October 2015, 04:47:29 PM
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.
Quote from: Leon on 01 October 2015, 04:47:29 PM
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.
Quote from: petercooman on 01 October 2015, 08:33:27 PM
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.
Quote from: petercooman on 01 October 2015, 08:33:27 PM
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.
Quote from: petercooman on 01 October 2015, 08:33:27 PM
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!'
Quote from: Leon on 01 October 2015, 09:39:44 PM
Of course, I'd have thought that was obvious though?
A comment that often appears part way through a heated argument fuelled by misunderstanding ;)
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
Quote from: Leon on 01 October 2015, 09:39:44 PM
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.
now that's something completely different, packaging products and rules togheter is all fine and dandy, and a sensible thing to do, but the discussion i adressed my comment to was about designing the ruleset based on the models you have in production/
Quote from: Nick B on 01 October 2015, 04:22:44 PM
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.
Quote from: Leon on 01 October 2015, 04:47:29 PM
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. 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.
Quote from: Leon on 01 October 2015, 03:30:59 PM
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.
:-\
personally i rather have a page in my book i don't need than a supplement i have to buy for that specific page. That's what i like about the bkcII book, everything is in one book, just buy it and you're done.
Also, on the army Packs, i must admit i have looked at them a lot, but always end up buying stuff separately. There has been only one time i bought a bkc army pack from you guys, and that was after i asked you to swap some codes out for others. Nothing to do with people not buying/playing them, we are just wargamers, we fiddle with everything untill we get the ground scale, figure proprtions and such to our liking ;D ;D
Quote from: petercooman on 02 October 2015, 04:27:45 AM
personally i rather have a page in my book i don't need than a supplement i have to buy for that specific page. That's what i like about the bkcII book, everything is in one book, just buy it and you're done.
I agree with this point of view
Ian
Quote from: petercooman
personally i rather have a page in my book i don't need than a supplement i have to buy for that specific page. That's what i like about the bkcII book, everything is in one book, just buy it and you're done.
Quote from: Sandinista
I agree with this point of view
Ian
Seconded.
One of my pet-hates is rules books that turn into a library of add-ons and further volumes. Will quite happily not buy a rules set for this very reason.
One rules book to play them all.
Quote from: petercooman on 02 October 2015, 04:14:36 AM
now that's something completely different, packaging products and rules togheter is all fine and dandy, and a sensible thing to do, but the discussion i adressed my comment to was about designing the ruleset based on the models you have in production/
I agree entirely. Pendraken is not GW and WW2 is not fantasy/scifi. BKC is a set of rules intended to reflect WW2, which was what it was, and which BKCII does fairly well. Modifying BKCII to reflect Pendraken's WW2 ranges by, for example, removing army lists that are not reflected in is, to be blunt, barking mad.
Quote from: John Cook on 07 October 2015, 08:07:33 AM
Modifying BKCII to reflect Pendraken's WW2 ranges by, for example, removing army lists that are not reflected in is, to be blunt, barking mad.
That would be putting it mildly. The Wargaming world would react to that with gales of incredulous laughter. But nobody at Pendraken has suggested that have they, in all seriousness?
Pat
I'm not overly concerned about the possibility of individual vehicles not appearing in the lists. BKC has never been that all encompassing and the stats are generic enough to proxy or work out for yourself. If Pendraken decide to drop entire armies as they don't produce the models is an entirely different matter.
What i would like to see, is just ADDING the units that pendraken makes to the army lists if they aren't already in it! The more options you have, the better!
Quote from: sane max on 07 October 2015, 02:10:04 PM
That would be putting it mildly. The Wargaming world would react to that with gales of incredulous laughter. But nobody at Pendraken has suggested that have they, in all seriousness?
Pat
That is the inference I, and others, have drawn from the post at the top of the thread. However, I don't really have a dog in this fight as I modified BKCII to suit my preconceptions a long time ago and would be very unlikely to invest in a 'BKCIII'.
I've edited the original post to try and clarify things. We've got absolutely no intention of just throwing away any army list that doesn't feature in the Pendraken catalogue and we've never said anything like that.
Sounds a lot better :D
As I see it with the army lists taking armoured cars as an example, under recce support there is a SDKFZ234/4 which is a mobile AT designed to support infantry in a defended postion against tanks, further on in the lists under SPAT is a SDKFZ251/22 different vehicle same gun in correct role. The factors for recce armoured cars as I see it should be the same as their role is to go forward gather information and have some defensive protection, the purpose is not to engage in combat, I see it as tatically wrong to risk a hard to replace AT gun in a recon role.
