Hi all,

As you are all aware GW recently held a gun to its own ruleset by threatening to "drastically cull" the ruleset if people in the BB community tried to make money out of selling figures that GW have made no effort to supply for consumers.

As a recent development, Galak Starscraper has apparently been ordered by GW to remove all information on forum posts pertaining to LRB6 and isn't allowed further comment.

Read about the goings on here:
http://www.talkfantasyfootball.org/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=29228&start=225

This is scary stuff for those of us who were looking forward to the LRB6 release early next year, and given GW's track record of late my expectations for their business choices is at an all time low.

BeefyG wrote:Hi all,

As you are all aware GW recently held a gun to its own ruleset by threatening to "drastically cull" the ruleset if people in the BB community tried to make money out of selling figures that GW have made no effort to supply for consumers.

As a recent development, Galak Starscraper has apparently been ordered by GW to remove all information on forum posts pertaining to LRB6 and isn't allowed further comment.

Read about the goings on here:
http://www.talkfantasyfootball.org/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=29228&start=225

This is scary stuff for those of us who were looking forward to the LRB6 release early next year, and given GW's track record of late my expectations for their business choices is at an all time low.

Whistles past the graveyard....

intresting, but its what ive come to exspect from the Frackers at GW.

Boycott still alive and well. at least for my part. are you doing yours?

I think its a horrible shame, basically from a lack of clear communication stand point.

I think the community can take the already published 2008 rules review document plus the small list of changes already published in several places and do their own 'House Rules' that will basically be LRB 6 regardless of what Grandma Wendy decides to do.

I am I've been buying my stuff from alternate suppliers and will continue to do so.

I find it morally problematic that several posters are suggesting releasing the LRB6 as a torrent or otherwise flouting GW Legal. Like it or not, BB is still GW's game to do with as they wish, and if the fans cannot keep it alive with legal and above-board means, it doesn't deserve to survive.

BB players should simply switch to alternatives. Elfball seems a comprehensive choice.

Or let the LRB Committee (minus Jervis) take a copy of the v6 rules and reword it to avoid using GW copyright material, then release it as "Gore Cup".

Kilkrazy wrote:Or let the LRB Committee (minus Jervis) take a copy of the v6 rules and reword it to avoid using GW copyright material, then release it as "Gore Cup".

Gore Cup... ahem... WWwwwwwwwwwwwAAAAAAHHHH Bodyform! Bodyform for YOUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!

Agamemnon2 wrote:I find it morally problematic that several posters are suggesting releasing the LRB6 as a torrent or otherwise flouting GW Legal. Like it or not, BB is still GW's game to do with as they wish, and if the fans cannot keep it alive with legal and above-board means, it doesn't deserve to survive.

Morally and legally I'd challenge that. Apart from registered trademarks, there is the legal case to answer that much of the authorship of LRB6 was at the hands of the unpaid fans. GW have not paid for that authorship, nor for the editorship of Galak, therefore they (may) have no legal write to control it, much as they might assert otherwise. No consideration: no contract. No contract: no control.

In any case, as has been said multiple times elsewhere, you cannot copyright an idea. Shearing LRB6 of its trademarks and rephrasing it (as a decent editor could do relatively easily) will make any fan publication legally bulletproof, whatever GW choose to do about it.

Personally I think it stinks that "fans" of a game are "afraid" that GW will pull nefarious tricks in supposed "revenge" for such an entirely legal move. It speaks v olumes about the utter contempt GW management deserve for letting their PR credit get so low with their customers. If I was on the board of GW I'd be looking for some PR-related (and legal-related) heads to roll right about now.

On the other hand, I personally think that the motivation for any potential restriction of LRB6 lies with a desire to maintain a parallel between the published table rules and the computer game (which is based on LRB5). If GW publish LRB6 then they will fear that fans will want the computer game rules updated to reflect the new ruleset, which I would imagine would seriously irritate Catalyst and cause friction in the Catalyst/GW relationship. In otherwords the tabletop gamers are being hamstrung by the moneymen who want Catalyst's game to get as decent a run as possible. Makes the most sense to me anyhow. Even if it is somewhat of a douche move.

Well, "douche move" is probably going too far of me. Perhaps it is more just showing how far the misalignment goes between commercial and hobby interests. And explains why I think that crass commercialism is always ultimately a bad thing for any hobby, even if it does produce shinier toys in the short run.

The BB Rules Committee has also stated that LRB6.0 won't become official until GW produces minis for the currently unsupported team (slanns). I doubt those will ever be done, so I am quite skeptical about the LRB6.0 release.

Hasdrubal wrote:The BB Rules Committee has also stated that LRB6.0 won't become official until GW produces minis for the currently unsupported team (slanns). I doubt those will ever be done, so I am quite skeptical about the LRB6.0 release.

Well we know that they will send a C&D to anyone else who tried to make frogs in football gear. GW should be able to handle their product and fanbase better than this, we're always being told they are a professional company that has been operating for 30+ years. In Bloodbowl they have a game that they have allowed updated rulesets to be released but they don't release miniatures to complement the game they are giving the go ahead for release. Then over the years other companies eventually do these figures and they make a fuss. "Wah, you're making figures we weren't going to make, not fair!" Then they say "Wah, if you're making these figures we'll suppress the rules that use them! Ha, that'll sort you!".

Meanwhile the fans just want to play a GW game and where ever possible use GW miniatures only going elsewhere when given no option. GW could try and manage their customer base to make money and create good PR, rather than continually gak on them.

What is GW's long term motive here? The terms of their star player embargo were so vague that it appears to be an excuse to release v6 minus the star players and blame the fans for their inevitable omission.

There's already a Slann team isn't there? Do you mean an actual (old school) Slann team, with man-sized frogs and human slaves, as opposed to the current Lizardman / Slann concept?

Modquisition note:

As Filbert is new here and didn't catch that the statement "slowed" is not appropriate, we'll edit this post for him.

What Filbert meant to say was Frazzled is an awesome Mod. In fact Frazzled Mod is Bestest Mod!

Agamemnon2 wrote:...If the fans cannot keep it alive with legal and above-board means, it doesn't deserve to survive.

That's a bit harsh! I think I understand GW's point of view, and agree with ther solution more, just remove the main reason for non GW bloodbowl minis; the starplayers.

