I own one codex--the one for the army I play. It seems that I'm always get f#@$% in games because I don't know other codices. After games I will browse a store copy of my opponent's codex and find out things that were abused (e.g. the 'Nid player that stretched synapse range). Sometimes this is my opponent cheating outright; other times it appears to have been an honest mistake. Back in the day I purchased the book for WHFB, Warhammer Armies. This attractive text had the lists and rules for EVERY WHFB army between its covers. Now in these trying times when people are scrimping and saving and living on the clippings of tin so that they can buy a $30 Big Mek with a Shokk Attack Gun who can afford to drop $400 for a library of codices? Prior to 5th edition my only experience with 40k was Rogue Trader so I suppose as I play more games and read more internet fora I'll get familiar with other army lists. It is rather frustrating.

The stats for most of the current codices' units are in the rulebook. For specific special rules and such, an honest man would ask to see their opponent's codex while a less honest man would download every codex available to torrent. Luckily I never have to ask and I enjoy calling out cheaters.

Smashotron wrote:The stats for most of the current codices' units are in the rulebook. For specific special rules and such, an honest man would ask to see their opponent's codex while a less honest man would download every codex available to torrent. Luckily I never have to ask and I enjoy calling out cheaters.

The stat-lines in the back of the rules, as you say, are not helpful when it comes to figuring out if that specific unit does indeed come with frag and krak grenades, and an extra CC weapon at base cost. I have a few set lists and I provide my opponent with a hard copy of unit stats and itemized point costs. This seems to be an alien practice unless its mandate at a tournament.

-Read the store copies when you have time.

-Borrow a friends codex and read up on armies you are unfamiliar with.

-Plan and save so you can buy codexes when they come out new -- that way in a few years you'll be up 2 date.

Or purchase the copies you use for your armies and DL the copies of everything else for the one off chance you need to look up if someone was cheating. Like oh I don't know when a certain someone is firing three blast templates from a dark reaper lord without line of sight that are all AP3. Never seen that before perhaps I'll look it up tonight when I get home to verify and in the mean time move on with the game.

I own the marine codex and the tyranid codex. Those are the two armies I have played within the last few years. I have *cough* access *cough* to every other codex whenever I'm near a computer. It's not that hard to keep up, if something seems a bit odd ask to see your opponents army list and codex. A good player will be happy to provide them.

Strimen wrote:Or purchase the copies you use for your armies and DL the copies of everything else for the one off chance you need to look up if someone was cheating. Like oh I don't know when a certain someone is firing three blast templates from a dark reaper lord without line of sight that are all AP3.

This is completely legal....and expensive!

As others have said, if it sounds odd ask to see it yourself. It's way too easy for people to only read the parts of the rules they like, even honest players.

Besides, codices come out, what? every three months? at $22 a piece that's around $7 a month fee to not get shafted and actually know the game your playing. Doesn't seem too bad to me.

If you're not sure about a rule then ask your opponent to show you the rule in their codex.

It's not like you can't find them on the internet. Not that I'd suggest anything illegal, of course.

There's no way I'm going to buy all the codexes. They go out of date too frequently.

Then you get to spend years saying "You can do WHAT?!!" instead of $7 a month. Personally I go for knowing the rules and having access to them at all times. Plus they are susually good reading and always tempt me to start a new army ( a sure sign of a good codex).

I'm just silly I guess, I buy them all. Of course, over the years I have played nearly every army out there at some time or another and never know when I'm going to want to go back to one of them.

Kilkrazy wrote:There's no way I'm going to buy all the codexes. They go out of date too frequently.

Neither am I. I bought the one I needed for my army, and then I sailed down to a lovely little bay I know and asked the buccaneers there if they had the other ones for me. And since there are 22 million people who visit the same bay, someone there had all of them for me.

If the problem is that you're being cheated, I really don't think that getting Codices is going to solve the root problem...

In addition to the excellent suggestions of asking your opponents for the rules, I'd like to point out that most of the people I've dealt with who like to "stretch" a 'dex here and there are not the most fun to play with ANYWAY. If you find somebody who's a good sport, usually they aren't going to stretch the 'dex to begin with, and be a much better person to play anyway.

Avoid and shun the cheaters.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If the problem is that you're being cheated, I really don't think that getting Codices is going to solve the root problem...

Hehe, that's a solid half of it. As the OP said, there is both malicious cheating and simple mistakes. Of course, in tight games I've seen some savvy players "forget" rules plenty of times. "Trust but verify" is a good policy. The temptation to cheat is strong, and at the end of a 2 hour game, it's not completely ridiculous that a player would bend a little bit. Is it wrong? Of course. Is it understandable? I think so. Is it preventable? Yes it is.

There is also no reason to pay full price for most codices. Ebay lots, used bookstores, old players: these are all placed to get a lot of the codices for far less than retail.

Beyond that, read through store copies, borrow from friends, and yes, ask your opponent to show you the rule whenever something doesn't feel right. You're new to the game (5th ed and Rogue trader aren't even close to the same game) and as such you should be asking for clarification of some of the obscure and fiddly rules. Stuff like Synapse, ATSKNF, Ramshackle, IG Leadership, DE Wych Weapons, Tau markerlights and Well be back/Monlith are rules that even long time gamers screw up. Take a few minutes, read them thoroughly (if you want to look like a great guy, give your opponent the money to buy a soda while you read) and then you'll get screwed less.

Just play a lot of games. The majority of players aren't cheaters, over time you'll learn all the units/rules.

How about play with opponents who know their own rules?

I agree... more games means you learn more. I often go to tournies and have to teach people the rules!! :(

example.... last opponent didn't know lictors needed to roll dangerous terrain when they come in... didn't know tank wrecks were not area terrain... and didn't know that in Dawn of war you only get 2 UNITS of troops, not 2 Troop choices... bleeeck

Frazzled:
How about play with opponents who know their own rules?

QFT

In addition, I believe an opponent not an knowing their own rules during a tourny to be the most solid support for 'soft' scoring.

Yes. Thats right. It is always morally correct to simpy steal what you don't want to pay for.

Right, that aside...

I buy them as they come out, mainly for something to read on the bog, but also because I just like having them. Same with World of Darkness. I have all the Promethean Books and all the 'generic' books thus far released. Gives me something to read, make my library look impressively geeky, and I know most things my opponent might try, or at least enough to know when things don't sound quite right.

BigToof wrote:In addition to the excellent suggestions of asking your opponents for the rules, I'd like to point out that most of the people I've dealt with who like to "stretch" a 'dex here and there are not the most fun to play with ANYWAY. If you find somebody who's a good sport, usually they aren't going to stretch the 'dex to begin with, and be a much better person to play anyway.

Avoid and shun the cheaters.

Yes. Hear hear!

Yes. Thats right. It is always morally correct to simpy steal what you don't want to pay for.

As long as you buy the codexes for the armies you actually own and play I have no issue with it what so ever. But thats just me.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Yes. Thats right. It is always morally correct to simpy steal what you don't want to pay for.

As long as you buy the codexes for the armies you actually own and play I have no issue with it what so ever. But thats just me.

That's extremely fuzzy morals at best. So you derive no enjoyment, entertainment, or other value from the 'unused' codexes?

Just don't be the guy who I played round one in a tourney last weekend who had a print out of the pirated ork codex at the table...

(his army also wasn't full painted or WYSIWYG as my dreadnaught so rudely discovered when the orks with an extremely well hidden powerklaw charged him..)

Seriously though, I don't own all the codexes, but you pick up on how things work after a couple of games. If there's something you're unfamiliar with, just ask to see their codex. An honest player won't think twice about handing it straight over, if they say "What, you don't trust me?" then.. you shouldn't!

Balance wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Yes. Thats right. It is always morally correct to simpy steal what you don't want to pay for.

As long as you buy the codexes for the armies you actually own and play I have no issue with it what so ever. But thats just me.

That's extremely fuzzy morals at best. So you derive no enjoyment, entertainment, or other value from the 'unused' codexes?

Feelings are free. Material goods and services are not. Games workshop loses nothing by my having a copy of codexes to fact check on, they didn't even put fourth effort to provide me with it. It's no different than "borrowing" one from a friend. Hell, it's better than buying old codexes on ebay instead of shiney new ones. At least I'm not circumventing the concept of paying games workshop for a product entirely. For that matter reading the new marine codex before i purchased it made games workshop 300 dollars of new model sales.

