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.

Well after a week...I think the deafening silence may just be the cogs at GW turning very slowly.

I think that I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for a few more weeks and see if anything hasn't been communicated to the public before jumping up and down.

The issue here is mostly the resounding silence, but as others have stated, it's their game, they'll do what they want...whatever

I am absolutely outraged!

Outraged!

30 something posts and I still don't know what LRB6 is!

Heh. Living RuleBook v. 6. Basically the fan created Blood Bowl rulebook. The current one on the GW site is LRB5.

feth 'em. They should release it.

If GW wants to throw its toys out of the pram because another company has legally made fantasy football miniatures (none of which have anything to do with GW's game) then that's their idiotic prerogative.

You mean these nice girls?



How could they not love those girls!

I actually have them, I keep meaning to swap out the pom-poms for weapons.

Anyway ah-ha, living rule book. I figured out it was a blood bowl book but couldn't get the letter to work.

I was wrong. GW have put one more nail in their coffin:

This is taken from www.ausbowl.com.

Tom Anders aka Galak Starscraper has been forced to step down from the BBRC (Blood Bowl Rules Council) officially effective immediately.

Here is his response:

Thanks Ian and everyone.

Best guess is that I've contributed around 3000 volunteered hours to creating the LRB 5.0 and 6.0 over the last 5 years. (2000 of those were for the LRB 5.0 over 2 years and 1000 for LRB 6.0 over the last 3).

I personally typed up around 90% of the Rule part of the LRB 6.0 based on a starter document provided to me based on his re-creation of LRB 3.0 by Josh Blanchette (thanks Josh!). The entire Background I typed up. (I created around 50% of the new background ... Stephen Hutton the other half). For those that don't know why this is true ... GW lost the source documents for the Blood Bowl rulebook after LRB 2.0. That's why I've created the LRB for them since LRB 3.0 (I had the software and knowledge how to do it).

I'm disappointed to be forcibly removed from the BBRC ... but to be honest ... I'm not angry.

GW is on a legal rampage as of late ... I'm not sure what they think will be the end benefit from it but I personally feel that Blood Bowl just isn't important enough for them to worry about its fan base. Its just the bitter truth of GW's business model. What would be an flagship product for another company doesn't register for them on the importance scale. Jervis discussed this at GenCon in 2005. If you've never heard that speech ... take the time out to listen to it and you'll understand a lot more of where Blood Bowl falls on GW's business model www.midgardbb.com/Jerv...172005.mp3

Anyway ... I'll go back to topic of I'm not angry. GW has a new head of legal and she is cracking down. Part of that crackdown was directed at me and they felt I should be removed from the BBRC.

The bottom line all of you should take away is this and its very important to me that this is the take away:

LRB 6.0 is finished. My opinion is that what GW just did to me will not effect LRB 6.0 going live. Everything should still be in the works ... its just moving at huge corporation speed. So patience. Does it suck that after everything I've done that this is the parting gift from GW ... yeah ... but I didn't do this work to be appreciated by Jervis or GW ... I did this work because I felt Blood Bowl was going to be destroyed as a fun game based on the original plans for LRB 5.0 that were presented to me. I did this work for the game and the community ... and LRB 6.0 is the best damn set of rules Blood Bowl have ever had ... so my personal mission was a success as soon as LRB 6.0 is officially posted. Despite what folks have accussed me of over the years ... I didn't do this because I got some high working for GW or wanting the glory of the role ... I did it to make sure my favourite board game stayed my favourite board game. I'm excited to play in my next LRB 6.0 tournament ... I've played Slann at some events but haven't played 'Flings since LRB 4.0 (3 1/2 years) ... I'm looking forward to doing that again.

Also ... the role of the BBRC is done. As has been indicated by my signature for a year ... LRB 6.0 is it. So if there is not a planned date at all for a future LRB ... the need for a BBRC is just not there. So being officially removed from a group that was done away isn't the worst thing that could happen if it was a needed thing for LRB 6.0 to become official.

At the end of the day ... I did all this work for the game and the incredible community behind the game. Those elements are not done with me. So yesterday was a sad day for me in many ways ... but I still look forward to LRB 6.0 becoming official and that is much more important than something happening to a fan of the game over in Indiana, USA.

