Blitzkrieg Commander developments

[Vermis]

Checking out the status of Pendraken's new edition of BKC, I saw this was posted a few days ago:

http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,12846.0.html

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
3.  Changes to the wording where necessary to make them easier to understand.
4.  Re-organisation of the army lists to fit better with our ranges.
5.  Reformatting of the layout and new photos throughout.

Number 4 is the relevant bit here.

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.

So vehicles and equipment that the real armies used could be removed from the lists if Pendraken don't make models for them. Reading further, Pendraken seems to think it can imitate the rules+minis combos of GW, Mantic, and Hawk Wargames, what with their highly historical games and factions.
Nobody on the Pendraken forum is happy about it and neither am I. I'm still checking out rules for 6mm and BKC was one of the few that sounded best to me. (Lots of praise, Warmaster-based rules, everything in one book, new book imminent) This stuff has kicked it right off the shortlist.

[Barbarian]

We are getting them on the right tracks, don't worry.

[Arlequín]

I suppose the other side of the coin would be making what they do integral list items. As stated though, I'm sure the community will put them right.

[Cherno]

I like Pendraken's miniatures and I understand their choice from a business perspective, but I don't have to like the scheme. I suppose that's what you have to live with if you as a game designer partner with a miniatures manufacturer.

[fred]

I don't think the plan is to remove historical vehicles from the lists.

There may be some tweaking to list stuff Pendraken makes, that is functionally similar along side already listed items - for example in BKC terms a lot of armoured cars share the same stat line.

There is talk of them adding listings of stuff they make, that isn't currently listed.

I think most changes are likely to be around which lists are included or not - some recent comments from Leon suggested that they may focus on WWII, and move SCW (which Pendraken have a wide range for) out separately.


As with any internet forum discussion you can cherry pick bits to make a case for almost any point of view.

[grant]

Seems awfully silly to do it that way.

[Leon Pendraken]

There's been a whole load of kneejerk reactions to that initial post, with a lot of folk only picking out and focussing on the negatives unfortunately.

So vehicles and equipment that the real armies used could be removed from the lists if Pendraken don't make models for them.

OR as stated we would look at getting the vehicle designed OR see if there is a suitable and historically correct alternative that we do produce.  Just randomly removing things from the lists isn't going to happen and was never stated to be.

Reading further, Pendraken seems to think it can imitate the rules+minis combos of GW, Mantic, and Hawk Wargames, what with their highly historical games and factions.

And why is that a bad thing?  Whether it's Sci-Fi / Fantasy / Historical was never the point, I could and did also use the examples of Warlord or Baccus or many other historical companies, all of whom built rules and figure ranges that work with each other.  As I said on the Pendraken Forum, we've got a difficult job on our hands to take a ruleset that was never designed around any specific scale/company and see what we can do to complement that with our products. 

Nobody on the Pendraken forum is happy about it and neither am I. I'm still checking out rules for 6mm and BKC was one of the few that sounded best to me. (Lots of praise, Warmaster-based rules, everything in one book, new book imminent) This stuff has kicked it right off the shortlist.

This was always going to garner differing responses, but I don't think 'Nobody is happy about it' is quite correct.  There have been some initial reactions, we've taken the feedback on board, discussed things and we move on.  Over the past 9 months we've heard everything from 'Don't touch them!' right through to 'They're broken so we don't play it anymore', so there's always going to be some heated debate when it comes to even the slightest change.

Kicking BKC off your shortlist based on one thread and a handful of reactions, without ever seeing anything approaching the finished article would be a real shame.

I like Pendraken's miniatures and I understand their choice from a business perspective, but I don't have to like the scheme. I suppose that's what you have to live with if you as a game designer partner with a miniatures manufacturer.

With us owning these rulesets now it becomes even more than that, this is what we'll be building and promoting our WWII ranges around for years to come, so we need to make sure we get it right.  We want to be able to sell someone the rules and also be able to sell them everything they need for whichever army they want to play.  That bit is going to be a long-term project and will certainly keep our vehicle designers busy!

Seems awfully silly to do it that way.

Which bit?



As a final point, anybody who knows us as a company knows that we are always open and honest with our customers on everything.  We could have just made the changes behind closed doors and released a set of rules that no one had had any input with, but we didn't want to do that.  BKC/CWC/FWC have got a large and loyal fanbase, so our priority in all of this is to give them a bit of a modern refresh whilst keeping intact the rulesets that everyone has enjoyed playing for years. 