So no, its not fuzzy morals. You appear to be confusing morals and copyright law. Also as for the standard disclaimer... I don't suggest anyone download anything illicitly ever, no matter the circumstances. Even if its a means of preventing death or destruction. Doing so would be immoral.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Feelings are free. Material goods and services are not. Games workshop loses nothing by my having a copy of codexes to fact check on, they didn't even put fourth effort to provide me with it. It's no different than "borrowing" one from a friend. Hell, it's better than buying old codexes on ebay instead of shiney new ones. At least I'm not circumventing the concept of paying games workshop for a product entirely. For that matter reading the new marine codex before i purchased it made games workshop 300 dollars of new model sales.

So no, its not fuzzy morals. You appear to be confusing morals and copyright law. Also as for the standard disclaimer... I don't suggest anyone download anything illicitly ever, no matter the circumstances. Even if its a means of preventing death or destruction. Doing so would be immoral.

I'm sure you're a good guy and you live a good life, but your grasp on morality is not particularly advanced. Is downloading codices deeply immoral, so as to justify horrible punishment? No, it is not. But you are taking the ideas and work of somebody else, and using it for your own betterment. That is stealing, even if intangible. It might not hurt GW, as you point out, but it might.

I mean, obviously this is something that many people do. It's not shockingly bad, but let's not pretend that what you're doing is moral.

I'm sure you're a good guy and you live a good life, but your grasp on morality is not particularly advanced.

What a wonderful way to start a post.

Is downloading codices deeply immoral, so as to justify horrible punishment? No, it is not.

Correct!

But you are taking the ideas and work of somebody else, and using it for your own betterment.

Yes, I am.

That is stealing, even if intangible.

No, it's not.

It might not hurt GW, as you point out, but it might.

Except it won't. You know what? I'm not buying the necron codex. I'm not buying necron models. I likely never will. If I do it won't be based around whether I want to know how WWBB works. Saying an orange won't fall upwards is true. Saying it might is also true. Anything is possible, but thats just damn illogical. You can't steal something from someone if nothing is taken. Copyright law serves to protect potentials from being stolen, potential sales, experiences, etc. There is a big difference between someone that downloads a codex then prints his own book for his main army. Thats simply him circumventing having to buy a codex for his army. It's an entirely different thing for someone to do so simply so he can have a reference to prevent being cheated. That isn't the theft of a potential sale, I was not going to buy the book in any event, and the knowledge gleaned has helped keep me in the hobby.

They are the same legally. Morally they aren't even close. You equate copyright law with morality when copyright law isn't a branch of law that is governed by morality.



standard disclaimer... I don't suggest anyone download anything illicitly ever, no matter the circumstances. Even if its a means of preventing death or destruction. Doing so would be immoral.

ShumaGorath wrote:No, it's not.

How so?

Is this a case of "I wasn't going to buy it anyway, so they're not losing anything", or do you actually believe that downloading something illegaly off the internet isn't stealing.

What do you think of downloading music you haven't paid for? Television shows? Movies? Computer games?

Not acusing, just asking.

BYE

Well, if you download the Necron codex to read the rules, then yes, you have hurt GW, simply because you didn't buy the codex to read the rules. You might claim that you never would, but maybe you might some day. Or maybe you'll join a club that'll buy every codex. Or maybe your buddy will buddy will buy it, and you will borrow it.

The very fact that GW can and does charge money for the rules in the codex is proof that the rules have value. Gaining something of value at the expense of somebody else is theft.

I think as long as you refuse to acknowledge that intellectual property, and the laws governing it, are elements of morality we will be at an impasse. I could explain why IP law is still a moral matter, but I feel it would be a waste of my time.

Not acusing, just asking.

I don't believe that stealing as per the law is stealing as per morality. Both equate a majority of the time, as the majority of the time to steal you have to take something. Copying something isn't theft. You don't take something when you copy it in anything but the most ethereal and undefinable sense.

A capitalistic system of economics requires a copyright system to be in place (Though not necessarily in the form it takes in our system). Simple society which utilizes the concept of ownership requires the concept of stealing to be in place. I find one to be a moral distinction, as stealing breaks an edict on which society is founded. That being private ownership driven by the effort to produce and maintain. I find the other to be a purely economic distinction, as digital copyright laws do not serve a direct function in maintaing society, but rather questionably serve to maintain the capitalistic economic model.

It's a good economic model, but the laws holding it up are based around the drive to profit, not the drive to provide or maintain for society. Which are what morally definable laws serve to do.

I think as long as you refuse to acknowledge that intellectual property, and the laws governing it, are elements of morality we will be at an impasse. I could explain why IP law is still a moral matter, but I feel it would be a waste of my time.

Given the contents of your posts so far I feel that it would be a waste of all of our time.

Buy each codex when it comes out. Eventually you'll have them all, and plenty of time to learn them all.

Of course, GW paid me highly to make this post.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Given the contents of your posts so far I feel that it would be a waste of all of our time.

Ba-Zing!


Here's the quick rundown on why IP is a moral issue. If your time is a precious commodity, I encourage you to skip this post. IP is a result of creativity and work. When you buy a book or a CD or attend a movie you are not solely paying for the physical costs of printing, producing, or showing the product, but to compensate the person that created the work for their efforts. This is two fold: one is to protect a person's work, allowing them to profit off of their thought by controlling who can sell it. The other is based on the idea that all creative work includes an almost mystical transferrance of part of that person's mind/soul into their work. Because of this, only the author (or his agents) can sell the work. To enjoy his labor, while not paying him for the privilege is to steal his work and effort. Essentially, to download the codex is to enjoy the benefit of GW's brilliance without in any way recognizing them (notably through money). To assume that IP law is simply financial ignores the fact that much of morality is purely financial. Is it immoral to steal a rich person's iPod because you want one? Of course. Nor can something only be immoral if there is a tangible hurt. Is it immoral to break into a rich person's house to watch their TV because you don't have HBO? Of course.

ShumaGorath wrote:It's a good economic model, but the laws holding it up are based around the drive to profit, not the drive to provide or maintain for society. Which are what morally definable laws serve to do.

I actually can't (and won't) argue against that. Well stated. I conceed.

BYE

Here's the quick rundown on why IP is a moral issue...

By that argument purchasing a codex second hand from a friend or being given one as a hand me down is just as immoral. The creator benefits not at all by it. Even if the original owner purchased it normally, his legal ownership of the material and ideas contained therein do not transfer second hand.

This is why its not a moral issue. Copyrights exist to protect the concept of ownership of ideas. This in and of itself is of questionable morals, as how can someone own an idea? Isn't the free exchange of information and ideas a basic precept of civilized society? It's a set of laws predicated on the functionality of a capitalistic economic system. It's not a moral issue, and if anything it can very well be an immoral set of laws as it essentially removes the process of the spread of information from the realm of legality and mires real moral ideals in a sea of profit driven supralegality.

IP law isn't a moral matter, it is a civil LEGAL matter. [Morality is a personal system of behaviour - Legality is a system of behaviour imposed by the state.]. There is a huge semantic and legal difference between them. That's neither here nor there, and doesn't belong in this thread anyway.

Choose better opponents who don't cheat. If your opponent is getting iffy about something, ask to see his codex, and while you're reading the relevant bit, ask him how it works (interpretation differs substantially).

A lot of the "cheats" I see are people who played older versions and still play things that way - even when th rules and wording have changed an no longer means the same thing.

@Shuma

Heaven forbid we manage to have a conversation wihtout someone resorting to insults.

On Topic @Everyone

I think it's stealing to download the books. End of story. Morally wrong as well as against the law. If you want to have access to the rules then pay for them. If you feel uncomfortable simply asking to see an opponents codex to determine if he's cheating then pay for the codex to avoid the "social awkwardness(sp?)" you seem to feel.

I do say this as someone who owns every current codex and though I might not buy it the weekend it comes out I do generally buy them in the first few months. If I was broke and couldn't afford them then I'd just read it in the store or ask my opponent when they did something crazy. But I don't download lists (unless i've bought the book already and am in a different state since i've then paid for the rules) as it is stealing.

My view on it. Oh and you don't have to own them all if you don't mind asking people to prove the ridiculousness

ShumaGorath wrote:

By that argument purchasing a codex second hand from a friend or being given one as a hand me down is just as immoral.

What kills me is that the now outdated Warger book was trying to put all item special rules all in one book. Too bad with the very next codex the book was obsolete. If something like the Wargear book was available as a living online document that anyone could print off, the OPs troubles would be a bit more alleviated.

Hell, just the quick reference sheets from every codex in a small duotang would work. Would have each army special rule, the stats for each unit, and the stats for each weapon. I would pay 25 bucks for that, to sit in my figure case for when a dicey situation comes up and I can fact-check

This is a great argument, by the way guys. I've seen in on just about every forum I've ever visited over the past 10 some odd years. On any given topic, music, movies, shows, games, applications, porn, codex's etc.