Osbad wrote:
Morally and legally I'd challenge that. Apart from registered trademarks, there is the legal case to answer that much of the authorship of LRB6 was at the hands of the unpaid fans. GW have not paid for that authorship, nor for the editorship of Galak, therefore they (may) have no legal write to control it, much as they might assert otherwise. No consideration: no contract. No contract: no control.

The rule book text, and the game itself is GW'sintellectual property, regardless of how many fans submit their own improvements.

Osbad wrote:... you cannot copyright an idea...

the Patents office would disagree?

Osbad wrote:Personally I think it stinks that "fans" of a game are "afraid" that GW will pull nefarious tricks in supposed "revenge" for such an entirely legal move. It speaks v olumes about the utter contempt GW management deserve for letting their PR credit get so low with their customers. If I was on the board of GW I'd be looking for some PR-related (and legal-related) heads to roll right about now.

Basically you'd be pissed off that your legal team is protecting your IP?This has nothing to do with PR people.
What's happening is a large volume of a small fanbase (compared to 40k) are actively endorsing non GW mini's, if you go on the bloodbowl boards you'll see alot of people showing off their entirely nonGW teams and starplayers. GW has already made minis for all current teams. Remember GW provide these rules for free.

Osbad wrote:
On the other hand, I personally think that the motivation for any potential restriction of LRB6 lies with a desire to maintain a parallel between the published table rules and the computer game (which is based on LRB5). If GW publish LRB6 then they will fear that fans will want the computer game rules updated to reflect the new ruleset, which I would imagine would seriously irritate Catalyst and cause friction in the Catalyst/GW relationship. In otherwords the tabletop gamers are being hamstrung by the moneymen who want Catalyst's game to get as decent a run as possible. Makes the most sense to me anyhow. Even if it is somewhat of a douche move.

If you read the early LRB6 you'll see that there is very little red text (changes) in the actual rules section.

Hasdrubal wrote:The BB Rules Committee has also stated that LRB6.0 won't become official until GW produces minis for the currently unsupported team (slanns). I doubt those will ever be done, so I am quite skeptical about the LRB6.0 release.

This is probabily the most acuarate reason for the rumours/delay. the biggest change in BB in years is the introduction of the new frog team, leap,leap,leap.

George Spiggott wrote:What is GW's long term motive here? The terms of their star player embargo were so vague that it appears to be an excuse to release v6 minus the star players and blame the fans for their inevitable omission. There's already a Slann team isn't there? Do you mean an actual (old school) Slann team, with man-sized frogs and human slaves, as opposed to the current Lizardman / Slann concept?

I think the long term plan is to have Bloodbowl fans buying Bloodbowl minis. for too long GW has done nothing while the Bloodbowl community have been singing the praises of companies releaseing bunny girl football players etc.

I actually look forward to LRB6 with its bickering underworld teams and new frog guys... and I'll actually love it if they removed all StarPlayers, IMO they only unbalance the game.

Panic.

Panic wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:...If the fans cannot keep it alive with legal and above-board means, it doesn't deserve to survive.

That's a bit harsh! I think I understand GW's point of view, and agree with ther solution more, just remove the main reason for non GW bloodbowl minis; the starplayers.

The community would not be happy without the star players, they're a necessary part of the inducement system, or so I've been assured by Blood Bowl partisans.

Was looking forward to 6.0, and was waiting for it's release to start a league. Thanks again GW, for messing with my last GW game. Now I play none of your games.

>>the Patents office would disagree?

You can't patent an idea.

>>Remember GW provide these rules for free.

Or rather they don't because the issue at hand is GW's threat not to release them.

>>and I'll actually love it if they removed all StarPlayers, IMO they only unbalance the game.

Can't you just play the game without them?

Actually, thinking about it again, you can't play the game with them officially, because GW haven't released all the required figures.

Panic wrote:

Osbad wrote:... you cannot copyright an idea...

the Patents office would disagree?

I doubt that. They may say that you can Patent an idea, they're unlikely to say you can copyright one.

Panic wrote:I think the long term plan is to have Bloodbowl fans buying Bloodbowl minis.

That is somewhat reliant on GW having something to sell and GW thinking that the market is large enough to justify making something to sell. That hasn't been GW's plan for a while and I'm not seeing any evidence of change.

>>On the other hand, I personally think that the motivation for any potential restriction of LRB6 lies with a desire to maintain a parallel between the published table rules and the computer game (which is based on LRB5). If GW publish LRB6 then they will fear that fans will want the computer game rules updated to reflect the new ruleset, which I would imagine would seriously irritate Catalyst and cause friction in the Catalyst/GW relationship.

Computer game companies normally love doing updates on an established franchise.

George Spiggott wrote:

Panic wrote:

Osbad wrote:... you cannot copyright an idea...

the Patents office would disagree?

I doubt that. They may say that you can Patent an idea, they're unlikely to say you can copyright one.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a patent specifically for a technical design or plan, say a clock movement for example and copyright is more for abstract property such as a thought, idea or strategy?

@ Filbert: No. Copyright covers the actual words, not the concepts held within those words.

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law

"Copyright is an automatic right and arises whenever an individual or company creates a work. To qualify, a work should be regarded as original, and exhibits a degree of labour, skill or judgement.

Interpretation is related to the independent creation rather than the idea behind the creation. For example, your idea for a book would not itself be protected, but the actual content of a book you write would be. In other words, someone else is still entitled to write their own book around the same idea, provided they do not directly copy or adapt yours to do so.

Names, titles, short phrases and colours are not generally considered unique or substantial enough to be covered, but a creation, such as a logo, that combines these elements may be.

In short, work that expresses an idea may be protected, but not the idea behind it."

oh look. Internet Lawyers are fighting again.

Bottom Line: GW will do what it wants. Bloodbowl fans will do what they want, but all that seems to be is complain and throw their toys over what GW does in regards to a game that isn't really that good.

filbert wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:

Panic wrote:

Osbad wrote:... you cannot copyright an idea...

the Patents office would disagree?

I doubt that. They may say that you can Patent an idea, they're unlikely to say you can copyright one.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a patent specifically for a technical design or plan, say a clock movement for example and copyright is more for abstract property such as a thought, idea or strategy?

Patents are designed to protect original ideas which have been properly thought out and embodied in designs, not just something that might pop up in your head.

