The Commander Series Forum

Well just got back from Salute having made a swap from BKC III to BKC IV. Posting here, because the Pendraken Forum registration is suspended and I've never been able to register.

Overall I'm thoroughly pleased with version 4 and will be using it in future.

There's still a few things that look like they slipped through, but this time they can be fixed by errata. TBH, any first print run is going to have teething troubles, in spite of everybody's efforts.

The only rules things that confused me were:

1. Is accurate artillery half D6 (Main Rules) or -1 D6 (Army Lists) deviation?

2. How does a 'Bunker Buster' actually attack fortifications?

3. Are Infantry AT weapons really limited to 1 shot per turn? rules say yes; points stats and promotional blurb for the game suggest not.

Other than that there's some unexpected things in the army lists, but they'll surface as people notice oddities in the lists for the armies they collect.

Thanks for the feedback as I'm awaiting my copy to arrive next week. Shame you can't register on the Pendraken forum, maybe Leon will see this and sort it for you.

1. A bit of a contradiction there. Unless I've missed anything the -1 D6 deviation appears to be in the British lists only. Other lists mention the accurate / inaccurate attribute but don't expand on it

2. Possibly the section on demolishing buildings is missing

3. IATW can fire once in opportunity fire and once as a commanded action - it's common to all 3 Commander rule sets

I'm seeing mark Fry tomorrow. If he hasn't already replied here then I'll prod him

Good spot on the Accurate artillery piece - the list is incorrect (one was bound to get through) - it is half d:6 deviation dice if a unit has the Accurate Artillery special characteristic.
As a general rule always defer to the Main Rules over the lists.

Bunker Buster - yes - it can target a fortification and will destroy it as if it is an AFV. Happy to expand further on this - we might need a clarification.

On Inf AT Weapons - yes - as Shedman has explained - this is to correct an anomaly - they fire once in Opportunity and once in commanded fire - otherwise they had the capability of being super weapons - which even in the late war period - they were not.

Hope that helps?

I'll chat to Leon about the registration on the Pendraken site as I do not think it is his intention to close that for registration

Many thanks

Mark

On the IATW front, it's an interesting change from BKCII. Will this also apply to Russian ATR Platoons?

No - it doesn't apply to Anti-tank Rifles as they are not considered as IATW but are defined as a separate unit type.

One of the issues with IATWs such as Piats, Bazooka or Panzerfaust etc. is actually the number of reloads available.

However, there is also in my mind an issue of playability - IATW are actually very powerful and can easily distort game-play if used in large numbers (as we found with play-tests).

The approach in BKCIV is one that has been adopted in CWC house-rules for quite some time now, with great success. It has restored game-play balance. This is despite the fact that within the CWC era, IATW are generally far more prevalent than in WW2.

In CWC - where there are specific ATGW or AT designated units (such as Swingfire etc) it is the intention that these can fire in Op Fire and then in all Commanded turns. But this is represented in their increased cost.

The cost of IATW upgrades in BKCIV I feel is realistic and in proportion to their availability, reloads and the restrictions on the numbers of time they can fire.

Hope that helps?

Mark, any reason man pack flamethrowers aren't available as upgrades to late war US and British engineers for either ground or airborne units, as they were definitely available and used?

Also, flame weapons, even for the Wasp and Crocodile, only seem to be used in CA. This seems a bit harsh on these weapons systems as they were pretty potent and capable of firing across canals (for example) with a ranged attack. The idea that a Crocodile needs to expose itself to at least one round of faust or shrek closing fire to be able to use it's flame attacks seems a little harsh?

We also spotted the Crocodile has a flame attack in CA of 12, but is allocated the flamethrower special rule, which carries a flame attack in CA of 8, which seems contradictory - or am I missing something?

Sediment,
P37 Vehicles with flamethrowers have an attack value of 12/10, so I would say the crocodile can either use main armament ot flamethrower.
I believe the CA of 8 refers to Infantry or Engineer upgrades in the list which are paid for separately.
Andy

Cheers Andy, for some reason we missed the p37 ranged attacks at 12/10 when discussing on Saturday. The lists are therefore contradictory in that the Wasp and Crocodile have the flamethrower special ability and when that is looked up on p77 it says 8 attacks in CA, so contradicts the flamethrowers rule on p37 with the 12/10 attacks.

Also, in the lists, flamethrowers seem available as an infantry upgrade to US engineers in general, but only to Brits in the Far East. Even Late war German assault pioneers don't seem to have the flamethrower upgrade available in NW Europe late war list.

Just looking again at German assault pioneers and they have a CA of 8, so presumably have flame weapons, but don't have the flamethrower special ability.

Apologies for the registration issue, if you can drop me an email with your preferred username, I can register you manually on our Forum. Our webguy should have had the Forum registration back up and running by this weekend but it's not happened for some reason. I've just got back from Salute this afternoon so I'll go and give him a kick.

