Bkc is no other ruleset Leon. I think you have to look at it from a different perspective.

But if you want to look at it that way, think about this. How many warhammer players are now playing kings of war, or are sticking to an older edition of the rules? There were a great deal of changes in warhammer too.

Again, saying this with the utmost respect Leon, I just want you too succeed on this one!

Quote from: Leon on 05 May 2017, 05:13:08 PM
(...) As a rough guide, if you saw one of these changes as an existing rule in a different ruleset, would it prompt the same reaction or would it simply be accepted as the way that ruleset decided to do things?
(...)

The more we love, the more we'll discuss ! 


I had some rules who changed ( ie. Ambush / Force on force, Johnny reb  etc. ) Sometimes for the better, sometimes I didn't liked the changes. I drifted away to other rules when needed.

I think we are a bit disapointed because the rules were almost OK. 
And the changes sometimes make no sense. ( May be we're wrong ! But the author(s) should have written  a statement of intent (1) )
Some rules really modified the game. We can hardly understand why (again, may be we're wrong).
Some new changes can be discussed ( ie. the breaking points, as seen in other threads). Some changes are.... strange.

I understand how difficult it must be for all the people who wrote the rules, work and play tested. And specially for you Leon.
I hope you don't feel ''attacked'' by our posts. Some people here wrote with passion...  ( (And because we know you can do a very good work, and were waiting for a better game)

(1) I hope that's the right word.. I'm a bit tired.. I mean : write something to explain their choices, their feelings and how they tried to translate this or that in the game. I sometimes work with indie RPG writers, and it's a good thing to explain what's the point..

To be honest if I saw a set of rules with a combined observer role I'd think it very odd and also think that the author didn't understand the use of supporting arms.

If the author has the basics wrong, what else have they not researched properly or been sloppy about. It's then that you dig and claw and find the deeper stuff. With the lists starting at bkc3 is a really bad place. Bkc2 is a good place. Discover what's wrong with bkc2 lists and fix that. Fixing bkc3 lists will take months of research to get the right units and stats back into the lists, but you have good lists already in bkc2. Starting with 3 and you're making a rod for your own back. Are the bkc3 rules any good? In places, pinch those. Sack the crap. Sort the recce. Bin the daft special rules that will stop a game: lumbering tanks that  are already moving 15 for starters, sort doctrine. I've written lots of published papers and reports and that's what I'd do.

Starting from a bad place and trying to improve is a long tough journey. You're trying to polish a tur@

Start from a good place and improve from there.

If I saw any rule set that combined a FAC & and a FAO in WW I'd be wondering what was going on. I could just about rationalise a single "command element"/HQ for a large enough formation that was treated as a combined assemblage of functions, under the assumption it represents not just the organic formation HQ but also the attached or embedded extra functions including whatever observers, logistics, medical etc were historically present.

So at the least that would several stats in BKC terms - a CV for command, a CV for arty, a CV for air (if applicable), an ECM/counterbattery location/medical or repair (remove suppressions/hits/whatever) value etc.

As it was BKC did a good job of SIMPLY modelling all the various factors AND the friction involved - Indirect/supporting fires are a complex area, and it dealt with them well. Armies which had n o ability to plot flexible air/art support relied exclusively on assets. Simple, works. Armies with limited flexibility or slow systems have low CVs, better ones have more potential observers and higher CVs. Observers were easily split - air, or arty. Complex fires (more guns) get harder. Job done.

It could be made more accurate in detail, but the overall outcome worked fine - it was simple and it was accurate enough. It produced the right result with ease of play. Now it's a weird thing - it's both non-historical AND doesn't seem to make sense in rules?

In the scheme Of things to sort, it was a non-issue.

However. It's an easy "fix" either officially (split them back, put a keyword "Air - this unit may only call for supporting aircraft" or "Artillery - this unit may only call for supporting artillery") or house rule it for those as want. It's not anything that needs major rules changes elsewhere?

I wont comment on other actual rules issues - I don't have a copy. But most of the other actual queries seem to be wording and intent driven, whilst this is a simulationist/historical thing (I'd also suggest that assets worked well,  but people comment they've gone?). The army lists sadly sound like they were knocked together badly for whatever reason. With those fixed, and rules tweaks clarified, and things like the FAC/FAO set up driven to reflect historical practice in a simple fashion, then here's probably a good chassis to run out! Certainly the couple of actual battle reps I've read seem to suggest that.

