02/10/2015 at 10:55 #31965Alvin MolethrottlerParticipant
Well instead of bitchin’, here’s your chance to pitch in! With all the expertise demonstrated here, and Leon’s appeal for ideas and feedback, the revamped rules should be the best wargames ruleset evah: http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,12845.0.html
Thanks for the invite fella but I’ve no intention of becoming embroiled in a collective attempt to put lipstick on a pig 😉
I have engaged in such activities before and it is my experience that the project tends to get warped by vocal minority opinions as the author gradually concedes point after point to a baying mob. I wish Pendraken nothing but the best of British and if by some miracle they do produce a good set of rules I’ll happily buy them and suggest to our group we give them a go.04/10/2015 at 08:06 #32023NTMParticipant
I’ve only played 1st edition and won’t ever play it again. I can field a Russian infantry division (81 platoons) and each platoon gets a one dice anti-tank rifle shot. Long story short, they stop the Panzerwaffe dead in its tracks every single time.
That was an issue for me too but it changed in version 2. Infantry no longer automatically get an AT value it’s an upgrade. Many players chose to upgrade all but I go for a level which I believe matches historical levels of use.
It’s still my ruleset of choice for 1 stand = platoon level games but I’m not really interested in that level at the moment.05/10/2015 at 16:39 #32085Sane MaxParticipant
Dislikers of the rules are welcome to ignore the Discussion on Pendraken, those of us that like them at least will be able to sit there with their heads in their hands when BKCIII(c) turns out to be a dog’s dinner and moan ‘I TOLD ’em not to do that, I TOLD them didn’t I Deidre? you were there, you heard me’ or vice-versa when it is brilliant smugly say ‘Yes wll those of us in the discussion group always had high hopes our input would be respected. Pendraken are a fine set of fellows to recognise the great depth of Knowledge in the wargaming community. Oh, my pipe went out’
If you don’t vote you don’t get to moan about the new Government is what I am saying.05/10/2015 at 19:38 #32089SpuriousParticipant
1st edition was my first historical wargame.
It was ok, these days I far prefer FFoT for all-arms fights because it has more detail in the right areas for me. I just didn’t get on with the orders system (in that context, I’ve been ok with it in other settings where it felt more appropriate), or the scenario balance, or the AT mechanics. Basically, all the common complaints.13/10/2015 at 05:39 #32580Mr. AverageParticipant
Sweet weeping Jesus. What is with the spam on this thread? Mike – I think the tags may be attracting bots to this thread in particular – might want to nuke them if you can.13/10/2015 at 07:22 #32582SparkerParticipant
If you don’t vote you don’t get to moan about the new Government is what I am saying.
Amen to that Sir!
You know it’ll happen anyway, right?
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:913/10/2015 at 12:34 #32599Nick the LemmingParticipant
Dislikers of the rules are welcome to ignore the Discussion on Pendraken, those of us that like them at least will be able to sit there with their heads in their hands when BKCIII(c) turns out to be a dog’s dinner and moan ‘I TOLD ’em not to do that, I TOLD them didn’t I Deidre? you were there, you heard me’ or vice-versa when it is brilliant smugly say ‘Yes wll those of us in the discussion group always had high hopes our input would be respected. Pendraken are a fine set of fellows to recognise the great depth of Knowledge in the wargaming community. Oh, my pipe went out’ If you don’t vote you don’t get to moan about the new Government is what I am saying.
The problems we found with the rules were fundamental ones (the C&C system, the combat mechanic), which I’m pretty sure aren’t going to change. Any input from me is likely to be drowned out by others who are fine with the system, and ignored by the rules writers since they’re probably going to use the same fundamentals as are currently used (otherwise why bother buying the brand, just write their own rules).15/10/2015 at 16:05 #32726Sane MaxParticipant
Oh I KNOW it will happen Sparker, sadly. And I know it will be FUBAR. But all it takes for the 3rd Edition to be triumpantly bad is for Good Men to do nothing.
I do not believe a perfect set of rules are a possibility. I honestly cannot name a subsequent edition of a rule-set that made me happier than the first, with the sole exception of 3rd and 5th edition Warhammer Fantasy both of which I enjoyed enormously.
Tinkering with a few details just annoys people who forget which version they are playing, a massive re-write will annoy everybody. the bit that made my blood run cold was the (allegedly mistaken) implication that they were going to remove army lists they didn’t make the models for27/03/2016 at 15:31 #39945Phil GrayParticipant
It’s one of my favourite systems. The command mechanics, to me, give a reasonable approximation of friction. I use the CV values to help balance scenarios, and as I mostly play with over matched opponents (41-42 Eastern Front or Malaya/ Burma) this can also reflect the relative inertia of some command structures.
That said, using multiple HQ’s and small unit blocks allows exceptions that will catch the overconfident.
The multiple hits to me works fine as I think of them as shock / fatigue / nerve markers rather than actual unit casualties… If you put enough fire on a unit within their command cycle then their will to fight can be broken even if they are physically intact.
I like the sound of TB’s Ogre / FWC mash up. …
Sand, not oil, in the gears of the world.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.