Thanks for the kind words guys ... since I'm typing this anyway ... I'm going to encourage everyone to NOT (I repeat NOT) start making fake LRB 6.0s. I have faith that the right thing is going to happen and if me not being part of the BBRC is what it takes for LRB 6.0 to become official ... its a small small insignificant price to pay.

Tom

If there's a message here it's don't ever do a corporation a favor. They are obliged by law to be total sociopaths and trample you to make a buck.

If you're going to spend hours on a labor of love make sure it is your own.

Here is that link properly for those interested. You won't get a more realistic view of GW's business model than that I think.

http://www.midgardbb.com/JervisRules/Jervis_Talk_08172005.mp3

man GW just keeps diggin a bigger hole for its self.....

Anung Un Rama wrote:What confuses me most about this and GW sharpshooting layers is the fact that the Blood Bowl Videogame feels a lot like advertisment for the board game. Everytime I played it I thought "man, I wish could play the original right now".

GW probably make five pounds or so off each copy of the computer game.

Every buyer they convert into a tabletop fan is going to buy the boxed set and maybe another team and some star players and cheerleaders, which is a lot more profit. The buyer may even get into WHFB too, from contact with the physical game and shop.

No more of my money ever again.

May they fall into the abyss and a more enlightened company purchase their IP.

BeefyG wrote:I was wrong. GW have put one more nail in their coffin:

This is taken from www.ausbowl.com.

Tom Anders aka Galak Starscraper has been forced to step down from the BBRC (Blood Bowl Rules Council) officially effective immediately.

...
...
...

Does he give a reason why he has been "forced to step down"? Also, who made him step down, was it done by a lawyer or as a sad but cordial chat from an executive?

Is the whole committee being dissolved? He says the LRB6 is completely finished and gives the impression that Blood Bowl is 'done' and needs no more rule changes.

Simple, remove all GW trademarks and release it. Make sure no wording is the same either (this takes care of copyright)

So its a new legal head... I think shes working for the competition in secret... The full image of GW towards its customers is on the line and for some totally shatered... I wonder how many gold coins all this mess is going to cost GW.

BTW I dont like any GW videogames ( apart old spacehulk) is this new BB game any good to begin with or just a fiasco in videogame industry?

I almost finished painting my first Warjack... probably have it done tomorrow night. I really love the IP for 40k, but have no interest in being a part of their abusive stance towards customers.

That being said, is it wrong of me morally to enjoy the Stompa my wife got me for Christmas? I mean, the mystery box which I have totally not opened and peeked at. If that box contained a GWS product, hypothetically an ork stompa, is it wrong to build and enjoy it?

yeah,

Galak Starscraper wrote:What would be an flagship product for another company doesn't register for them on the importance scale.

Ultimately this is the real problem. Maybe they should franchise out the blood bowl licence to a 3rd company.

Panic...

@Ouze Even if our sense of justice compels us to reprove GW behaviours a model is still just a model mate.
There are lots of things you can do to feed your sense of justice and still enjoy good models if you want to.

Some will boycott for a period, others get stuff second hand, others quit GW, some just not say good things about GW to their friends, fansites closed etc etc etc...

BeefyG wrote:GW has a new head of legal and she is cracking down.

Explains as many seemed to suspect. Does the company's left hand know what the right is doing? It's like GW legal is ruthlessly charging off doing whatever they like without the supervision of someone who knows something about managing the hobby. Fanbase loyalty is a big thing in hobby companies, as many have said GW have a right to protect their IP but their handling of this is abysmal.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Does the company's left hand know what the right is doing?

With GW the left hand often doesn't know that the right hand even exists. As my sig says, expecting any level of consistent behaviour from GW, even within a single division, is a fruitless effort.

wow.

Talk about PR fiascoes. It seems with the fansites and such they were cleaning things up but now with LRB6 and the guy who was writing (who originally had GW sanction to do so IINM) it that just seems like suicide. They are literally coming through with a non discriminatory clean team and wiping the world of anything that is not them 100%.

To other companies out there now is your time to pick up some new customers and maybe even think about filling in the void GW is leaving n their wake.

NAVARRO wrote:...is this new BB game any good to begin with or just a fiasco in videogame industry?

Actually, the BB game is very good- you have the option of playing real time(which is fairly chaotic and hard to follow) or turn based. With the turn based, you can play modded rules or strict board game rules. Plus, the online play options are great. Overall, a nice way to play the game.