Likewise can you group vehicles together like the M10, hellcat and jackson mobile AT designed to follow up the tanks and hold the ground with the infantry against counter attacks, having a variable code for the weapon performance, maximum speed only comes into it when you are going in the opposite direction to the enemy??? These vehicles are lightly armoured and use preplanned defensive positions to stop the enemy tanks.
Dave
Quote from: Dave on 09 October 2015, 07:58:49 AM
As I see it with the army lists taking armoured cars as an example, under recce support there is a SDKFZ234/4 which is a mobile AT designed to support infantry in a defended postion against tanks, further on in the lists under SPAT is a SDKFZ251/22 different vehicle same gun in correct role. The factors for recce armoured cars as I see it should be the same as their role is to go forward gather information and have some defensive protection, the purpose is not to engage in combat, I see it as tatically wrong to risk a hard to replace AT gun in a recon role.
Likewise can you group vehicles together like the M10, hellcat and jackson mobile AT designed to follow up the tanks and hold the ground with the infantry against counter attacks, having a variable code for the weapon performance, maximum speed only comes into it when you are going in the opposite direction to the enemy??? These vehicles are lightly armoured and use preplanned defensive positions to stop the enemy tanks.
Dave
Regarding the SDKFZ234/4, there is an optional rule that lets you take recce units as normal units in the book. page 45:
I quote:
"Reconnaissance units include scouts,armoured cars and light tanks. If you want to use recce units as regular combat units, deduct 20 points from the unit cost and increase the limit to 3 per 1000 points. Recce support units are slightly different to ordinary recce units in that they may not communicate with command units, but they may fire at the enemy during the initiative and command phases like any other unit. However, they are like recce units in that they do not incur the command penalty for distance"
So you can take them as normal units to be put in the role you metion OR as the recce suport variant, wich works entirely the same, but can pe put out of harms way in an ambush position without giving a negative penalty to the command roll for being too far away!
PS: that's why i have so many recce units in my armies :D
Recce support covers the role the 234/4 should be in - it's not for the infantry, it's heavy AT support for the armoured car squadrons which were supposed to be recce'ing but in German practise were by now a fighting unit due to lack of enough proper kit and troops to use it, so consistently got up gunned (from MG to 20mm A/C to 50mm ATG onwards etc). There's a decent argument that given the German lack of tactical recce in favour of them being a fire brigade you could just strip the recce ability off the lot of them and use them as fighting troops!
Quote from: petercooman on 09 October 2015, 08:51:56 AM
Regarding the SDKFZ234/4, there is an optional rule that lets you take recce units as normal units in the book. page 45:
I quote:
"Reconnaissance units include scouts,armoured cars and light tanks. If you want to use recce units as regular combat units, deduct 20 points from the unit cost and increase the limit to 3 per 1000 points. Recce support units are slightly different to ordinary recce units in that they may not communicate with command units, but they may fire at the enemy during the initiative and command phases like any other unit. However, they are like recce units in that they do not incur the command penalty for distance"
So you can take them as normal units to be put in the role you metion OR as the recce suport variant, wich works entirely the same, but can pe put out of harms way in an ambush position without giving a negative penalty to the command roll for being too far away!
PS: that's why i have so many recce units in my armies :D
Thanks for that, I've been in too many games were they have been miss used as part of the attack!!!!! >:(
Dave
Quote from: toxicpixie on 09 October 2015, 09:37:33 AM
Recce support covers the role the 234/4 should be in - it's not for the infantry, it's heavy AT support for the armoured car squadrons which were supposed to be recce'ing but in German practise were by now a fighting unit due to lack of enough proper kit and troops to use it, so consistently got up gunned (from MG to 20mm A/C to 50mm ATG onwards etc). There's a decent argument that given the German lack of tactical recce in favour of them being a fire brigade you could just strip the recce ability off the lot of them and use them as fighting troops!
Discussed this with Ian after posting, thanks for the extra info
Dave
Quote from: Dave on 09 October 2015, 09:38:40 AM
Thanks for that, I've been in too many games were they have been miss used as part of the attack!!!!! >:(
Dave
Yes, it's one of those things that can get overlooked, as it's at the back of the rulebook!