"However, there is also in my mind an issue of playability - IATW are actually very powerful and can easily distort game-play if used in large numbers (as we found with play-tests)."

Fair point. In our games we normally allow one per Company, which sort of reflects the lack of ammo/prevalence amongst units. For example, I've read lots of instances of PIATs being carried by a Universal Carrier at the rear and not by troops advancing, probably due to the weight of the things.

Interestingy we've never really been in the position of PIATs, Panzerfausts etc having much effect, if any, in the game. But then we play hits stay on and not much Bocage acion, so units rarely get close enough to fire them.

Just an organisational point - British flame throwers were an infantry weapon, in the btn pioneer platoon, - 2 or 3 set available.

Only other infantry btn that had them were US marines form 43-44.

PIATS - at full strength a British battalion had approximately 20,

Bazooka - US had one per M3 1/2 Track - came with the vehicle. Infantry had roughly 20 although the distribution was rather odd, the platoon with the largest number was the mortar platoon.

In defence extra rounds would be dumped forward but that should be a scenario option. There is a good argument that Panzerfuasten should only be used against close assaults, the rated ranges are more than a tad optimistic.


IanS

Thanks Gents

I agree the wording on the flamethrowers is a bit contradictory.

Generally (as a principle) I'd suggest deferring to the main rules over the lists.
So vehicle mtd flamethrowers are at CA:12 and Infantry at CA:8

If there are obvious list omissions we'll look to correct these - I had originally thought to say that all Engineers/Pioneers have flamethrowers - but then the exceptions started to outweigh the rule!

Personally I have no issues with players adding missing weapons to their games if all involved agree - this was partly why I went for the Infantry upgrade approach - as it allows a standard cost and effect that can be carried across to other lists.

On the Ranged Effect of flame throwers - this is always tricky. Again, I was looking for a compromise around the scale the game is played at, verses things like ammo availability. I totally agree that vehicle mounted flamethrowers had a greater range than man-pack variants, but at the same time long-distance 'flaming' consumes a huge amount of wasted fuel/ammo. My approach was a higher CA factor. Also - there is nothing to stop vehicle mtd flamethrowers being placed in Ambush or Reserve - allowing them to get closer to an enemy target to deliver their attacks.

There was also the issue of how many longer range 'shots' a vehicle mtd flamethrower got before it ran out of ammo - and I was clear I really didn't want to get into table-top ammo recording under any circumstances if i could help it.

In FWC for example - flame weapons can be bought as ranged weapons and all troops within the line of fire (including friendlies) are considered under attack. However, the points cost is very high.

Hope that helps?
mark

Thanks Mark,

We got confused as the Wasp and Crocodile have the flamethrower special ability - so looking that up on p77 gives CA 8. We completely missed the flamethrower bit on p37, which gives the ranged stats. It becomes clearer if the flamethrower special is a man-pack, with the 8 CA, but the vehicle flame weapons have their 12/10 firing stat line. I think maybe worth putting into any future rules clarifications and adding something to the effect that man pack flamethrowers can be used by the British - also that the German assault pioneers include flamethrowers.

Ian S's distinction of the fact they were assigned to pioneers and not engineers is, IMHO a bit misleading, as in my book pioneers are more engineers than infantry, so I would have represented them in a TO&E as engineers anyway, with one available per battalion. Full on RE engineer stands I'd allocate on a per company basis as a task oriented group where a big assault was planned.

Just to add though, we thoroughly enjoyed playing the new rules and thought the "specials" that we used, such as unreliable and exposed made the game a lot more rewarding and added an extra WW2 feel to the game, so well done on pulling everything together. The clarifications on terrain worked really well - we just need to make our terrain sufficiently distinctive that we can recognise the different classes at a glance. So a big thanks for all the hard work that went into getting them ready - and to Pendraken for making the commitment to making this happen - nice one!

Many thanks ... I was conscious that it was possible that the "specials" might be a potential distraction from the core game, so I am pleased to hear they 'added' rather than got in the way

Point I was trying to make is that the RE DON'T HAVE ANY !

They were not assault troops, even clearing mine fields was an initial infantry responsibility, the engineers came in later to do the heavy lifting later on. There are exceptions, but most of Hobarts funnies were operated by RAC units, not RE.

IanS

Not sure on your point though Ian S, are you saying that the RE wouldn't be represented in the game, only their pre-game activities? That's perfectly fine, as we're really only playing with assault pioneers/engineers, not the specialist engineers capable of building pontoon or Bailey bridges, constructing fortifications, laying wire or mines and the like - all of those tasks would take far longer than our games would last (useful to incorporate them in campaign game turns, but beyond the scope of the rules). I suspect in game terms, we'd still call them engineers, whether they represent pioneers of actual RE.

About right there.