But, on topic, it really is a shame to see this trend of GW vs fans continuing. Most modern companies have started to realize that the model of public relations has dramatically changed over the last decade. With the internet, any attack against an individual immediately becomes an attack against a community. Twenty years ago, such an offense would slip past most folks- now, the number 4 result for a Google search of "Games Workshop" is "Games Workshop declares war on best customers". Unfortunately, these kind of things are now forever intertwined with GW's legacy: 40k, BB, Space Hulk, and terrible treatment of their fanbase. I really hope they pull their heads out of their arses and make this right, because they're on a slippery slope of attacks causing loss of customers causing lower profits causing more aggressive attacks, etc until the company collapses. I love the product and must say, as rough as GW has been, imagine how bad it would be if they failed and a company like Hasbro/WoTC bought them out.

Ozymandias wrote:Heh. Living RuleBook v. 6. Basically the fan created Blood Bowl rulebook. The current one on the GW site is LRB5.

Wait. The official rulebooks they (used to?) publish on their own site was fan created???

NAVARRO wrote:BTW I dont like any GW videogames ( apart old spacehulk) is this new BB game any good to begin with or just a fiasco in videogame industry?

It is a very faithfull represantation of the of the boardgame. It's almost a 1:1 conversion. This however, is also its biggest flaw. Blood Bowl just isn't that much fun when you can't roll the dice yourself and not have an opponent sitting on the other end of the table.

BeefyG wrote:Here is that link properly for those interested. You won't get a more realistic view of GW's business model than that I think.

http://www.midgardbb.com/JervisRules/Jervis_Talk_08172005.mp3

I really don't want to listen to all of this. Is there on defining sentence someone could quote for me?

Kid_Kyoto wrote:If there's a message here it's don't ever do a corporation a favor. They are obliged by law to be total sociopaths and trample you to make a buck.

If you're going to spend hours on a labor of love make sure it is your own.

Damn fine sentiment, Kyoto.

LuigiX wrote: I love the product and must say, as rough as GW has been, imagine how bad it would be if they failed and a company like Hasbro/WoTC bought them out.

I have imagined from time to time how that would be. It always seemed like it would be great. M:tG didn't suffer one bit when Hasbro took over WotC, and in all honesty has probably gotten a lot better since its olden days. D&D is still just fine (some people don't like 4th ed vs. 3.5, but I'm fine with it...very fun). In fact, I've wished GW were more like WotC for about as long as I've been playing 40k... WotC has so much of a better approach to rules and rules management, playtesting, tournaments, and general consistency across the board. Granted, WH has a big hobbyist aspect to it that M:tG doesn't, but let's be honest...how many people would buy those models at those prices if they were just decorative and there were no rules or games to go with them? In the aspects that actually make the game a game, WotC has GW beat hands-down, and that didn't change at all with the Hasbro takeover.

Besides, with a company as big and long-running as Hasbro, one would imagine that they have some concept of the balance between legal, marketing, and PR.

Just saying...I don't see something like that as doom and gloom. I'd be estastic if GW took a page from that book.

Anung Un Rama wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:Heh. Living RuleBook v. 6. Basically the fan created Blood Bowl rulebook. The current one on the GW site is LRB5.

Wait. The official rulebooks they (used to?) publish on their own site was fan created???

Yes. And this has been the case for many, many years. GW have put absolutely £zero into bloodbowl for a decade or more. All the development work was done by the "Blood Bowl Rules Committee", all volunteers, all for free. Other than taking the time to zay "yes, that's OK, go ahead", and publish the thing on their website, GW have made absolutely no contribution to the game rules.

Given then that those rules have evolved out of all recognition since version 2.0 (or whatever was the last version Jervis Actually contributed any text to), it is VERY questionable as to whether GW actually have any real legal claim on the version 6.0 text. Given that it was written by volunteers who received no compensation for their contribution by GW.

In fact, were I a betting man, I'd say that the volunteer authors of the current version of LRB5.0/6.0 whatever would have a fighting chance of sueing GW for copyright infringement if they actually published the document. This being because they were unpaid, and therefore GW possibly cannot enforce any in any contract the volunteer contributors made as they gave them no quid pro quo. "In common law consideration it is a prerequisite that both parties offer some consideration before a contract can be thought of as binding." So if GW don't offer any payment or other consideration for the volunteers' work, then those volunteers can freely break the (now void) "contract" permitting GW to publish their work.