Perils of posting whilst toddler wrangling, crossed with Dr Dave! A mild tidying up of the wording, some tweaks and some working up of list errata /corrections from BKC2 would have been spot on. There's probably some good ideas come up from BKC3 but I'd agree with updating from BKC2 with the good bits instead of rewriting BKC3 essentially from scratch.

I actually like "keywords" idea as a concept, as it makes it easy to see the relevant important things for a unit that are applicable across multiple dissimilar things. All guns are lumbering, say - and you know immediately that's one move max. Tank Buster means you know it was a particularly good AT weapon - it gives a nice easy way to differentiate them other than raw dice. Etc etc, above is example only and so on

And as I don't have a copy of 3 I'll now *really* shut up, sorry Leon :£

Just a bit sad that the lumbering keyword doesn't explain what it does when said lumbering unit is towed

If the gun is towed then it's moving as a truck - which presumably ISNT Lumbering

Quote from: toxicpixie on 05 May 2017, 07:56:37 PM
If the gun is towed then it's moving as a truck - which presumably ISNT Lumbering

You know that, I know that. Does someone who is wetting his toes in the world of wargaming know that? No. It needs to be clearly written. When you have played lots of games over the years, you learn to read rules 'between the lines'. Always account for those who don't have that ability (yet)

From Leon...
"At the moment, it's looking like we'll have to go with a full reprint and I'd want that done within the next 2-3 months. 
....we're going to assemble a group of folks (mainly from the original BKC playtest group, plus some additions) and we'll work through the whole BKC-III book page by page and fix/amend where necessary."

This sounds great Leon!
So, for clarity - we should stop going through the new rules now - stop posting queries/suggestions...and wait for the potential reprint?
or.....we should continue to raise queries/suggestions and post them here....but to be aware queries likely not answered until new rules out?

"I still believe that some of the changes are positive and we need to identify those and keep them in place.  There are some changes which have had a negative response that we need to look and decide whether that reaction is justified or whether it's people just not liking a change.  I've mentioned the FO one already, there's some tweaks needed in how that change has been implemented, but having a single FO unit instead of FAO/FAC isn't a radical change that massively affects the way the game plays.  You've still got FO units, who command the same off-table support, in much the same manner.  The benefit is that you only need one per battlegroup who can direct everything, leaving more space (points wise) for other units.  It simplifies the process and is a method used in other WWII rulesets without as much negativity."

Personally I would draw the simplification line at the point of historical inaccuracy...and simplify game mechanics rather historic unit abilities.
Please may I request that rule setters considering impacts of simplification, think of (I) what is gained (ii) consistency of simplification degree through the rules (III) impact on game balance.
BKC is already popular as a rule set that maintains good historical integrity.
Imagine how popular your WWII tank models would be, if you simplified ...and used the same wheels and tracks on them all - well why not...they are only wheels and tracks!
I'm sure it's a rubbish example ...but you get the point.
Adam

Quote from: petercooman on 05 May 2017, 08:34:36 PM
You know that, I know that. Does someone who is wetting his toes in the world of wargaming know that? No. It needs to be clearly written. When you have played lots of games over the years, you learn to read rules 'between the lines'. Always account for those who don't have that ability (yet)

Ok, got the book with me now and went to look at it.

p31:

mounting/dismounting
...,and artillery units may limber or unlimber their guns using a MOUNT/DISMOUNT action. these actions count as a tactical move, unless specified otherwise


transporting a unit
mounted units will move with the vehicle during any moves the transport unit takes. The only action the mounted unit can make will be to dismount...


So looks like the moving with the vehicle isn't counted as a move action. But mounting and dismounting is. So i stand corrected. It was in there somewhere. However, seeing as al artillery guns have that rule, i would have put a sentence in the explanation of the keyword in the abilities list. "note that units being transported are being moved by the transporter, so the lumbering rule does not come in effect in that situation"

Just makes it instantly clear!


Unfortunately though, further on the page there is a mounting example where a pak 35/36 (wich according to the army list has lumbering) mounts a truck, moves 40 cm and then dismounts.

Since mounting and dismounting both are considered a tactical move, this means that example is illegal according to the rules as written. Lumbering units can only take one move action, so they should wait to dismount untill the next turn.

Also has a mix-up in the last paragraph of the example,:

"finally, your AT unit has the deploy special ability, meaning it cannot fire untill it takes a dismount action"

---> clearly this should be 'untill it takes a deploy action'

Now in all honesty, for me the lumbering rule may just be removed all togheter, and the speeds reset to BKC  II standard.

Let's take a pak 40 for example.

In BKC II it had a move of 5 .