Silly example -- I can have the idea that people should go for lunch between 2 and 5. It doesn't mean I can get a patent and charge everyone for doing it.

George Spiggott wrote:What is GW's long term motive here? The terms of their star player embargo were so vague that it appears to be an excuse to release v6 minus the star players and blame the fans for their inevitable omission.

Protect the video game most likely.

*shrug*

I can get all hot and bothered by the fans response, even if its released to torrets. GW all but abandoned blood bowl(and other specialist games) and the fans pretty much kept it alive for what, almost a decade? And now GW is getting all pissy over it.

Panic wrote:
What's happening is a large volume of a small fanbase (compared to 40k) are actively endorsing non GW mini's, if you go on the bloodbowl boards you'll see alot of people showing off their entirely nonGW teams and starplayers. GW has already made minis for all current teams. Remember GW provide these rules for free.

I'd just like to point out that on Dakka's forums, we have a lot of people showcasing non-GW miniatures in their armies, too, painted in non-GW paints, mounted on non-GW bases. The fans get to endorse whatever the fans want to, they're under no obligation to act as GW spokespeople, as you seem to think.

R.I.P.

The box game you can get from GW still has the cards and 2nd ed rulebook.

If a person buys the game from GW, they are basically paying for an obsolete rulebook, cards that haven't been used for the game in ten years, and two teams sculpted in 1994.

When we get new players into our league, they find the downloadable rules, and pick a team they want. whether they buy the box or GW teams or not is their call.
The trend among the players I know is to convert from WHFB minis. Going outside of GW is a secondary choice.

The rule changes for LRB5 to LRB6 have been known for probably 2-3 years. GW releasing them is a mere formality.
Most of the leagues and Tournaments I have played in have incorporated most of the changes already.

BloodBowl will still be played regardless of GW's decision with LRB6.
Unless GW comes and takes our dice, boards, and minis, we will still be playing it.
As long as we have tournaments that bring players back to a common ground, we do not need GW.
GW cannot forbid a LGS from having a BB tournament, nor can they stop a person from renting a hall to have one.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

Panic wrote:
What's happening is a large volume of a small fanbase (compared to 40k) are actively endorsing non GW mini's, if you go on the bloodbowl boards you'll see alot of people showing off their entirely nonGW teams and starplayers. GW has already made minis for all current teams. Remember GW provide these rules for free.

I'd just like to point out that on Dakka's forums, we have a lot of people showcasing non-GW miniatures in their armies, too, painted in non-GW paints, mounted on non-GW bases. The fans get to endorse whatever the fans want to, they're under no obligation to act as GW spokespeople, as you seem to think.

But but... that is "watering down the percieved quality of the hobby as a whole"

Good to know GW is keeping up in the right path.

Gosh here we go with definitions again. From the U.S. Patent office, http://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/index.html#ptsc

"What Is a Patent?
A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Generally, the term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance fees. U.S. patent grants are effective only within the United States, U.S. territories, and U.S. possessions. Under certain circumstances, patent term extensions or adjustments may be available.

The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States or “importing” the invention into the United States. What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention. Once a patent is issued, the patentee must enforce the patent without aid of the USPTO.

There are three types of patents:

1) Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof;

2) Design patents may be granted to anyone who invents a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture; and

3) Plant patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant."

You'll kindly note that none of these apply to making a game.
Also, patents are not forever or even for the absurd amount of time that copyrights run; the maximum length of a patent is 20 years from the date of application and may not be lengthened or renewed.

Many people seem to be unable to differentiate the difference between a patent and a copyright. Here's a link to a nice lawyer that will explain it to you, http://www.lawmart.com/forms/difference.htm

Now, the interesting thing about copyrights is that you cannot copyright the rules to a game; it's interesting how the law specifically mentions you can't. Here, look at this, from the government: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
Simply get the LRB, take out all mention to GW, any of it's trademarks and images and you can mass produce it all for free if you wanted to.

I like Kilkrazy's idea to call it gore cup (as Blood Bowl is protected as a trademark).

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".

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.

EPIC uses volunteers to maintain the army lists and develop new ones. Is there a difference between that and this?

Howard A Treesong wrote:
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.

I've said it before:
Now, the interesting thing about copyrights is that you cannot copyright the rules to a game; it's interesting how the law specifically mentions you can't. Here, look at this, from the government: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
Simply get the LRB, take out all mention to GW, any of it's trademarks and images and you can mass produce it all for free if you wanted to.

The, U.S. anyway, law is very plain. GW lawyers would have to be raving loons to attempt a suit of any sort if the people doing the work are careful to remove any trademarks or GW copyrighted material. Since GW can't copyright work created by unpaid volunteers, then most of the book is fair game. That is, with the assumption that GW didn't make the volunteers sign away their rights or any other such legal maneuvering.

sirisaacnuton wrote:... 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... 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.

I'm looking much further back- towards the original takeover of TSR by WoTC. When they came in, the game changed dramatically, and arguably much for the worse. Their attacks back then were very much in line with what GW's doing now, but in the early days of the internet, such things really didn't get as much attention. Or, looking more recently, when the open license agreement was changed based on upcoming independent releases, often leaving publishers over a barrel. Or insisting that all third party releases must be screened by WoTC prior to publishing- which often took nearly a year (indeed, some 3.5 releases never saw the light of day because of this). Or turning Dragon Magazine into a paid online subscription(think WD sucks now? Imagine if you had to subscribe online, sight unseen, to read it...). Even looking at the minis for D&D in the 80's vs today- high quality(for the era) metal figs vs cheap prepainted plastics. Maybe if Hasbro took over we'd still get good figs from GW, but I'm certain we'd also see collectible pre-painted Space Marines.

Not that there wouldn't also be plusses- I'm sure Hasbro wouldn't sit on products like Battlecars or Warhammer Quest. Certainly Hasbro would have the sense to sponsor big tournaments along the lines of what they do now for Magic. And we'd probably be able to get the prepainted Orks for the tourney at Toys R Us.

sirisaacnuton wrote:
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.

GW's a pretty big international corporation- and we see what a bang-up job they've done balancing legal, marketing, and PR.

Man the head of marketing for GW should walk over to the head of GW Legal and slap the gak out of her for the PR blunder this was.*


*I don't condone violence against women. So maybe he can't slap her but he can shake the gak out of her.