Quick breakdown - Theft is obtaining something that you don't own by illegal means.

Downloading a copy of GW's product, a codex, is theft. Don't delude yourself shuma. I've heard your arguments countless times from different people.

"I wouldn't buy it anyways." - Theft

"It helps keep me interested, in the hobby." - Immoral

"how can someone own an idea?" - You're a thief, deal with it

And for the record, I most certainly download every codex I don't own, which is quite a few and I don't for one second tell myself I'm not a thief and try to justify it with very specious logic. I use specious in the same manner as I would against someone who is an amateur philosophy student, as I would expect this sort of new-age/disconnected logic from. I think the orange falling up example was a big tip off of where you're at.

@Shuma

Heaven forbid we manage to have a conversation wihtout someone resorting to insults.

I didn't really throw the first salvo this time.

It's not the simplest issue, of course. The creator benefits as above, by controlling how the ideas spread. Copyright doesn't really protect ideas, as you state below that's pretty much impossible. What copyright does protect is the expression of an idea. You can create a book filled with pictures of painted super soldiers in full power armor and not violate anybody's IP, but images of the Eavy Metal painted GW minis can and are copyrighted, because they are a concrete expression of an idea. So, the creator creates an expression of an idea, and then selects a venue for it's distribution. He gets to choose how to distribute that expression. That is what is protected, and I think that's a fine thing to protect. Second hand sales are allowed because there is still only one copy of that expression, and because it was written down and made permament, there was an understanding that after the original own no longer had use of it, he might sell it. This is, of course, why GW updates codices.

I think we are going to end up having fundamental differences in belief of what copyright serves to protect. Games workshop is not an individual. It is a public corporation, in theory its assets are in part owned by every stockholder and every worker employed within the organization. Indeed, further obfuscating the issue of creation is the fact that many of the representative artists used for modeling and artwork aren't even in games workshops employ. They are hired to produce work that is in essence sold to games workshop so that it may redistribute it under IP through product launches. As an ethereal organization which does not physically exist, games workshop is the sole proprietor of its IP. How can something that does not in essence exist (as all companies are simply organizations of individuals) own ideas?

Further obfuscating the practice is the acceptance of communal use of a product, yet the illegality of copying. Two people can easily share one codex or rulebook. It is fully legal, and is in no way frowned upon. Yet when one person photocopies the book for convenience it becomes illegal. This does not effect games workshops profit margin as they were clearly willing to share before, and as a profit driven company maintaining and profiting from said IP is games workshops only motivation. Where is the difference?

Again, not completely true, but I think I get what you're trying to say.

You do realize that morals are personal interpretations of an ethical code of behavior right? Repeatedly saying that mine are not completely true implies that you somehow have the only right set. Unless you start providing fish and bread to everyone from nothing you may want to try and admit as much.

First off, I know it's not polite but everytime somebody online writes the phrase "free exchange of information and ideas" all I hear is "I don't want to pay retail." The anti-copyright movement has some really bothersome champions that make it very difficult for it to gain traction.

Sorry if I value the ideals of good society over your sense of corporate loyalty. The free exchange of of information and ideas is a take on the idea that goods, information, and ideas, in a truly civilized society should be given and taken freely as need requires. Humans form societies to alleviate needs, the concept is the same no matter how complex or distorted the society actually becomes.

Well, the basic precept of civilized society depends on how you define civilization. Division of labor is one of the basic precepts, followed immediately by property rights. The right to own property is far more basic than any rights to exchange information. You can tell because people have always owned things, but could only speak completely freely in the last 75 years or so.

There have been a number of societies over time that have had very different opinions concerning property, several early native american cultures for example. I define civilized society by its goals, those being the alleviation of need and the providence of comfort that alleviation provides. If you define a civilized society by what it does you are making the mistake of taking the method as the intent.

Even if the exchange of ideas and information was the precept of society, and again I think I know you mean "it's a central tenent", free exchange does not mean "this does not cost money."

Actually free exchange equates directly to "give and take freely", otherwise it's not free. There are many examples of free exchange in modern society, youtube being a popular example. Oddly enough free exchange is really only possible in a utopian or digital society, as both provide means without labor.

The free exchange allows us to review GW's codices, discuss them, compare them, even discuss lists created out of them, all arguably protected. What you are advocating is not an exchange of ideas. You want to take something that GW is trying to sell without paying for it.

Which is the same thing gained by discussion, comparison, and review. I can read through my friends codex. Pour over every entry, picture, and story, and not pay a dime. I may not have a stack of paper but I will be in possession of the "Ideas" that are supposedly being protected. The only way to protect the intellectual property in the way you describe would be for me to immediately forget everything I've read upon closing the book. And even then by that point I've had time spent pleasurably pouring over the sweat of the artists and writers brow. This is no different from gaining a digital copy of the product. Ideas aren't simply "protected" because I'm not reading them off of a screen.

Copyrights would exist in a system without capitalism. Somebody would own the stuff in any market theory.

This is certainly not true, and there have been numerous civilizations throughout history which had no conception of copyright, the Aztecs for example.

Either the government would control the flow of expression, or the nobles would, or the church would. Capitalism realized that you can make a buck off of it, but that's the job of capitalism.

Sorry, but your placing western capitalistic ideals over the whole of human civilization and history. And it's simply not the case. It is of course by far part of the most successful and prevalent methodology of constructing an economic society that has ever existed. But the success of the system within which it exists has nothing to do with some strange universal requirement for it.

The argument that copyright is inherently immoral due to preventing the spread of information is a very sketchy one. That last sentence is very difficult to understand, so I'm not sure what you're saying other than that you're trying to argue that "ideas should be free" and that copyright only stands in the way of progress. That would be fine, except we have every possible piece of evidence to suggest otherwise.

Which you have yet to provide. Copyright is no more immoral then it is moral. My entire argument is that this is not a moral matter any more than having a red or blue car is a moral matter. It's simply a function of the current system of capitalist economics.

I'm afraid that your argument seems to be based on the idea that you simply don't like copyrights and feel they are wrong. That's fine, and it doesn't make you immoral. But just because something is part of a "sea of profit driven superlegality" doesn't make it more or less moral.

Actually my argument is based on the ideals of human society and a very distinct differentiation between what is a moral matter and what is a legal matter. You sir, seem to have no such distinction.

This is somehting that Chromedog seems to have missed as well. Just because something is a civil legal matter doesn't make it less moral, it simply means that there is a tangible damage that a court can hold the offending party liable for. There are civl matters that might not be moral (fines for procedural matters, some breaches of contract), but any tort action is generally against a party that is considered to have "wronged" the other.

And here is the biggest divide of them all. Legality and morality are not equal. They have never been and never will be. One is ethereal and personal, the other (arguably)concrete and public. One serves to maintain a society as it stands and the other serves to provide the foundation on which that society is built. Copyrights are a legal matter, they maintain society as is within the currently built system. They have no moral foundation and are far from universal.

ShadowDeth wrote:This is a great argument, by the way guys. I've seen in on just about every forum I've ever visited over the past 10 some odd years. On any given topic, music, movies, shows, games, applications, porn, codex's etc.

Quick breakdown - Theft is obtaining something that you don't own by illegal means.

Downloading a copy of GW's product, a codex, is theft. Don't delude yourself shuma. I've heard your arguments countless times from different people.

"I wouldn't buy it anyways." - Theft

"It helps keep me interested, in the hobby." - Immoral

"how can someone own an idea?" - You're a thief, deal with it

And for the record, I most certainly download every codex I don't own, which is quite a few and I don't for one second tell myself I'm not a thief and try to justify it with very specious logic. I use specious in the same manner as I would against someone who is an amateur philosophy student, as I would expect this sort of new-age/disconnected logic from. I think the orange falling up example was a big tip off of where you're at.

I disagree strongly, but hey. Thanks for misrepresenting everything I've been saying and calling me a cheap shill. I appreciate the fact that its taken you ten years of forum surfing to boil down your opinions on the matter into pure, unaltered, trolling. I value your input.

Oh and for the record I'm a graphic design major who took one phi class a few years ago and thought it was preppy and annoying. Sorry if my opinions on the matter have actually been explored and thought out. It must be hard for you to not have my moral outlook summed up in one sentence. I'm sure all the reading with all the words must strain you quite a bit. But hey, I should stop writing this so you can get back to putting lids on mustard jars so the rest of us may enjoy fresh vacuum sealed mustard.