It's awkward - there's the "theoretical role" that the users wanted them for and the actual role they played, and then there's the fitting them into a game framework and the role the player wants them to be in :D
Rules writing is not simple, especially as there's the theory, the historical practice an even worse the PERCEIVED historical practice which can make things very odd when people insist on case X which is not true but ingrained in our popular consciousness :)
Quote from: toxicpixie on 09 October 2015, 12:30:30 PM
Rules writing is not simple, especially as there's the theory, the historical practice an even worse the PERCEIVED historical practice which can make things very odd when people insist on case X which is not true but ingrained in our popular consciousness :)
Which would you say was more important to get right?
Something that gives the right overall effect without bogging down in "accurate" subsystems that produce a tedious and long winded and ultimately spurious overall effect :) I'd go for aim for accuracy on the historical front but with enough wriggle room that people can tweak if they feel a need to. But simplicity and ease of play are right up there too...
There's always going to be those who don't accept tank X could beat tank Y no matter the on the ground stats, and others who have the opposite viewpoint or that unit A would never do B - it's the happy medium that lets it feel plausible that's hard. Thick skins needed for rules writers...
To me, BKC pretty much works and doesn't need any fiddling with lists or units, any massive rewriting. Just a tidy up on the margins, really. I'm much more interested in seeing a revamped CWC with a proper set of BKC 2 style lists and stats.
Quote from: toxicpixie on 09 October 2015, 02:33:06 PM
To me, BKC pretty much works and doesn't need any fiddling with lists or units, any massive rewriting. Just a tidy up on the margins, really. I'm much more interested in seeing a revamped CWC with a proper set of BKC 2 style lists and stats.
This ^ seconded. BKCII doesn't need a major rewrite.
Quote from: DougM on 10 October 2015, 05:30:38 AM
This ^ seconded. BKCII doesn't need a major rewrite.
What BKCII needs is a more accessible, "modern" presentation to attract a new following: emulate the FOW/GW approach to presentation, but maintain and advance upon what is otherwise a fantastic set of rules.
Currently BKCII looks like something that appeals to dedicated, old-fashioned wargamers and already has it's established number of "fans" - the trick is to present these rules in vibrant way to a younger audience - I think the most appealing thing about BKCII is how cheap it is to set up a game, and that's the strong point.
I don't know if anyone here is familiar with 4chan, but www.4chan.org/tg/ is the place to go: so many gamers from around the world go here, and there is already a strong FOW presence in the past two years, so there is an interest in WW2 gaming.
Any update? in post 1 it was said "reprint in January hopefully" ...
I guess now it's March at the earliest?
Hi Leon/Dave
Any update on what's happening with BKC?
Cheers
Must dig out BKC again. Haven't played it in years. Still nostalgic for the 1st edition which IMO was better.
Oddly enough CWC worked for me for infantry engagements with a few bits of armour.
FWC never really worked for me and Ive got loads of sci-fi armies that never see the light of day.
We'll hopefully have news on BKC soon, the draft text will be with us within a fortnight hopefully and then I can get started on the formatting and layout. We had hoped to have it ready for sale at Salute, but with a 3 week turnaround with the printer, it's going to be cutting it very fine. At the least, I'd like to have a draft copy there for people to look at.
Thanks Leon
Leon,
Can you give any insight into the changes we can expect to see, please?
Many thanks
Nick
Quote from: Nick B on 24 March 2016, 05:23:00 PM
Can you give any insight into the changes we can expect to see, please?
The main changes are to the close combat and off-table support, where the author has simplified things. Elsewhere the rules are similar to the previous version, but hopefully a lot easier and simpler to read.
8)
Any news on when the new edition of BKC will be available?
Quote from: vonlacy on 23 April 2016, 11:23:17 PM
Any news on when the new edition of BKC will be available?
Yeah I'd be interested to know. Can't wait to get my hands on the new edition
Take care
Andy
Quote from: vonlacy on 23 April 2016, 11:23:17 PM
Any news on when the new edition of BKC will be available?
Quote from: Womble67 on 24 April 2016, 08:33:55 AM
Yeah I'd be interested to know. Can't wait to get my hands on the new edition
We'll have an update coming soon, should be in this month's newsletter.
8)
Just another update for everyone:
- The text is being looked over by a few folks, plus being playtested as well, just to make sure everything's OK before we finalise it.