We're going to do the very best job we can on them, and then folks can judge us on the finished product.  I'm not naive enough to think that everyone is going to love them, as there'll always be people who don't like a certain change/tweak, but we're confident that most people will like what we're doing and BKC will continue to be one of the most popular WWII rulesets on the market.

If anyone wants to add their input, please do so over on our Forum here: http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/board,92.0.html

[grant]

.

[Major_Gilbear]

@ Leon:

I might suggest posting a list of the changes you intend to make, split as new model/alt model/dropped.

I say this as posting a potentially contentious statment backed with qualifications is always going to get strong reactions, and then you waste time running around trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

This way, you can get feedback on what people think too - rather than arguing about maybes - and perhaps make a few further tweaks based on feedback.

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.

This is how a lot of people feel BTW. I know this is my #1 pet hate about GW games nowadays - even above cost of models.

[Kommando_J]

As a neutral obsever(I prefer my minis in 28mm) i'd say this ''Not really, as GW, Warlord, Mantic, Hawk, etc, etc, etc all seem to have done it rather successfully.'' is a terrible idea.

Gw for instance only started the method you described after a lengthy lawsuit which although technically it won, also meant that in future any rules they produce would have to have a miniature for otherwise they'd be fair game for third party companies.

Warlord does not do this though, you can see it still sells miniatures from other companies to fill in the blanks such as Perry miniatures or acquires new companies, it has learned from GW's mistakes and has thankfully not gone down the whole ''our minis or no minis route'' which only worked for gw when it had a monopoly.

Speaking of monopolies companies like mantic came about to essentially fill in the blanks left by GW and as gw has lost support, mantic and other companies have snapped it up.

Or to boil this all down, do not emulate gw, FoW is trying to do it by banning third party miniatures and it is hemorrhaging support.

[Leon Pendraken]

As a neutral obsever(I prefer my minis in 28mm) i'd say this ''Not really, as GW, Warlord, Mantic, Hawk, etc, etc, etc all seem to have done it rather successfully.'' is a terrible idea.

That quote was in response to a comment on our forum about about designing a ruleset to go with a figure range being a crazy idea, so I was just pointing out it's been done successfully be a lot of other companies.

Or to boil this all down, do not emulate gw, FoW is trying to do it by banning third party miniatures and it is hemorrhaging support.

We've got no intention of emulating GW or any of those other companies, again it was purely that selling rules and figures together does work and has been done successfully. 

I might suggest posting a list of the changes you intend to make, split as new model/alt model/dropped.

I say this as posting a potentially contentious statment backed with qualifications is always going to get strong reactions, and then you waste time running around trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

This way, you can get feedback on what people think too - rather than arguing about maybes - and perhaps make a few further tweaks based on feedback.

We'll certainly be doing that as we move along and we'll be taking on board all of the feedback posted so far.  The army lists are way in the distance yet though, we're working through the rules themselves first.

[Captain Goode]

I shall be interested to see what becomes of the rules, having played them regularly since thier first publication. I even enjoy playing the French in 1940. The nay sayers on these rules tend to be those who wish to move every unit every move. After a good few games one realises that actually done right the less "movey" armies have some interesting possibilities. I started with 1/200th, dropped to 1/285th which I still play for the Western Desert, but have now moved up to playing a lot of my SCW battles in 28mm and WW2 in 15mm.  I would not like to lose the scale flexibility in any future development which might cause discord with newer players in the future, but then again I can stick with Edition 2 on my table, a set with which I am quite happy.
Graham
Delhi

[Luddite]

BkC need a good rewrite.   The core rules are fine but need some serious reorganisation and clarity.   Some rules need tweaking,  like recce, off table support and close combat.   The rules also need to be redrafted around a clear  representative scale.   As to the army lists, they need some work.   There's a lot of room for increasing the clarity and aggregation of similar units into fewer statlines.  Also if played purely on points build,  they encourage highly non-historical force organisations.   An opportunity maybe to put some inherent structure into the force you can field?

[Jefthro2]

I'm a big fan of Blizkrieg Commander but we are a small group of wargamers and it tends to be myself who has to learn the rules. One thing which I never quite got to grips with is the army lists I assume they represent each vehicle as representing a platoon of three to five vehicles.

I appreciate that the rules cater for vehicles being represented by one model but am not sure what the lists actually represent.  I only mention this as we tend to keep to the lists but this often means some models don,t get on the table even though in reality they could be if the representative scale was 1:1. This doesn't,t detract from the game as I tend to ignore the lists if required.