OK, so you feel that companies cannot be recognised as real entities, and that an absolute concept of morality is not possible. You think you should be able to ignore laws that don't agree with your personal moral code, and no one else can tell you what that moral code should be.

These are interesting philospohical arguments.

...

Harsh.

Meh. I am going to break international copyright law. At some point where I hear a decent argument against it, I will adopt it as my stance. Until then, I am happy to call it blatant theft.

OK, so you feel that companies cannot be recognised as real entities, and that an absolute concept of morality is not possible. You think you should be able to ignore laws that don't agree with your personal moral code, and no one else can tell you what that moral code should be.

These are interesting philospohical arguments

Yeah, I kind of lucked out in that my moral stand doesn't result in dogs and firehoses being pointed at me. I'm a firm believer in that laws exist to protect people in one way or another, and the moment they cease to do so they become superfluous and need to be removed or changed.

But its better than believing its wrong and just going along with it.

Well, I'm done with this discussion. I've said my peace, and if anybody wants clarification, I'll gladly provide it, but any further posting would be counter productive.

- like, whatever.

Legality and Morality may be interconnected, but they ARE NOT the same thing. Lawyers make a cropload more money than priests to prove this.

I didn't say downloading wasn't illegal. It just is not a moral issue, for me - and I doubt it's one of the ten commandments, either. That doesn't mean I'm going to go out and do it, though.

I'm also not going to condemn anyone else for doing so, either - as hypocrisy doesn't suit me. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and all that.

chromedog wrote:
I didn't say downloading wasn't illegal. It just is not a moral issue, for me - and I doubt it's one of the ten commandments, either. That doesn't mean I'm going to go out and do it, though.

"You shall not steal"

"Stealing" implies that you take something so that nobody else can take it.

As in, he *stole* my car, depriving me of its use.

Unauthorized copying is NOT stealing.

If I make an unauthorized copy of your car, you are not deprived of its use in any way, shape or form. You still have full title and use of that car. The only difference is that I *also* have full use of an identical car.

But let's be very, very clear: copying is NOT stealing.

Ninja'd by JH. Damn.

As to the commandments, I'm not big into fantasy, so there are a few books I've not read, yon christian bible being one of them.

- whatever.

Well, even Black's law dictionary allows that stealing in popular usage is often used to describe the unlawful taking of things that can't technically be the subject of larceny.

So, we can call it "unlawful taking" if you'd prefer. You can call it unjust enrichment, illegal windfall, or even trespass on intellectual property.

I guess I don't understand the insistence that morality and legality aren't the same thing. Of course they're different: nobody would call underage drinking immoral, while envy certainly isn't against the law.

I guess it boils down to this for me:

GW write a codex. They say you can buy it for full price, but don't want anybody to make copies. People make copies, and other people take the copies. People gain benefit from the labor of GW, use their IP in away that GW disallows, and never pay for it. How is that not at least a little wrong?

To analogize: If I were to work on knocking down an abandoned house and turn it into a garden, I could allow people to use it by my rules. Let's say I charge people $20 to use the garden however they wish. If you sneak in at night and use the garden, you haven't deprived me of anything, but I think most people would say your actions are wrong.

I'm not going to say there aren't times when it's justifiable. I mean, if you live far from other players, and just want to read up on all the rules, I don't think it's a huge deal.

I also understand that this thought isn't natural. GW is a corporation, not a local artist. Copying the book doesn't cost GW anything tangible immediately. To most observers, there is no damage, so there cannot be any harm. Clearly, we won't all agree on everything, I guess I find a moral argument that is inherently self serving to be at least a bit suspect. It's hard not to notice that holding that copying is totally moral makes it easier to justify doing it. I do it, but I just don't worry too much about it.

JohnHwangDD wrote:"Stealing" implies that you take something so that nobody else can take it.

As in, he *stole* my car, depriving me of its use.

Unauthorized copying is NOT stealing.

If I make an unauthorized copy of your car, you are not deprived of its use in any way, shape or form. You still have full title and use of that car. The only difference is that I *also* have full use of an identical car.

But let's be very, very clear: copying is NOT stealing.

This post is chock full of dumb.

enough of that....

..............................................................


Anyway, whenever you pirate movies, download free music OR access books all for free on the internet without laying down some hard earned cash, what are you doing? I'll tell you.

You're robbing the creators (regardless of the percentage received by those creators thanx to the distributers and other 'middle-men') of the money that THEY DESERVE AND EARNED BY CREATING THIS PRODUCT DESIGNED FOR YOUR ENJOYMENT.

It's wrong, plain and simple.

What else do you do? Once again, I'll tell you.

You cause the price of such product to go up for those people that decide to buy product as it was meant to be obtained. Whether that price went up due to copy protections or other technologies, those prices go up. Even if by only the smallest amount, they do go up.

Copying IS stealing.
Downloading codexes without purchasing the product IS stealing.
Downloading movies without purchasing offline IS stealing.


I've downloaded codecies in the past....
and my 'working' rulebook for 5e is a photocopied version off of the internet....

...eventually, I purchase the codex.
...and when it was released, I purchased the Collectors Rulebook and a Black Reach box set.
...I buy EVERY DVD I have in my collection...well into 4 digits of movies/tv shows.

Pirating is illegal, immoral, and wrong. In all of its forms.

Noone is forcing you to support "big business", that doesnt mean that you can go off and take advantage of them in turn just because you want to play a game with toy soldiers (or watch tv). Stop deluding yourselves.

This is by far one of the stupidest debates I've ever seen here. Pirating is wrong...books/games/dvd's...it doesnt matter. If you enjoy a product that someone put effort into making for your enjoyment, and dont compensate them AT ALL when doing it for compensation was their original plan (regardless of how much of that compensation is taken by the 'middle men'), one word can be used to describe you....

THIEF.

You guys that disagree are quite plainly wrong. Dispute it all you like, you're wrong. This thread is amazing.

@ Deadshane: I think John is right in that it's not really stealing. It's really more trespass: using the property of another without their permission. Those that download are trespassers.

Polonius wrote:@ Deadshane: I think John is right in that it's not really stealing. It's really more trespass: using the property of another without their permission. Those that download are trespassers.

...a rose by any other name....

whatever, its wrong.

Polonius wrote:stealing in popular usage is often used to describe the unlawful taking of things

How is that not at least a little wrong?

To analogize: If I were to work on knocking down an abandoned house and turn it into a garden, I could allow people to use it by my rules. Let's say I charge people $20 to use the garden however they wish. If you sneak in at night and use the garden, you haven't deprived me of anything, but I think most people would say your actions are wrong.

Again, "stealing" implies *taking* a *thing*. The word "stealing" simply does not apply when you're talking about information or concepts / ideas.

What you are trying to do is say that unauthorized copying is the same as stealing.

It is NOT.

That is is a fallacy perpetuated by a host of anti-consumer, anti-public groups such as the RIAA. The very fact that you choose to say these sorts of things this way is testament to their success at framing the discussion.

In theory, copyright exists to provide some sort of balance between the rights of the creator and the rights of the public at large. Over the past few decades, corporations have perverted the balance such that the public no longer has any interest or voice in things. However, there is an equally compelling argument that facts, data, numbers and statistics cannot be copyrighted, and that any copyright only exists at the whim of the public choosing to grant it. That is, copyright is a right granted by others, rather than some sort of absolute.

Now I'm not arguing that people should copy things willy-nilly. Nor would I argue that creators lack any rights.

But I don't believe that they deserve carte blanche or absolute rights as far as many publishers seem to think they have. Particularly as many of these publishers seem to think they can trample over consumer protection and consumer rights willy-nilly. So from a moral standpoint, the more extreme the publisher, the less I am willing to honor their copyright.

Except your analogy fails because we have the concept of criminal trespass...

Here's a counter-example for you to think about:

You see an interesting building, and have your friend take a stand on the roadside and you snap a picture. If you both are on public property, using your personal camera, and storing the image on your own server, does the building owner have the right to say you can't take the picture, print it, or put it on your website?

The RIAA would say no to all of the above, unless you requsted permission and paid a picture-taking fee, and then paid royalties for each time you opened your photo album, or had someone view your web page.

Common sense would say yes, it's your picture and you can do as you please with it...


____

Deadshane1 wrote:This post is chock full of dumb.

I completely agree. Your post is chock full of dumb.

Deadshane1 wrote:Anyway, whenever you pirate movies, download free music OR access books all for free on the internet without laying down some hard earned cash, what are you doing?

In my case, I'm obtaining additional / duplicative / redundant digital copies of things that I've already paid for.

Deadshane1 wrote:Copying IS stealing.