LuigiX wrote:Or, looking more recently, when the open license agreement was changed based on upcoming independent releases, often leaving publishers over a barrel. Or insisting that all third party releases must be screened by WoTC prior to publishing- which often took nearly a year (indeed, some 3.5 releases never saw the light of day because of this).

I'm pretty sure there was never any requirement to pre-screen any products published under the OGL. Indeed, material can still be released under it, WOTC cannot revoke the license. What made the grox dung hit the fan, rather, was the introdcution of the GSL when 4E came out.

Frazzled wrote:EPIC uses volunteers to maintain the army lists and develop new ones. Is there a difference between that and this?

No, the pressident has been made with blood bowl. if GW wishes it can do the same thing. or try to. in truth it could have before, but the diffence with now and then is that we thought, 'na, they couldnt could they?' and now its 'damn those $§%/&("$%/!&/!%/%/!!!! went and did it.'
on another note, id do what ever i could to help those that helped make the LBR6 if they went to court. This is something to think about because these people are just like us, their fans and now we REALLY see what GW thinks of its fans. we should support these volenteers cause it might be another game next. not only that, its the Moral thing to do.

LuigiX wrote:
GW's a pretty big international corporation- and we see what a bang-up job they've done balancing legal, marketing, and PR.

Er, no. They are strictly moderate commercial sized. They don't get near corporate level who's janitorial budgets are larger than GW. Sorry, doesn't make them worse, just smaller.

LuigiX wrote:

sirisaacnuton wrote:... 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... 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.

I'm looking much further back- towards the original takeover of TSR by WoTC. When they came in, the game changed dramatically, and arguably much for the worse. Their attacks back then were very much in line with what GW's doing now, but in the early days of the internet, such things really didn't get as much attention. Or, looking more recently, when the open license agreement was changed based on upcoming independent releases, often leaving publishers over a barrel. Or insisting that all third party releases must be screened by WoTC prior to publishing- which often took nearly a year (indeed, some 3.5 releases never saw the light of day because of this). Or turning Dragon Magazine into a paid online subscription(think WD sucks now? Imagine if you had to subscribe online, sight unseen, to read it...). Even looking at the minis for D&D in the 80's vs today- high quality(for the era) metal figs vs cheap prepainted plastics. Maybe if Hasbro took over we'd still get good figs from GW, but I'm certain we'd also see collectible pre-painted Space Marines.

Not that there wouldn't also be plusses- I'm sure Hasbro wouldn't sit on products like Battlecars or Warhammer Quest. Certainly Hasbro would have the sense to sponsor big tournaments along the lines of what they do now for Magic. And we'd probably be able to get the prepainted Orks for the tourney at Toys R Us.

It's funny the different things people prioritize. This is definitely a case of two people wanting very different things. I'll admit that I don't know what TSR is, but in regards to the rest of it, none of that really bothers me. My D&D group was perfectly fine playing out of PHB, PHB2, and maybe a scant collection of add-ons. Just the rules were fine by us. I've never bought an issue of WD and only idly skim through them if there's one lying around. And honestly, assembly/painting is my least favorite part of this "hobby." While I will give GW credit for making some absolutely cool-looking models, it completely defeats the coolness if I can't assemble them worth a crap (I'm looking at you Bloodcrushers) or just absolutely can't paint for squat (I'm looking at you...everything I've ever painted). If I could go out, buy a pre-assembled, pre-painted army straight out of the box, and play it without affecting my scores at a tournament, I'd be all over it. Inferior or not, it'd still be better than the crap I can churn out.

If the games had consistency in its rules, with absolutely solid rulebooks a la current M:tG, an official place to turn to answer any question, an accreditation system for judges to standardize rulings, and a more supported tournament scene, I would be in heaven, and would honestly consider it a more than worthwhile tradeoff to decreased quality in other areas. I know plenty of people would disagree with me, but that's where my priorities are.



On a side note, in terms of this "GW hates its customers" sentiment that's been more vocal than usual lately, I've always felt that a little bit. Just reading their material in WD or on their site about "cheesiness/beardiness," their depictions of events like 'Ard Boyz, their lack of serious attempts to rectify their rules issues or standarize tournaments, and the widespread opinion towards "tournament gamers" held by large numbers of people (which had to come at least paritally from the top down...other competitive games don't have such a negative view on competitive players), it's always been pretty clear to me that GW doesn't care too terribly much about people who feel about the game the way I do. It's always bugged me, but I've never stopped playing or boycott or anything. I just go with it, because what can you do?

Good post.

I also don't see why a decently written set of rules would require compromises in the standard of models.

LuigiX wrote:Not that there wouldn't also be plusses- I'm sure Hasbro wouldn't sit on products like Battlecars or Warhammer Quest. Certainly Hasbro would have the sense to sponsor big tournaments along the lines of what they do now for Magic.

I wouldn't count on it. WotC pour all of their effort into their flagship games (Magic and D&D) and everything else is pretty much just given the bare minimum required to keep it going.

Star Wars Miniatures, which supposedly sells as well as D&D minis, has one guy handling game development, has no support for official play, has a volunteer handling rules queries online, has some rather variable quality control on the miniatures, has fairly obvious card errors in pretty much every set, and has minimal advance information on upcoming product (previews start, theoretically, 6 weeks out from release... but are often delayed). Sound familiar?

Quite honestly I think that if Hasbro bought out GW the only real changes would be that the games would be overhauled and changed to a simplified D20 system with prepainted miniatures. Beyond that, nothing much would change.

People still play bloodbowl?

Quite honestly I think that if Hasbro bought out GW the only real changes would be that the games would be overhauled and changed to a simplified D20 system with prepainted miniatures. Beyond that, nothing much would change.

You don't buy a brand to turn it's IP into something you already sold. Brand identity is based in the product sold, not who distributes it, thats akin to saying that if Volkswagon bought jeep they would just turn them all into small hatchbacks for urban use but keep the jeep name. It's not economically viable to procure a company solely so you can demonstrably alter it's IP in order to fulfill a failed business model (most of wizkids pre painted lines have ceased and died).

ShumaGorath wrote:People still play bloodbowl?

You´re kidding right? Please tell me this was sarcasm. The local 2 leagues/year schedule has been going on uninterrupted for 10+ years.

A-P wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:People still play bloodbowl?

