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   

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 

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

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

Thanks for that, I've been in too many games were they have been miss used as part of the attack!!!!!

Dave