No, it isn't. It's unauthorized *copying*.

There *is* a difference, and if you're not able to understand the fundamental difference between a physical good that can only be in the possession of a single individual, vs information that can be present anywhere, that's your problem.

Polonius wrote:When you buy a book or a CD or attend a movie you are not solely paying for the physical costs of printing, producing, or showing the product, but to compensate the person that created the work for their efforts.

That is a good point.

Except, in nearly every case, everybody involved in creating the work was paid scale for their efforts in creation.

That is, the overwhelming majority of people related to the creation of things gain absolutely no residuals whether one, many, or NO copies are sold.

And what's even more amusing is when you track the money trail of the RIAA, MPAA, or other anti-consumer organizations.

NONE of the money that is supposedly collected on behalf of the artists / creators is ever disbursed to any of the artists / collectors.

So you'll have to excuse me when I don't feel a particular moral obligation towards any of the "creators".
____

Oh, yeah, in the interest of disclosure, my MP3s are ripped from my CDs, per the RIAA's stated permission to do so (they've since taken that off their website); I don't RS / BT; and I don't copy movies or software. I do, however, unprotect any software I buy, just as I rip any CD I buy. I pay once, and once only.

Also, I basically don't consume media anymore. I've stopped buying CDs, DVDs, books, etc. until a saner, more consumer-oriented balance of rights is agreed upon. I'm just one voice, and one non-consumer. Perhaps if more people took a similar stand, the balance would shift back.

personally i have bought 4 codexes and wish to buy them all, they are great for a read, plus you leanr how to "kill da otha gits" lol

"If you know the enemy and know your self you need not fear the results of a thousand battles
If you know your self and not the enemy for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat
If you know neither the enemy or your self you will succumb in every battle"
Sun Tzu


//Edge

To actually say something on-topic, I'm not really interested it what my opponent's armylist says. I'm not going to nitpick it, nor am I concerned with whether or not his math is correct. That's my courtesy to them, that I trust them enough not to be giant twerps. Occasionally it backfires. Some twit hoodwinked me with T6 Raveners last week, and so on.

To that end, I only ever need one book to field my army (well, three, since I use Witch hunter ISTs and Daemonhosts every now and then, but anyway).

Strategy-wise, I really don't need to know exactly what the rules for a given enemy unit are, only their generic battlefield role. Of course, I'm not playing to win (because making a competitive IG list would involve me sacrificing everything I like about the army in the first place).

Double post.

Matt Varnish wrote:What kills me is that the now outdated Warger book was trying to put all item special rules all in one book. Too bad with the very next codex the book was obsolete.

People who bought that book go alongside the same people who bought the two (LOL!) GW interactive army list programs thinking that they'd actually keep them updated. In the modern parlance, these people are known as 'rubes'.

BYE

chromedog wrote:As to the commandments, I'm not big into fantasy, so there are a few books I've not read, yon christian bible being one of them.

Let's not go down this road, ey?

BYE

JohnHwangDD wrote:I completely agree. Your post is chock full of dumb.

Hey Deadshane - don't quote me 'cause I don't want him to see this - but thanks for starting him up. Without you we wouldn't've got that wonderful example of 3rd grade rebuttal. I 'spose his encore will be 'I know you are, I said you are but what am I?'. Excellent work there.

BYE

Yes. Thats right. It is always morally correct to simpy steal what you don't want to pay for.


Is downloading codices deeply immoral, so as to justify horrible punishment? No, it is not. But you are taking the ideas and work of somebody else, and using it for your own betterment. That is stealing, even if intangible. It might not hurt GW, as you point out, but it might.

To be fair, copyright infringement via piracy through downloads is *not* theft. Theft physically removes property from the original owner, piracy makes a copy of the original item, leaving the owner no worse off than they were before (they still have their property), merely potentially not as well off as they would have been had you purchased the item (assuming you would actually have spent money on it in the first place, not a solid assumption at all in most cases). While it's not as morally upstanding as honestly buying a copy and contributing to those who helped create the product for you, its not theft either, and its disingenuous to label it as such.

sorry, that's just a pet peeve with me. There's a difference between *theft* and *infringement*. One is like sneaking around on your neighbors back yard at night to use their pool with your girlfriend, the other is like going back there to steal pool equipment. Trespass is what we call the first (Infringement) while the other is theft (and trespass). You'll notice that Trespass in treated as a far lesser crime for a reason.



That said, back to the OP's question, its really easy to get the books cheap if you really want them. You can get them online at discounts, off Ebay, etc. I have never paid full retail price for any hardcopy codex I own, even the new ones.

Stealing codices from the internet is a victimless crime.

Mod In:

We are getting off the topic here.

Copyright is a contentious issue. Thank you for keeping the argument fairly civil so far, however it's best we drop it and return to the subject in hand.

If people want to talk about copyright and IP issues the Off Topic forum is probably the best place to do it.

Mod Out:

Do any users have experiences where they feel they lost a game because of lack of knowledge of an enemy army's codex?

Not games where the other guy cheated, but games where the other guy's army had some unexpected special rule which made a big difference to the result.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Again, "stealing" implies *taking* a *thing*. The word "stealing" simply does not apply when you're talking about information or concepts / ideas.

What you are trying to do is say that unauthorized copying is the same as stealing.

It is NOT.

That is is a fallacy perpetuated by a host of anti-consumer, anti-public groups such as the RIAA. The very fact that you choose to say these sorts of things this way is testament to their success at framing the discussion.

In theory, copyright exists to provide some sort of balance between the rights of the creator and the rights of the public at large. Over the past few decades, corporations have perverted the balance such that the public no longer has any interest or voice in things. However, there is an equally compelling argument that facts, data, numbers and statistics cannot be copyrighted, and that any copyright only exists at the whim of the public choosing to grant it. That is, copyright is a right granted by others, rather than some sort of absolute.

Now I'm not arguing that people should copy things willy-nilly. Nor would I argue that creators lack any rights.

But I don't believe that they deserve carte blanche or absolute rights as far as many publishers seem to think they have. Particularly as many of these publishers seem to think they can trample over consumer protection and consumer rights willy-nilly. So from a moral standpoint, the more extreme the publisher, the less I am willing to honor their copyright.

Except your analogy fails because we have the concept of criminal trespass...

Here's a counter-example for you to think about:

You see an interesting building, and have your friend take a stand on the roadside and you snap a picture. If you both are on public property, using your personal camera, and storing the image on your own server, does the building owner have the right to say you can't take the picture, print it, or put it on your website?

The RIAA would say no to all of the above, unless you requsted permission and paid a picture-taking fee, and then paid royalties for each time you opened your photo album, or had someone view your web page.

Common sense would say yes, it's your picture and you can do as you please with it...

This sounds curiously like the explanations of the inmates I supervise in the jail on a day to day basis talking about why they're wrongfully locked up.

"Technically, I didnt steal the money, my friend I was with stole it and he gave me some. I should'nt be locked up for stealing."

Do something obviously wrong, word-play it, and expect that to be a defence. Nice try, 'A' for effort.

....by the way, Criminal Trespass doesnt have anything to do with what we're talking about. Criminal trespass is an entirely different offense.

In my case, I'm obtaining additional / duplicative / redundant digital copies of things that I've already paid for.

Obviously, we're not talking about backing up previously purchased material here. We're talking about obtaining information W/O having to pay 100's of dollars for it, specifically, codexes that you dont plan on building armies for. Please stay on subject.

No, it isn't. It's unauthorized *copying*.

Right, and I know prolly like 30 or so inmates that are in jail for "borrowing" stuff. Guess what, they're still in jail, just like as if they "stole" it, but we all know they werent so "bad" as to go "steal" something dont we?

There *is* a difference, and if you're not able to understand the fundamental difference between a physical good that can only be in the possession of a single individual, vs information that can be present anywhere, that's your problem.

At least I dont have a problem with what is fundamentaly right/wrong. We dont appear to be able to say the same for you.

Sorry Kill, I was posting while you were modding....

On subject....I actually DO happen to pick up every codex. I'm currently running two tournement ready armies with two more in the wings for 40k.

I find that owning the codexes and having them close at hand at all times makes me familiar with all armies' capabilities to some extent and I have few times that an armies special rules actually "surprise" me.

It's all about knowing your enemy.

On topic again, I tend to buy most of the Codices. Sure, I downloaded the new Marine Codex - twice in fact, the original 'PDF of photos' version and then the latter scanned version - but I then went and bought the Codex anyway.

I've kept the PDF version though as it's nice having something I can quickly zoom through when I don't have the book handy - same reason I download most of the Codices I own.