In reality I can't see it happening, but that there is even the possibility just shows how morally bankrupt GW's posturing is. Fethers!

Truly the addage "if you sup with the devil, use a long spoon" is well deserved in this case.

There are many lovely people who work within GW's walls, but many of those with the real power are pretty much just unconscionable douchebags, and corporately GW acts in ways that outside of corporate life many would see as completely amoral.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:You mean these nice girls?



How could they not love those girls!

I actually have them, I keep meaning to swap out the pom-poms for weapons.

.

But they already HAVE weapons. Um...nvm.

Osbad wrote:

Anung Un Rama wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:Heh. Living RuleBook v. 6. Basically the fan created Blood Bowl rulebook. The current one on the GW site is LRB5.

Wait. The official rulebooks they (used to?) publish on their own site was fan created???

Yes. And this has been the case for many, many years. GW have put absolutely £zero into bloodbowl for a decade or more. All the development work was done by the "Blood Bowl Rules Committee", all volunteers, all for free. Other than taking the time to zay "yes, that's OK, go ahead", and publish the thing on their website, GW have made absolutely no contribution to the game rules.

Given then that those rules have evolved out of all recognition since version 2.0 (or whatever was the last version Jervis Actually contributed any text to), it is VERY questionable as to whether GW actually have any real legal claim on the version 6.0 text. Given that it was written by volunteers who received no compensation for their contribution by GW.

In fact, were I a betting man, I'd say that the volunteer authors of the current version of LRB5.0/6.0 whatever would have a fighting chance of sueing GW for copyright infringement if they actually published the document. This being because they were unpaid, and therefore GW possibly cannot enforce any in any contract the volunteer contributors made as they gave them no quid pro quo. In reality I can't see it happening, but that there is even the possibility just shows how morally bankrupt GW's posturing is. Fethers!

Truly the addage "if you sup with the devil, use a long spoon" is well deserved in this case.

There are many lovely people who work within GW's walls, but many of those with the real power are pretty much just unconscionable douchebags, and corporately GW acts in ways that outside of corporate life many would see as completely amoral.

That's an interesting thought... GW say they have to protect their IP or lose it, am I correct? So what happems if they let a group of unpaid fans develop the rules for one of their games, and allow it to be downloaded for free. Hmmm, could mean GW maybe about to lose BB then... if someone has the nerve to stand up to them

I'm torn.

These:



Or these:




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wolfstan wrote: That's an interesting thought... GW say they have to protect their IP or lose it, am I correct? So what happems if they let a group of unpaid fans develop the rules for one of their games, and allow it to be downloaded for free. Hmmm, could mean GW maybe about to lose BB then... if someone has the nerve to stand up to them

Quite right. An enterprising lawyer could have a field day. Of course I can't see it getting that far. GW would surely be too sensible to withold LRB6.0 from the fans and risk someone getting so p*ssed off that they decided to take it to court.

On the other hand, if someone decided to reword GW's copyrighted text, they probably wouldn't have to worry about GW suing them for the bulk of it, as the BBRC actually are the copyright holders as the original authers. And because they weren't given any compensation for handing over copyright to GW, then any written agreement passing that copyright onto GW is null and void, so copyright for all those rules amendments that they worked long and hard over probably remains with them, and not GW. In other words, if the BBRC decide to self publish, there's bugger all GW can likely do about it. I suspect. Probably. Maybe.

There is a difference between the rules, any copyright that may exist in in them, and the trademark on the name Blood Bowl.

Osbad wrote:In other words, if the BBRC decide to self publish, there's bugger all GW can likely do about it. I suspect. Probably. Maybe.

I'm not sure. It's easy for us to say this online, but would you want to face a court case to sort the dispute out? Over the sake of releasing a set of rules that earn you nothing? I wouldn't unless I was absolutely sure I had a solid case. Even then it's time, money and stress for very little return. It's the same reason most websites prefer to close and companies remove miniatures from their ranges. The authors could probably prevent GW publishing the v6 rulebook, but to publish it themselves would be risky - in a court it could go either way.