You´re kidding right? Please tell me this was sarcasm. The local 2 leagues/year schedule has been going on uninterrupted for 10+ years.

You realize than when you live across an ocean the word local ceases to have particular common relevance. Also yes, it was sarcasm, though more caustic than supportive, I don't particularly like blood bowl, the games I played were fun, but the game is very unbalanced in my opinion.

ShumaGorath wrote:You realize than when you live across an ocean the word local ceases to have particular common relevance.

That cuts both ways. Just because people near you don't play doesn't mean nobody plays.

Also yes, it was sarcasm, though more caustic than supportive, I don't particularly like blood bowl, the games I played were fun, but the game is very unbalanced in my opinion.

When did you play? I started playing again last year and most of the games were pretty even.

If you look up the Australian BB sites there is clearly a thriving community.

For the moment, anyway.

ShumaGorath wrote:You don't buy a brand to turn it's IP into something you already sold. Brand identity is based in the product sold, not who distributes it, thats akin to saying that if Volkswagon bought jeep they would just turn them all into small hatchbacks for urban use but keep the jeep name. It's not economically viable to procure a company solely so you can demonstrably alter it's IP in order to fulfill a failed business model (most of wizkids pre painted lines have ceased and died).

That's not a great example, as to many Jeep fans the brand was irrevocably tarnished when bought by Chrysler in 1987 and watered-down 'SUVs' started being sold as Jeeps (Depending on how opinionated the fan in question is, the 'not-Jeeps' include the Liberty, Patriot, Grand Cherokee, or various generations of Wrangler. The strictest only approve of Jeeps built for the US government circa 1940-something.)

Not quite 'hatchbacks' but the newer designs were seen as departures from the company's strengths.

Ozymandias wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Also yes, it was sarcasm, though more caustic than supportive, I don't particularly like blood bowl, the games I played were fun, but the game is very unbalanced in my opinion.

When did you play? I started playing again last year and most of the games were pretty even.

Does that mean no more Norse Teams?

Frazzled wrote:EPIC uses volunteers to maintain the army lists and develop new ones. Is there a difference between that and this?

Fraz- No, it’s pretty much just like that.

Canning Tom Anders is insanity. That guy’s been a rock, and if there were any justice GW would have hired him long ago (assuming he was interested). GW has a right and obligation to be careful about their IP, and some of their “evil attacks” on websites recently have really been pretty reasonable and understandable, but they’re really cutting off their nose to spite their face at this point.

LuigiX wrote:I'm looking much further back- towards the original takeover of TSR by WoTC. When they came in, the game changed dramatically, and arguably much for the worse. Their attacks back then were very much in line with what GW's doing now, but in the early days of the internet, such things really didn't get as much attention.

LuigiX- my memory is much different, and I think your dates are off. TSR was running itself into the ground through amateurish corporate mismanagement through the early to mid 90s. Frequently putting out garbage products like the Combat & Tactics expansions to 2nd ed, and the absolute fiasco of ineptitude and arrogance that was Spellfire. It was also in the early and mid 90s that TSR (prior to WotC’s takeover) went through an even more deranged and anti-fan version of trying to police the internet about their games than GW has done. It was back then that TSR was frequently referred to as T$R by fans.

WotC bought them to save their much-loved D&D, and say what you will about 3rd edition (particularly that it was not well-designed for high level play), but they sure did save it.

WotC has definitely gone a bit more corporate and profit-minded since Hasbro bought them, but they’re still a relative paragon in the areas of customer communication, updating and fixing rules, and of effective use of the internet. They’ve had some real stumbles (like the total failure of Gleemax and the online D&D play environment they promised for 4th ed), but they do a lot right.

LuigiX wrote:Or, looking more recently, when the open license agreement was changed based on upcoming independent releases, often leaving publishers over a barrel. Or insisting that all third party releases must be screened by WoTC prior to publishing- which often took nearly a year (indeed, some 3.5 releases never saw the light of day because of this).

Ah, no, I don’t think this is right at all. D20-compatible was a total free-for-all. The only time they exercised any control was over products with the D&D logo. Again, maybe you're thinking of old TSR? They were super tight-handed with licensing and "only Official TSR products have our seal of approval" back in the late 70s and through the 80s. Gary Gygax had some epic rants in Dragon back in the day.

LuigiX wrote:Or turning Dragon Magazine into a paid online subscription(think WD sucks now? Imagine if you had to subscribe online, sight unseen, to read it...).

Except that D&D Insider is chock full of rules, modules, maps, new character class previews, useful editorials, etc. It’s not an advertising vehicle anything like White Dwarf. Whether it’s worth the money is a personal choice, but I sure get a lot of mileage out of it.

LuigiX wrote:Even looking at the minis for D&D in the 80's vs today- high quality(for the era) metal figs vs cheap prepainted plastics. Maybe if Hasbro took over we'd still get good figs from GW, but I'm certain we'd also see collectible pre-painted Space Marines.

D&D miniatures over the years is a huge category, and this is an enormous oversimplification. Hell, Citadel produced officially-licensed D&D minis back in the 80s. They’ve been made by a ton of companies over the years, so it’s tough to do a direct comparison between the old metal stuff (or all the recent and current stuff by third-party manufacturers, like most of Reaper’s output) to the quick (not cheap anymore, though) & cheerful D&D pre-paints they have now. Most of the people I know who play D&D aren’t into painting miniatures. Those who are still love the convenience and portability of the pre-paints. Both of the groups I’ve played with in the past several years have literally hundreds of those suckers. I’ve bought scores, while at the same time using nice metal Reaper figures for my own PCs. There’s a clear market for the product, and it’s not mismanagement to cater to that.

Anung Un Rama wrote:Does that mean no more Norse Teams?

I don´t think that the Norse are the "weakest" team. I personally rate Ogres, Halflings and Goblins as "just for fun" teams. I stopped playing Ogres after Snotlings were dropped to Strength 1. Its not fun when 90%+ of all opponents get 3 dice blocks without assists against the little runts. But this is getting off topic. Please carry on.

I think he means the Norse were broken. Back when their Blitzers had the Pile On and Jump Up combo, they were super nasty at crippling or killing opposing players. I lost most of my team in a single half against them once.

Mannahnin wrote:I think he means the Norse were broken. Back when their Blitzers had the Pile On and Jump Up combo, they were super nasty at crippling or killing opposing players. I lost most of my team in a single half against them once.