Hell I even bought that travesty they're calling a 'Chaos' Codex at the moment. Granted, I didn't set out to buy it, it came in the army box with a big warning sticker that said "Contains Chaos Codex - keep out of reach of small children and people with an IQ greater than 60".

I'd burn it but I'm a hoarder...

BYE

The kind of thing I have in mind is Lash of Submission or some of the more esoteric Eldar magic powers. They are non-obvious and would come as a surprise to a player who was not aware of them.

That said, I suppose Tau Markerlights might be as surprising to an Ork player.

Uhh... Killkrazy? Have you got multiple windows open or something, 'cause I don't we were meant to see that.

BYE

Kilkrazy wrote:

Do any users have experiences where they feel they lost a game because of lack of knowledge of an enemy army's codex?.

Absolutely! Against a 'Nid player I did not know that the synpase creatures or psilsomes or whatever-the-f@#% they were could squad deploy. So when snikrot arrived I savaged one of these things thinking I was getting KPs for a HQ---doh! This was my 4th game in 5th edition and it was at a tournament so I was just asking for trouble I suppose.

Never lost a game due to not knowing the rules to be honest. However, mainly playing Fantasy, you soon learn to spot the 'too good to be true' charges. 9 times out of 10 it's not your opponent being a spazz, but some horrific ability about to cave in your centre!

Polonius wrote:
Here's the quick rundown on why IP is a moral issue. If your time is a precious commodity, I encourage you to skip this post. IP is a result of creativity and work. When you buy a book or a CD or attend a movie you are not solely paying for the physical costs of printing, producing, or showing the product, but to compensate the person that created the work for their efforts. This is two fold: one is to protect a person's work, allowing them to profit off of their thought by controlling who can sell it. The other is based on the idea that all creative work includes an almost mystical transferrance of part of that person's mind/soul into their work. Because of this, only the author (or his agents) can sell the work. To enjoy his labor, while not paying him for the privilege is to steal his work and effort. Essentially, to download the codex is to enjoy the benefit of GW's brilliance without in any way recognizing them (notably through money). To assume that IP law is simply financial ignores the fact that much of morality is purely financial. Is it immoral to steal a rich person's iPod because you want one? Of course. Nor can something only be immoral if there is a tangible hurt. Is it immoral to break into a rich person's house to watch their TV because you don't have HBO? Of course.

Well said!

I won't argue that there are parts of the IP system that are dated and/or broken. This varies by country, of course, but most were written before it was easy to distribute things electronically.

It would be nice if GW did a PDF containing bare-bones stats, rules, and errata that was updated but I fear that it wouldn't do well if they did, as their record for stickign with long-term ideas is dismal. I'd probably be willing to pay $10/year for such a thing if I was playing 40k regularly.

Another option for those who have a large group of friends who all play would be to start a club (although a club is, I'd guess, a nonexistent ephemeral organization much like a corporation, so that option may be out) and keep a library of Codexes and other books for group use.

To those who habitually download copies of Codecies and Armybooks they don't already own, or intend to, may I ask what makes you so special that you feel you are entitled to something for nothing?

After all, most people tend to pay for something they wish to read (unless it's a free paper) and if the asking price is not to their liking, they will go without. Same goes for pretty much everything in life. Want it, but don't like the price? Shop around for a bargain, or leave it. Don't just take it.

I take it you've never borrowed a book or asked someone to scan/xerox pages of a book for your use?

Unless someone's bringing their laptop to the table and looking up the rules there, electronic versions are used for leisurely reading (like borrowing a book) or for specific rules pages (the scan/xerox). If it's anything like the videogame market at all, I seem to recall from somewhere that industry giants acknowledge that people who downloaded pirated games were most likely never intending to purchase the game in the first place - either renting it or borrowing from a friend if not from an online source.

Let's keep the question to "How do you learn to deal with your lack of knowledge?"

For me, I take the rules interpretations at face value for the sake of the game at hand. I don't
play in very many tournaments, so I often don't have to deal with someone cheating to gain
a competitive advantage. Based on my opponent, I decide whether or not to base my knowledge
of the army off of what he said during the game.

A good experience with a veteran will make me the most likely to take their word and incorporate
the knowledge. If it's a bad player, or one known to fudge the rules, then I make sure to call him
out on bum rules explanations (especially if I learned better from the knowledgeable veteran), or
I at least learn how to argue the rule on my own for another time.

Since my knowledge base is very person to person, I get hosed routinely since I don't play
enough games of any system to get a solid foundation, but I don't sweat it. I know that if I
wanted to up my game I'd just have to play more games, read more material.

Post more on Dakka.

The usual.

Deadshane1 wrote:
....by the way, Criminal Trespass doesnt have anything to do with what we're talking about. Criminal trespass is an entirely different offense.

I believe that was the point, to differentiate theft (which piracy is not) from trespass (which piracy *is*). Walking into a store and taking a codex without paying is theft, downloading one is not, as there is no loss of property, there is instead a breach in the right to use said property, hence trespass.

Not trying to argue the morality, just trying to clear up the difference between theft and infringement, two very different property related crimes.

@KK: I just need to make a couple quick points and I'm done.

Deadshane1 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Again, "stealing" implies *taking* a *thing*. The word "stealing" simply does not apply when you're talking about information or concepts / ideas.

In my case, I'm obtaining additional / duplicative / redundant digital copies of things that I've already paid for.

Obviously, we're not talking about backing up previously purchased material here.

Maybe you're not, but I am, so I think you can stop calling me a "thief". Just because you deal with convicted criminals on a day-to-day basis, that doesn't mean everyone is a criminal.

At least I dont have a problem with what is fundamentaly right/wrong.

Interesting rebuttal, because the fact the debate exists and continues means that there is clear disagreement on what is actually right / wrong. Therefore, to present this as "fundamental" grossly overstates the issue. Particularly in light of massive continued IP infringement of all types internationally.

If this is so obviously wrong and immoral, and actually morally equivalent to actual theft, and that is indicative of the actual moral compass of an IP infringer, then necessarily you'd have to conclude that college campuses would be overrife with shoplifting, trespass, burglarly, etc.. But that just isn't the case. People distinguish clearly between actual theft of physical goods, trespass of physical spaces, burglary of physical property.

We dont appear to be able to say the same for you.

At least I don't need to take ad hominem shots at you to make my case. All I saw in your post was a mix of ad hominem shots and talk about convicted criminals, that had nothing to do with anything.

Next time, argue better.

Kilkrazy wrote:Do any users have experiences where they feel they lost a game because of lack of knowledge of an enemy army's codex?

Not games where the other guy cheated, but games where the other guy's army had some unexpected special rule which made a big difference to the result.

I've been surprised and not liked it. But I can't recall those surprises actually changing a game result in a huge way, at least, not in 40k. 40k tends to carry momentum like a steamroller, so those surprises generally mean that you win more or lose less.

It's not like, say, Magic, in which you can fundamentally change the flow of game with a single card.

Modquisition on:
Its been requested that we give this thread a temporary break as its gone off the handle into a morality tales vs. legal, which will send it to the OT.

Will re-open after a short break. If there is an issue with this request, please PM Yakface or the Mods and we'll move it to OT.

Modquisition off.

HI all.
I will adress the OP question.
Most of the other game systems we play, have ALL the army lists-force composition lists in the back of the rule books.
(Usualy between 12 and 40 odd army lists too!)
And they tend to be better balanced than 40k because ALL the armies are extensivley playtested against each other.

But 40k is a marketing devise first and formost.
So they sell codexes to pimp the latest minature releseases , and the GW game devs do their best with limited time and resources.

Are the Codexes fully functional and error free , when you pay FULL price for them?
Or are they full of ambiguios rules ,and typoes?
I own the codexes for my armies.(Purchased from my FLGS).

If someone thinks they have to resort to cheating to win a game of 40k, I pity them, its just SO sad!
Who takes a 'fun dice rolling game for ages 12 and up', that seriously ?

Not me matey!

TTFN
Lanrak.

Lanrak: what other games systems do you play?

Hi Malfred.
Non GW games I play regularly.

Fantasy.
Armies of Arcana,(Thane Games.)
(They are currently developing a scifi version of AoA, Xenocide , I think its called.)

Sci fi.
Dirt side II, Stargrunt II,Full Thrust (Ground Zero Games.)


Historicals.
Bodycount, Firefly , To the sound of the guns/Shako (Tabletop Games.)

GW games , (Epic , Blood Bowl, Dark future,Space Hulk, Necromundia,Mordhiem , 40k, WH.)