In BKC III it has a move of 10


So to reposition a pak 40 10 cm away in BKC II you needed 4 actions

deploy action to pack it up
2 move actions to move 2x5
deploy action to get it ready to fire

In BKC II it needs 3 turns

deploy action to pack it up, it's turn is over (a deploy action is a move action so triggers lumbering)
move action to move 10 cm, it's turn is over (it moved, so lumbering kicks in,and it can't deploy anymore because that is also a move action)
deploy action to set it up again.

Now arguably, the sequence in BKC II could be done in one turn or in more depending on the command rolls, but the same goes for the BKC III example. If you miss any command roll for any of the 3 actions you are looking at a 4 turn-process of shifting a gun 10 cm. That does not make the game simpler, it just makes it drag on.

Of course, that does explain the massive point reduction from 105 to 25!

What is the procedure for folks who bought a copy at Salute to get the future revised copy?

Sorry to read there seems to be so many problems with the rules. One issue I noted is with the off table support would seem to suggest that AFVs in the open would be hit on a 456! In BKCII it was 6. The rules mention a Fixed target Numbers but doesn't give any examples.

Martyn S

Quote from: simmo on 05 May 2017, 10:08:01 PM
What is the procedure for folks who bought a copy at Salute to get the future revised copy?

Once we've got them reprinted, you'd need to send the old copy back to us and we'd exchange it for a new one.  Unfortunately we'd need to do that to prove the purchase, otherwise we'd get a load of people claiming they bought one just to get a free copy.  We'd reimburse you the shipping costs as well.

Can we just straight up buy a new one as well Leon? I didn't vote for a reprint, don't feel like you guys owe me that 

Quote from: petercooman on 05 May 2017, 11:36:14 PM
Can we just straight up buy a new one as well Leon? I didn't vote for a reprint, don't feel like you guys owe me that 

I think we'd prefer to send everyone a new copy for free and then everyone gets treated the same.  When the time comes we can chat to people individually if they want to collect it a show, or want us to put it in with a regular figure order, etc.

Very glad to see the repy from Leon that there is a plan in place to look at all the issues that have been raised.

The question has been raised about the small group that have fed back. Maybe my experience is typical so here goes.

I had heard from others that the rules were to be produced for Salute and several of us went to the show. 3 of them bought hard copies and because I have made a decision to go electronic I bought the pdf. Of the 4 copies that I know of I am the only one who has read and played with them. As soon as I did so there were questions and I then joined the forum. I have just raised a few issues but would be quite happy to make a list of all the issues I have come across.

Having said that I like the basic concept of the rules and am having a game with another person who bought the rules next Wednesday. The purpose of that is so that we can come to a conclusion on a way forward.

What I draw from this is that the rules basic concept is fine but there are major issues with a lot of good will to fix them.  Also, I would suggest that this forum is a good representation of people who have taken the time to explore the rules. You will never get all the purchasers to contribute. After all just think of all those rules we all have that we have never really played with.

Quote from: patwarg on 06 May 2017, 08:20:48 AM
. After all just think of all those rules we all have that we have never really played with.

Don't go there, my wife could read this!

One of the big improvements of pdf copies I believe. Cost less to eplore, and don't clutter the house if they don't work out.

Quote from: Leon on 05 May 2017, 11:47:47 PM
I think we'd prefer to send everyone a new copy for free and then everyone gets treated the same.  When the time comes we can chat to people individually if they want to collect it a show, or want us to put it in with a regular figure order, etc.

That's very (overly?) generous! I'd suggest a free PDF with option for a discount on a physical copy - at the least, cover the costs of reprinting (as much as is reasonable - if your cost to print is £24 on a £25 rule book a quid discount is not much use to the punter!). That way you should retain goodwill, assuage the early adopters who feel burnt, and not go bust...

I have no idea if business insurance would cover this?!

As I said, I don't feel pendraken owes me a new book. I got this one at pre order price.

That means I got a discount for getting the rules before there would be reviews and opinions. The discount means you get a better price for a 'jump in the dark' so to speak. If I don't like em,tough luck. Should have waited for initial impressions and paid the full price then.

Also I paid that money for a printed book, shipped to my door. And guess what, I got that. Transaction done for my part.

It's very generous of pendraken to do what they are willing to do. But I wouldn't like this to set a precedent. Before you know you get al kinds of crazy demands for refunds on all kind of things.

Just a note. That's  my personal opinion of course, and i don't want to meddle in Leon and dave's bussiness!! Their company not mine!

Something's strange here    : I AGAIN agree with Peter !