Oh, the old Norse. I was thinking the current version.

Last I played in a league (about 4 years ago) Norse were overpowered. The whole team has block? WTF?

Never played against them but on paper they didn't look too bad. Must have been looking at the newer Norse rules. I played Wood Elves and my most common opponent was Orcs. If I could survive I could usually pull off a win (but with Wood Elves vs. Orcs that's a big "IF").

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 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.

To caviot off of this conversation, Remember Necromunda? It used to be a heck of a game...

I wonder what happened to it?

This sort of BS is about along the same lines that MONGOOSE pulled with Starship troopers. Took a good game, took a dump all over it, then tried to come back with a couple of tables full of Kool Aid to try to get people back to play it after burning out the player base.

All I can say is Blood Bowel loooked like a heck of a game. Too Bad I won't be able to try it. Heven forbid I try painting the guys with Reaper paints.


(I wonder how much scratch I can get for this GW stuff...)


Anyone interested in buying some GW stuff? I'll be setting it up pretty soon.

Blood Bowel... Heh. Not sure if it was on purpose or not but either way it made me smile.

ShumaGorath wrote:People still play bloodbowl?

Quite honestly I think that if Hasbro bought out GW the only real changes would be that the games would be overhauled and changed to a simplified D20 system with prepainted miniatures. Beyond that, nothing much would change.

You don't buy a brand to turn it's IP into something you already sold. Brand identity is based in the product sold, not who distributes it, thats akin to saying that if Volkswagon bought jeep they would just turn them all into small hatchbacks for urban use but keep the jeep name. It's not economically viable to procure a company solely so you can demonstrably alter it's IP in order to fulfill a failed business model (most of wizkids pre painted lines have ceased and died).

..... Ask Fiat how thats going for them, or Dimler/ Chrysler. AMC? Wizkids with that FASA farce? WOTC and TSR?

How's that Disney/ Marvel thing working out?

Large business gets hold of property, runs it into the ground by making as much off of it as they can, anyway they can, and if someone stubs thier toe along the way, then they'd better suck it up and keep up or get left behind.
Have you heard of Avalon Hill?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avalon_Hill

How's that Disney/ Marvel thing working out?

Not really done yet, still some voting, buyout, etc until it's totally finished. But I don't foresee a whole lot of change. Warner Bros has owned DC for years. Disney wants Marvel for the current liscensing ability, and to make movies. Disney doesn't care about comic books, just characters. Boom studios is publishing Disney comics.

I don't think Avalon Hill is an entirely fair comparison.

The whole map wargaming scene took a beating in the 90s because computer games began to offer better graphics, simplicity of play, and setup times, and boardgames have never had the emotional appeal of 3D tabletop games.

Mannahnin wrote:Ah, no, I don’t think this is right at all. D20-compatible was a total free-for-all. The only time they exercised any control was over products with the D&D logo. Again, maybe you're thinking of old TSR? They were super tight-handed with licensing and "only Official TSR products have our seal of approval" back in the late 70s and through the 80s. Gary Gygax had some epic rants in Dragon back in the day.

The one debacle that did occur was with the separate D20 Trademark License. It got changed around after the Book of Erotic Fantasy came out, to stop anything like it from ever being allowed to use the D20 logo ever again. WOTC wasn't too crazy about people mixing things like Power Word: Disrobe with one of their trademarks.

Ah, so the head of GW legal is a woman. That explains everything.

Heh! Looks like GW is in exaulted company when it comes to making unfounded dopyright assertions:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/16/business/AP-US-Inmate-Name-Copyright.html?_r=3

PIERRE, S.D. (AP) -- A former South Dakota lawmaker convicted of raping his two foster daughters has sent news organizations what he claims is a copyright notice that seeks to prevent the use of his name without his consent.

A letter and an accompanying document labeled ''Common Law Copyright Notice'' said former state Rep. Ted Alvin Klaudt is reserving a common-law copyright of a trade name or trademark for his name. It said no one can use his name without his consent, and anyone who does would owe him $500,000.

Klaudt was convicted in 2007 on four counts of second-degree rape for touching his teenage foster daughters' breasts and genitals in phony examinations he said could help them sell their eggs to infertile couples. He was sentenced to 44 years in prison for rape and 10 more years after pleading guilty to two counts of witness tampering.

I am more and more of the opinion that if I had internet-published something I cared deeply about and I received a C&D from GW, I'd make sure all the TMs were stripped out and then tell them to go swivel!

Sadly, it is so long since I cared deeply enough about any GW game to bother getting into it that far that there's nothing left for it to happen to...

So that segment from Gencon 2005 is where people keep getting that "Space Marines make up over 50% of GW's sales" thing. Here I was thinking someone just pulled it out of their ass and everyone else kept quoting that guy, no one has ever actually provided a source for it until now.

Like we can really trust what they say anyway...as it was said, the big surprise isn't Space Hulk!

mikhaila wrote:How's that Disney/ Marvel thing working out?

Not really done yet, still some voting, buyout, etc until it's totally finished. But I don't foresee a whole lot of change. Warner Bros has owned DC for years. Disney wants Marvel for the current liscensing ability, and to make movies. Disney doesn't care about comic books, just characters. Boom studios is publishing Disney comics.

I'm still hoping for Kingdom Hearts 3 with Spider-Man in it.

Exactly... And that is the point.

This statement starts that ball rolling-
"In a research note, Citigroup analyst Jason Bazinet said: "Disney will also be able to monetise Marvel's brands across its entire ecosystem from TV to parks, movies, consumer products and video games."- Guardian story to read down here-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/aug/31/disney-marvel-buy-out

And this adds more to my opinion that Companies will continue to take an IP and run with it, where ever the money will roll in from. They will IN FACT take a known brand, break it up, twist it, make the saturday morning TV shows, toys, movies, etc.etc.etc. Games, videos, direct to videos, etc.etc.etc. And it will not only NOT be the same thing that went into the process in the beginning, it is going to change into an entirely different direction.
Remember that it is still early in this example, but we have to only look at GW to see how a product changes over time and in defference of whoever has control at the time.

The point being that companies are under no illusions as to why they took over a product. They want to make money off of it, regardless of how they do it. They will do what it takes to get that bottom line.

As WOTC how that is going for them, and yet it is entirely a different game system then it was when it went into the process in the beginning.