My FLGS group have been playing together for 20 years now,(Most saturdays!) and we have tried out lots of games.
(The club members have has over 40 different rule sets between us!Of the GW rule sets , the old boxed games and the SGs tend to be played more than WH or 40k.But that could just be us ! )

GW are in the buisness of selling minatures.
Its just a shame they prefer short term commercialism over , longterm quality development of product, and gamer support .IMO.
(Gamers buy most minatures. )

GW make up 100% of the GW hobby.But only about 20% of the wargaming hobby!

GW dont do anything much to inspire loyalty.IMO.I advise look around and see what else is available! (Free rules and MUCH cheaper minis...)

Happy Gaming
Lanrak.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Yes. Thats right. It is always morally correct to simpy steal what you don't want to pay for.

As long as you buy the codexes for the armies you actually own and play I have no issue with it what so ever. But thats just me.

As long as you pay for the gas in the cars you onw, it's still ok to steal it to use in the lawnmower right? You only see it for 3 months out of the year.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Matt Varnish wrote:What kills me is that the now outdated Warger book was trying to put all item special rules all in one book. Too bad with the very next codex the book was obsolete.

People who bought that book go alongside the same people who bought the two (LOL!) GW interactive army list programs thinking that they'd actually keep them updated. In the modern parlance, these people are known as 'rubes'.

BYE

Damn, I'm a rube on 3 accounts then.. And I keep going back to the website, expecting to see a 5th edition update and nothing so far.. I still put teeth under my pillows too.. I'm still pissed at myself for thinking that Gw would actually support it's own Army List..

two_heads_talking wrote:
As long as you pay for the gas in the cars you onw, it's still ok to steal it to use in the lawnmower right? You only see it for 3 months out of the year.

I don't think I could come up with a worse analogy than that if I tried. Viewing an electronic document does not consume any amount of finite resource like gasoline. That's not to legally (or morally) justify it, but if you're going to climb up on your high horse and attack someone's position at least put some thought into it.

The IAL thing was not GW's finest hour. From what I heard it was a pretty decent program if you only needed one of the two sides. I can't believe that GW can't just farm the updates out to a fan group like Wolfslair does.

The Wargear book was poorly executed, but never really tried to be anything it wasn't.

Danny Internets wrote:

two_heads_talking wrote:
As long as you pay for the gas in the cars you onw, it's still ok to steal it to use in the lawnmower right? You only see it for 3 months out of the year.

I don't think I could come up with a worse analogy than that if I tried. Viewing an electronic document does not consume any amount of finite resource like gasoline. That's not to legally (or morally) justify it, but if you're going to climb up on your high horse and attack someone's position at least put some thought into it.

I used the dumbest analogy I could.. did it work? did it get a rise out of you? then it worked.. someone who gets that excited about an analogy needs some fresh air..

Polonius wrote:The IAL thing was not GW's finest hour. From what I heard it was a pretty decent program if you only needed one of the two sides. I can't believe that GW can't just farm the updates out to a fan group like Wolfslair does.

The Wargear book was poorly executed, but never really tried to be anything it wasn't.

From what I heard, only one guy was updating the IAL.. I just can't figure out why they started the IAl and then kinda forgot about it.. did they just want to sell the first distribution? Was it that bad, if so, when why not make it better?

two_heads_talking wrote:

Polonius wrote:The IAL thing was not GW's finest hour. From what I heard it was a pretty decent program if you only needed one of the two sides. I can't believe that GW can't just farm the updates out to a fan group like Wolfslair does.

The Wargear book was poorly executed, but never really tried to be anything it wasn't.

From what I heard, only one guy was updating the IAL.. I just can't figure out why they started the IAl and then kinda forgot about it.. did they just want to sell the first distribution? Was it that bad, if so, when why not make it better?

Here you answered it yourself.

want to sell the first distribution

olympia wrote:I own one codex--the one for the army I play. It seems that I'm always get f#@$% in games because I don't know other codices. After games I will browse a store copy of my opponent's codex and find out things that were abused (e.g. the 'Nid player that stretched synapse range). Sometimes this is my opponent cheating outright; other times it appears to have been an honest mistake. Back in the day I purchased the book for WHFB, Warhammer Armies. This attractive text had the lists and rules for EVERY WHFB army between its covers. Now in these trying times when people are scrimping and saving and living on the clippings of tin so that they can buy a $30 Big Mek with a Shokk Attack Gun who can afford to drop $400 for a library of codices? Prior to 5th edition my only experience with 40k was Rogue Trader so I suppose as I play more games and read more internet fora I'll get familiar with other army lists. It is rather frustrating.

I own every codex and have a hard copy of all FAQs. This is a must for tournament play... otherwise bend over the table and hold on tight.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:

olympia wrote:I own one codex--the one for the army I play. It seems that I'm always get f#@$% in games because I don't know other codices. After games I will browse a store copy of my opponent's codex and find out things that were abused (e.g. the 'Nid player that stretched synapse range). Sometimes this is my opponent cheating outright; other times it appears to have been an honest mistake. Back in the day I purchased the book for WHFB, Warhammer Armies. This attractive text had the lists and rules for EVERY WHFB army between its covers. Now in these trying times when people are scrimping and saving and living on the clippings of tin so that they can buy a $30 Big Mek with a Shokk Attack Gun who can afford to drop $400 for a library of codices? Prior to 5th edition my only experience with 40k was Rogue Trader so I suppose as I play more games and read more internet fora I'll get familiar with other army lists. It is rather frustrating.

I own every codex and have a hard copy of all FAQs. This is a must for tournament play... otherwise bend over the table and hold on tight.

G

Indeed. Although I would say that by spending the lettuce on all those codices you've already been bent over by GW.
edit: I do not download codices. However, I do not buy them either. I just wander about it ignorance of all the special rules and let my opponents take advantage of me. When is comes to codices GW can itself.

If you just play for fun then it's no big deal really. However if you find yourself to be a competitive player then all it takes is one bent rule to ruin your day unfortunately.

G

Between buying them when they came out and grabbing used copies for cheap i've collected them all. I've been playing for about 5 years, and almost all the books have cycled by now.

OP asked for advice and he got it, I'm sure he'll make his own decision.
Its obvious we all share different opinions on this and its also obvious that were not going to change them much.
So whats the point in all this arguing over the name your going to give to ''reading rules of a game for free when they are supposed to cost money''
The bottom line is this.
The people who d/l the rules for free aren't going to stop.
The people who disagree with d/ling rules for free cant do anything to stop them. (and wont in many cases)
I have an opinion on this but guess what...I'll keep it to myself since its not going to make a difference to ANYTHING.

Well, there's the argument that moral truths are universal, and thus discussion can be useful in determining them. Even if morality is simply a community standard, then finding out what the community thinks is even more useful.

But I think I agree with your larger point, however it's probably safe to say that any thread that goes beyond a page or two has probably "drifted" away from it's original topic.

Remember that the 4th edition Chaos codex had at least three revisions... for instance they kept switching back and forth on the wording regarding Doom Siren or whatever it was that let you always strike 1st... I have all four of them.

G

Morality differs from person to person. Unfortunately morale truths are not universal. Don't believe me? Well some people are real bad.... some are real good and then there is the whole spectrum of people who run between the two.
My point is this 'discussion' is mainly sided by people who have clearly made up their mind,
The replies have ceased to fall under the heading of ''impartial advice''
Which in my opinion, is the only way to answer a question helpfully.
D

FIGHT_0R_FLIGHT wrote:Morality differs from person to person. Unfortunately morale truths are not universal. Don't believe me? Well some people are real bad.... some are real good and then there is the whole spectrum of people who run between the two.
My point is this 'discussion' is mainly sided by people who have clearly made up their mind,
The replies have ceased to fall under the heading of ''impartial advice''
Which in my opinion, is the only way to answer a question helpfully.
D

Hehe, well, I'm going to let this one go, there's no sense in getting in a ideological spitwad fight over this.

However, I think it's at least somewhat amusing that you can casually dismiss the possibility of universal moral truths while claiming that the only helpful way to answer a question is with "impartial advice." I understand that impartiality is not completely the same as objectivity, but you come dangerously close to suggesting that there are some norms outside of morality. I think you meant that the advice is no longer meant to help, but instead are advocating a position, but you could have made it clearer.

Well I can't equate morality with opinions on how to answer a question posted about war gaming.
His question was not ''is it morale to take codex's off the internet''
Morality differs from person to person.
Answering a simple question helpfully about something not entirely important in the scheme of things should be common sense.
I think hes got all the help he needed + some.