- We're using a new (to me!) piece of software for BKC, so I've been getting to grips with that and putting together the basic formatting.
- I've been trawling through 1000's of WWII photos so that we've got some nice images to put in the book.
Sounds good looking forward to this being released
Take care
Andy
Quickie - will BKC new version be available on Wargames Vault as a pdf please? (Like Warband is)
Can't answer that myself...er....Rob ?....But Leon will be back soon.
As that was your first post.....A very warm welcome to the madhouse forum. ;)
Cheers - Phil
And a warm welcome from me too, Mr John.
I know nothing of these thing of which you speak. To me BKC is Bacon, Kale and Corn, which is my favourite salad.
Quote from: robjohn14 on 02 June 2016, 10:17:12 AM
Quickie - will BKC new version be available on Wargames Vault as a pdf please? (Like Warband is)
Yep, it will be. We might look at adding the older versions to Wargame Vault as well, for those who still want to play them.
Thanks for the reply Leon - and also to Techno and FSN - I am in fact quite an old member compared to the Rob John who I was masquerading as - I re joined and used a different email address - didn't mean to do that so have asked for robjohn14 to be exterminated - sorry for my confusion!
Awww! Well, hello again Robert. :D
I look forward to finding out how the artillery resolution has improved. I currently reduce the amount of artillery to speed up play.
Hi
Any update please for expected release date of the new rules (for purchase and for PDF download)?
Regards
Chris
The finalising of the text is taking a bit longer than planned as we're wanting to make sure everything is perfect before we move to print. We'll be working through a few more edits over the rest of this month, hopefully with a view to a final draft before August.
Looking forward to getting a copy of the new BKC rules :)
What's happening with CWC?
Cheers
Richard P :)
Who let you in ????
Likewise, anything on CWC ?
IanS
CWC won't be getting started until BKC is completely done, so it's not going to be until next year I'd think at this point. I'm hoping that CWC will be a quicker process having got BKC sorted and out there first, we should be better prepared for any potential delays or stumbling blocks.
Any news? ;) ;) ;)
Nothing yet, the website issues have slowed everything down and now we've hit the shows again. I'm upto page 39 of about 55 which I'm working through, so we're getting there.
How goes the great work? :P
Monthly refresher :P Ping... ping....
Sadly, it's not great news. The last 2 months have been a blur of shows, illnesses, weddings, birthdays and honeymoons, so very little progress has been made. The next 5 weeks see us away at 3 shows, including our own Battleground event which means extra time in organisation, then we'll be hitting the Christmas orders.
On top of that, with all the website issues recently, we've had to pay for a new site to be built, which should be online in the next month or so hopefully. That means a lot of back and forth with the new web designer getting it how we want it, then a whole load of time getting the products and images onto it.
So, the bad news is that BKC won't be happening this year. There's simply so much extra work required elsewhere at the moment that I wouldn't be able to get it finished off without sacrificing food and/or sleep and giving myself some kind of breakdown. I know that people are waiting and waiting and waiting, and I'm sorry for the delays, but things just aren't working in our favour these past few months.
Once we hit Xmas, with the shows finished for the year and a sparkly new website online, I'll have the breathing space to sit and spend a couple of weeks doing nothing but BKC and then we'll have a finalised draft to go out for feedback.
Good call Leon =D> =D>
Frustrating for those waiting but better they know it will be next year than keep hoping it will be next week...
As has been said on another thread we all suffer if one of the team at Pendraken fall over due to stress or over work
Remember to take Christmas morning off ;)
So, BKC 1st Jan, then revisited CWC the day after?
FWC can wait for a week then, I think.
:o :o
*ducks
Yeah, Techno is making some of them... ;)
Early mid or late War ones, or the better post war ones? Also, are the Future Ducks "near now" or proper deep space Ducks?
It's been a long time since the last update, but the good news is...
It's finished! Well, nearly...
I've completed merging the original and revised text into a final version, almost all of the formatting has been done and we've got an expanded 49 armies lists in there now as well. I need to do a final check through some of the formatting before sending it off to the feedback group at the start of next week. All being well, we'll get the feedback over the next fortnight, make any remaining tweaks and then everything can be finalised and sent off to the printers before the end of March, ready for a release at Salute.
:o :o :o
=D> =D> =D>
Looking forward to Salute :)
Cheers
Ian
Awesome :D
:D
EXCELLENT