Grot 6 wrote:The point being that companies are under no illusions as to why they took over a product. They want to make money off of it, regardless of how they do it. They will do what it takes to get that bottom line.

And I don't think anyone has a problem with a company making a profit per se, but there remains two issues:

1/ Making a profit by dishonest means (jerking around their customers, misleading them, taking advantage of them, etc., etc.) even if strictly speaking "legal" is still immoral and should not be encouraged.

2/ What is the long term impact on profitability if you devalue your brand image? Being known as the company that cares zip for your fans doesn't do much for your prospects of long term profitability growth...

Grot 6 wrote:Exactly... And that is the point.

This statement starts that ball rolling-
"In a research note, Citigroup analyst Jason Bazinet said: "Disney will also be able to monetise Marvel's brands across its entire ecosystem from TV to parks, movies, consumer products and video games."- Guardian story to read down here-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/aug/31/disney-marvel-buy-out

And this adds more to my opinion that Companies will continue to take an IP and run with it, where ever the money will roll in from. They will IN FACT take a known brand, break it up, twist it, make the saturday morning TV shows, toys, movies, etc.etc.etc. Games, videos, direct to videos, etc.etc.etc. And it will not only NOT be the same thing that went into the process in the beginning, it is going to change into an entirely different direction.
Remember that it is still early in this example, but we have to only look at GW to see how a product changes over time and in defference of whoever has control at the time.

The point being that companies are under no illusions as to why they took over a product. They want to make money off of it, regardless of how they do it. They will do what it takes to get that bottom line.

As WOTC how that is going for them, and yet it is entirely a different game system then it was when it went into the process in the beginning.

What? Are you saying that it's terrible and a sign of evil corporate-mindedness that Disney might make Marvel-based toys and Saturday morning cartoons? Those things have happened, repeatedly. X-Men toys are cool. The old X-Men cartoon from the 90's was one of the best cartoons ever...I loved that show. The Marvel-based theme park at Universal is extremely cool, and looks incredible just walking down the street (hilarious that Disney bought out the rights to that, btw). One of the main reasons that companies turn an IP into all this different stuff is because people want it. I wanted more than X-Men comics when I was younger...I wanted toys and cartoons. I love the movies. And the theme park. None of these things are bad developments. Yes, they're not the original direction of solely being comic books, but more or different do not necessarily equate to bad.

And as far as WOTC, yes it's a very different game system than when it started. And most people would say it's better. In 1998 or so (maybe '99) I went to a Type 2 tournament in Magic (called Standard these days), the kind where only the newer cards are legal and the old broken stuff isn't...and had multiple games where I lost the game in the first turn or two, occasionally losing before I even got to play my first turn. In 40k it'd be the equivalent of Guard tabling you with shooting at the top of turn 1. It was unbalanced and had major issues with development, balance, and playtesting. They had to issue "emergency bans" of certain cards, that didn't do enough, and they issued more "emergency bans." The fact that now the rules are better, the development and design are better, the playtesting is better, and the support are better make it a much better game than it was back in the day before Hasbro. Different system =/= worse system. In fact, in this case different = better.

Osbad wrote:

Grot 6 wrote:The point being that companies are under no illusions as to why they took over a product. They want to make money off of it, regardless of how they do it. They will do what it takes to get that bottom line.

And I don't think anyone has a problem with a company making a profit per se, but there remains two issues:

1/ Making a profit by dishonest means (jerking around their customers, misleading them, taking advantage of them, etc., etc.) even if strictly speaking "legal" is still immoral and should not be encouraged.

2/ What is the long term impact on profitability if you devalue your brand image? Being known as the company that cares zip for your fans doesn't do much for your prospects of long term profitability growth...

Well to give you a good guess at number 2. jervis, preistly, jackson, and Blanche arent getting any younger. do you really think they care where the company is in 20 years? Didnt think so.... most are right around the coner of retirement.

Oh, And were getting way off topic here.

Hawkins wrote:
Well to give you a good guess at number 2. jervis, preistly, jackson, and Blanche arent getting any younger. do you really think they care where the company is in 20 years? Didnt think so.... most are right around the coner of retirement.

If you believe the 'source of evil' in GW is here with these guys, you are verymuch mistaken. Look to Kirby and board of directors, look to those in authority in the company with NO love of playing with toy soldiers or painting. The company would only grow worse with the passing of these guys, they remember back to the halcyon days, when they go, they will be replaced by those who grew up and took on the hobby during the Age of Strife AKA The Red Age.

It is with the soulless bean counters and middle management and 'adjusters' that you will find the rot that poisons this company and with Kirby, who's 'little red book' training manual is frankly the most egotistical and dire Gordon Gekko styled self-reacharound it has ever been my displeasure to read.

Wait.

Did MGS just defend Jervis?

Kanluwen wrote:Wait.

Did MGS just defend Jervis?

Yeah, it made me stop for a minute too.... Quick check his temp!

Also, I loved the Wall Street reference.

Gordon Gekko is such a tool.

Kanluwen wrote:Wait.

Did MGS just defend Jervis?

Indeed, whilst I do think he's prone to overweening arrogance and is out of touch with the community, I don't think he can be expected to take the blame for the actions of the legislative or executive actions of the corporation. I think he believes in the product and has a love of game designing and fluff. It is the corporation I despise, it is the behaviour of this business that thinks so little of it's own customers. Jervis himself is just out of tune with the community and has a warped vision of the way the games should be played that does not sit well with the people outside the walls of fortress GW who actually do play.

I hope most aren't stupid enough to be putting the blame for the repulsive and grasping price hikes and the utterly moronic and blundering attacks on the community of fans at the feet of the creative folks in the company... it's not them, it's the bland little suits who have not one creative streak in their bodies, the 'suits' and of course, Tom Kirby, el presidenté himself, who is to blame for this.

Jervis and co just need to be blamed for flaws in the games mechanics, a cloistered and inflexible ideal on how the games should be played and the occasional (and mercifully getting rarer) gakky model or two.

OK, long time lurker, first time poster.