There is an old fable...
"a poor man was traveling and stoped to eat his bread next to a cook. The poor man would inhale the smell of the roasting chicken while eating his stale bread. The cook came up to him and demanded payment for his smelling the chicken. The local judge asked the poor man if he had a coin. The poor man relucantly held it out. "Drop it on the ground." The coin rang as it struck the road. "Pick up the coin, your debt has been paid." The cook was upset and asked the judge, "How is it that his debt is paid?!" The judge replied, " You charged him for the smell of your food, and he paid you with the sound of his coin."

Think about it...

FIGHT_0R_FLIGHT wrote:Well I can't equate morality with opinions on how to answer a question posted about war gaming.
His question was not ''is it morale to take codex's off the internet''
Morality differs from person to person.
Answering a simple question helpfully about something not entirely important in the scheme of things should be common sense.
I think hes got all the help he needed + some.

So, there can be no universal moral truths, but there is common sense?

Interesting.

OK
final words I promise.
Morality is a complex issue as shown by the plethora of responses and lines of argument.
Answering a question about something as silly as ''should I buy more codex'' is not. Morality doesn't even come into it for me.
This is all I am saying.

FIGHT_0R_FLIGHT wrote:OK
final words I promise.
Morality is a complex issue as shown by the plethora of responses and lines of argument.
Answering a question about something as silly as ''should I buy more codex'' is not. Morality doesn't even come into it for me.
This is all I am saying.

No, I see what you are saying. Answering the OPs question should be simple, because we know how to answer questions. We should answer questions in a way that is helpful, doesn't cause strife with other posters, and furthers the discussion. It's good to have, I don't know, some sort of code of conduct in times like this. A compilation of generally agreed mores, or certain rules that we can agree should be upheld by the community. Some way of knowing how to behave, and what is right and what is wrong. Almost like, i dunno, a moral code to live by....

Well it should be easy to answer OP's question ....but of course that is just my opinion on the matter. Which differs from many here who decided to get into a moral debate instead of giving him the info. So there is no unified moral/commonsense theory on these forums as there is not universally. Some people are different some aren't........duh
Equating common sense to morality is only relevant in one way....they are both governed by you..the interpreter. Commonsense to me concerns intellect and morality concerns emotion. One is a much deeper topic and is subject to far greater scrutiny from others.
I'm just saying give him the info and let him decide....there is nothing left to discuss ITT after that.
Why are we still typing?

FIGHT_0R_FLIGHT wrote:Well it should be easy to answer OP's question ....but of course that is just my opinion on the matter. Which differs from many here who decided to get into a moral debate instead of giving him the info. So there is no unified moral/commonsense theory on these forums as there is not universally. Some people are different some aren't........duh
Equating common sense to morality is only relevant in one way....they are both governed by you..the interpreter. Commonsense to me concerns intellect and morality concerns emotion. One is a much deeper topic and is subject to far greater scrutiny from others.
I'm just saying give him the info and let him decide....there is nothing left to discuss ITT after that.
Why are we still typing?

You've just been explaining some things to me. Things like:
1) there is no unified moral/commonsense theory on these forums
2) Everybody's moral code is different and highly personal
3) You think that there is a proper way in which to behave that you think I should follow as well.

Polonius wrote:

FIGHT_0R_FLIGHT wrote:OK
final words I promise.
Morality is a complex issue as shown by the plethora of responses and lines of argument.
Answering a question about something as silly as ''should I buy more codex'' is not. Morality doesn't even come into it for me.
This is all I am saying.

No, I see what you are saying. Answering the OPs question should be simple, because we know how to answer questions. We should answer questions in a way that is helpful, doesn't cause strife with other posters, and furthers the discussion. It's good to have, I don't know, some sort of code of conduct in times like this. A compilation of generally agreed mores, or certain rules that we can agree should be upheld by the community. Some way of knowing how to behave, and what is right and what is wrong. Almost like, i dunno, a moral code to live by....

Simple answer to OP question: YES!

To stay competative you must know the rules diffrent armies use, you cant in the middle of a match ask to see the opponents codex and read it from start to finish. You also need to know how each army works, weaknesses and strengths and the best ways for your army to handle them.

You don't NEED to OWN all of the codices.
You do however, need access to them if you want to know your enemies more thoroughly. This doesn't mean that you have to DL them (although some countries are less stringent on making you buy the dead-tree version, having them available for free DL).

I am in a games club. We share our codices around if clubmates wish to read them. My armylists are all in .xls format on my computer (I'm talking the entire contents of my armies as WYSIWYG) so I don't need the codex to compile a roster, but I also own Army Builder.

We run an annual tourney. We have three refs on hand during the tourney, and each of us needs to know how ALL the armies work. Amongst us, we have all of the codices covered.

chromedog wrote:You don't NEED to OWN all of the codices.
You do however, need access to them if you want to know your enemies more thoroughly. This doesn't mean that you have to DL them (although some countries are less stringent on making you buy the dead-tree version, having them available for free DL).

I am in a games club. We share our codices around if clubmates wish to read them. My armylists are all in .xls format on my computer (I'm talking the entire contents of my armies as WYSIWYG) so I don't need the codex to compile a roster, but I also own Army Builder.

We run an annual tourney. We have three refs on hand during the tourney, and each of us needs to know how ALL the armies work. Amongst us, we have all of the codices covered.

I think Chrome Dog sums it up nicely.

one quick comment on this statement and then back to your regularly scheduled programming...

JohnHwangDD wrote:
You see an interesting building, and have your friend take a stand on the roadside and you snap a picture. If you both are on public property, using your personal camera, and storing the image on your own server, does the building owner have the right to say you can't take the picture, print it, or put it on your website?

You can take the picture, put it on your computer, distribute to your friends, and have it on your website all you want (as long as you aren't generating income from ads/traffic on your site). If you are selling the picture for money in any fashion, yes, they do have a right to a percentage of the income if they wish to contest it. Politcal figures are exempt from this as are many public figures (ie, you can publish pics of public people (political leaders, movie stars, ect) without their consent and without paying them). It's a fuzzy line on a lot of things and mostly depends on how much people/buisinesses look out for themselves.

Kilkrazy wrote:Do any users have experiences where they feel they lost a game because of lack of knowledge of an enemy army's codex?

Not games where the other guy cheated, but games where the other guy's army had some unexpected special rule which made a big difference to the result.

Ard boyz semi's - I won the game, but I did get dicked on the changeling rule. I even knew better considering I had just played a demon army the week before. It made a huge difference in the first couple rounds and instead of a minot victory I would have gotten a major victory instead. But since I had gotten a draw out of the first 2 games I knew I wasn't in the running for 1,2, or 3rd anyway so I didn't make a big deal about it. He claimed that the changeling affected every unit nearby instead of just one.

First game of the semi's the csm player insisted that his force weapon insta-killed multiple models with no inv save allowed at all. I contested that one and showed him the rulebook which said what the actual rules were.

I decided to view it as youthful enthusiaisum instead of blatent cheating just to keep a fun time going.

All my fun little jokes with Fight or Flight (I was just messing with you, man) aside, I think that any discussion of morality could be spun off into it's own thread. I would start one, but I'm trying to decide if there's any value to trying to better articulate my position or if I should just give it up as a lost cause. If anybody starts one, i'll jump in, or PM me and I'll see if I can write a bit of an essay supporting my argument to start one myself.

budro wrote:one quick comment on this statement and then back to your regularly scheduled programming...

JohnHwangDD wrote:
You see an interesting building, and have your friend take a stand on the roadside and you snap a picture. If you both are on public property, using your personal camera, and storing the image on your own server, does the building owner have the right to say you can't take the picture, print it, or put it on your website?

You can take the picture, put it on your computer, distribute to your friends, and have it on your website all you want (as long as you aren't generating income from ads/traffic on your site). If you are selling the picture for money in any fashion, yes, they do have a right to a percentage of the income if they wish to contest it. Politcal figures are exempt from this as are many public figures (ie, you can publish pics of public people (political leaders, movie stars, ect) without their consent and without paying them). It's a fuzzy line on a lot of things and mostly depends on how much people/buisinesses look out for themselves.

Why should they have control of my picture? It's my picture of my friend on my server paid for out of my bandwidth. If I'm generating add revenue from traffic, then they should pay me for the publicity I provide. And as their building is clearly visible from the public roadside, how is that not a "public" exception?

The only fuzziness is who can pay more for the lawyer. With enough lawyers, you can get a ruling that black is white, and downloading a 99-cent MP3 carries statutory damages in the thousands based on mass publishing for sale.

Frazzled wrote:

two_heads_talking wrote:

Here you answered it yourself.

want to sell the first distribution

I hate it when I do that..