Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

rigeld2 wrote:
It's true though, using the rules for measuring distances between units.

It doesn't matter for shooting though - you can only kill what's in range of the longest range weapon you're firing.

Individual models have to be in range of at least one model to get shots though.

 Trickstick wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's true though, using the rules for measuring distances between units.

It doesn't matter for shooting though - you can only kill what's in range of the longest range weapon you're firing.

Individual models have to be in range of at least one model to get shots though.

Yeah, by the anecdotal logic, adding a lascannon to a squad and putting it in front of the unit allows all the bolters behind it to shoot at that target on the other side of the board.

Ranges aren't there to be extra ink in the books.

Not quite. They still need to have a model within 24" of all the boltgunners.

 StarTrotter wrote:
Not quite. They still need to have a model within 24" of all the boltgunners.

That is true, but the logic of "this one guy's in range so the rest can shoot too" is what I'm blowing out of proportion. What can't a bit of hyperbole fix?

BladeSwinga wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
Not quite. They still need to have a model within 24" of all the boltgunners.

That is true, but the logic of "this one guy's in range so the rest can shoot too" is what I'm blowing out of proportion. What can't a bit of hyperbole fix?

Ah forgive me then! I suppose it is quite aprt for the title of the discussion eh? A bit ridiculous?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Now GW runs the risk of running into IP infringement because someone else made the model first.

That's always been the assumption of internet non-lawyers and isn't true. Unless GW wanted to directly copy CHS' model of course.

"Always been the assumption", "isn't true" there is always further to a complicated case, do not assume huge ignorance on my part just yet.
I may have to add what you said to ridiculous things I heard people say.

IF someone would want to claim an IP infringement, a good start is pointing to your product being out first then the relevant details of the infringement.
Review of the CHS ruling shows many of the considerations.

Full list of transcripts here:
http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.docket.html
373 gets into the meat of what could be presented in trial or not up to 377.
Review 403-on for the various settling or aftermath of the case.
They are up to 489 documents all leading up to now still beating out the details of the judgment/"settlement" and the gazillion amendments being proposed.

If you look at the details and reasons for their appeal of the judgment, just having some common dimensions or features like the hotly contested shoulder-pads cast doubt and they point to them as prior works before CHS put out theirs.

So we are done with this thread? It sure looks like that with a page of CHS - GW posts.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
"The new Guard codex needs allies to be competitive."

It only needs allies if you want to take up to 8 HS selections in under 2k points...
Up to 16 afterwards...


*points to the ABG list*

..and that ally is technically IG anyways.

 Selym wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
"The new Guard codex needs allies to be competitive."

It only needs allies if you want to take up to 8 HS selections in under 2k points...
Up to 16 afterwards...


*points to the ABG list*

..and that ally is technically IG anyways.

You get to use proper tank commanders too.