I've been involved in the hobby since the mid 90's, and while I wish that I could still buy Kerrunch and Hop-Splat blister packs in GW stores, that time is past.
I am no corporate fanboy, but I think people need to understand that while the company has a *perceived* responsibility to it's customers, it's real responsibility is to its shareholders. That's what happens in a publicly listed company. The funny thing is though, companies do best when the interests of their shareholders and customers coincide. That however is a hard balance to strike. GW are very fortunate to have such a loyal fanbase, and I can see how people feel aggrieved at what seems like a lack of support, however, the company wouldn't exist *at all* were it not for the management buyout, corporate re-structuring, and aggressive expansion that have characterised the last decade (or two).

That said, when a company behaves as GW have done recently, in a seemingly indiscriminate manner towards people who are trying to contribute with no seeming personal gain (C+D letters), it does nothing to endear them to people.

I know Dakka is probably not the forum (in the loosest sense of the word) for this, but we all know that it is monitored by people from the company. I don't think it would hurt for someone to respond to the community's concerns in an official way. Again, the likely party line would be that the company doesn't comment on ongoing legal proceedings, and I respect that, but I for one don't want to see the company whose products have given me so much pleasure over the years badmouthed unnecessarily any more - at least without responding.

Oh, and Tom Kirby has played wargames for years.

WBH

Regardless of the legal implications its becoming more and more obvious that the amount of people who ACTUALLY play games within GW is drastically diminished

a game company wouldnt care if people use their FREELY DISTRIBUTED rulebook to do with what they want, as long as its creative and keeps them playing the game

This is what happens in every game hobby when people playing the game leave

You see it in video games, in table top games and especially in stores where the owner doesnt play any game

Warboss Hazrat wrote:
Oh, and Tom Kirby has played wargames for years.

WBH

I was aware that Kirby does or at least did, and perhaps that is why he should hang his head yet lower in shame over how his company reacts to it's own player base and the wargaming community at large.

We are well aware of the bottom line and common economical sense, some of us have fairly serious corporate vocations ourselves, personally it's that which makes me as irritable with GW as I am, that I deal with any number of companies who would never be this narrow of vision and heavy handed, because their enlightened self interest and PR wouldn't permit the sort of clusterfeth we've been seeing unfurl across the community as site after site is attacked.

I have stated again and again that opening lines of communication and cooperation and the creation of caveats for sites to carry would have been the sensible thing to do, the slick thing to do, the wise and clever thing. Instead some lazy twit emailed out a bunch of threatening letters against people who not only buy the product, but who devote time and hard work into the product.

It was poorly executed, unprofessional and belligerent and the people responsible should be dragged over hot coals and GW should be issuing apology and seeking to reconnect with the online wargaming community (perhaps that should just be 'connect' since they have never seemed to 'get' the internet and seem to want it to just go away).

sirisaacnuton wrote:

Grot 6 wrote:Exactly... And that is the point.

This statement starts that ball rolling-
"In a research note, Citigroup analyst Jason Bazinet said: "Disney will also be able to monetise Marvel's brands across its entire ecosystem from TV to parks, movies, consumer products and video games."- Guardian story to read down here-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/aug/31/disney-marvel-buy-out

And this adds more to my opinion that Companies will continue to take an IP and run with it, where ever the money will roll in from. They will IN FACT take a known brand, break it up, twist it, make the saturday morning TV shows, toys, movies, etc.etc.etc. Games, videos, direct to videos, etc.etc.etc. And it will not only NOT be the same thing that went into the process in the beginning, it is going to change into an entirely different direction.
Remember that it is still early in this example, but we have to only look at GW to see how a product changes over time and in defference of whoever has control at the time.

The point being that companies are under no illusions as to why they took over a product. They want to make money off of it, regardless of how they do it. They will do what it takes to get that bottom line.

As WOTC how that is going for them, and yet it is entirely a different game system then it was when it went into the process in the beginning.

What? Are you saying that it's terrible and a sign of evil corporate-mindedness that Disney might make Marvel-based toys and Saturday morning cartoons? Those things have happened, repeatedly. X-Men toys are cool. The old X-Men cartoon from the 90's was one of the best cartoons ever...I loved that show. The Marvel-based theme park at Universal is extremely cool, and looks incredible just walking down the street (hilarious that Disney bought out the rights to that, btw). One of the main reasons that companies turn an IP into all this different stuff is because people want it. I wanted more than X-Men comics when I was younger...I wanted toys and cartoons. I love the movies. And the theme park. None of these things are bad developments. Yes, they're not the original direction of solely being comic books, but more or different do not necessarily equate to bad.

And as far as WOTC, yes it's a very different game system than when it started. And most people would say it's better. In 1998 or so (maybe '99) I went to a Type 2 tournament in Magic (called Standard these days), the kind where only the newer cards are legal and the old broken stuff isn't...and had multiple games where I lost the game in the first turn or two, occasionally losing before I even got to play my first turn. In 40k it'd be the equivalent of Guard tabling you with shooting at the top of turn 1. It was unbalanced and had major issues with development, balance, and playtesting. They had to issue "emergency bans" of certain cards, that didn't do enough, and they issued more "emergency bans." The fact that now the rules are better, the development and design are better, the playtesting is better, and the support are better make it a much better game than it was back in the day before Hasbro. Different system =/= worse system. In fact, in this case different = better.

Stay on target, Red Leader!! YOU are just shooting more ammo at an already explained point. MY post was in reply to the guy that said that companies DO NOT break up an IP when they take it over.


As to good, bad or indifferent? It all depends on how the market replies with thier wallet if the stuff is good or not that has been changed. We could always pull out two headed coins and throw them around over it, though.


As to that question, I say they did, you just agreed with me. Next.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Osbad wrote:

Grot 6 wrote:The point being that companies are under no illusions as to why they took over a product. They want to make money off of it, regardless of how they do it. They will do what it takes to get that bottom line.

And I don't think anyone has a problem with a company making a profit per se, but there remains two issues:

1/ Making a profit by dishonest means (jerking around their customers, misleading them, taking advantage of them, etc., etc.) even if strictly speaking "legal" is still immoral and should not be encouraged.

2/ What is the long term impact on profitability if you devalue your brand image? Being known as the company that cares zip for your fans doesn't do much for your prospects of long term profitability growth...

Agreed, and I think that these two points are some of the most OVERT signs that this company doesn't really know WHO it is marketing to. As to LONG TERM? I'm not really seeing a Long Term if you have a company that actually thinks that stifling creativity is a good thing.

The most important question I have to ask about this whole BB thing is....

WHO is the assjack responsible for decisions, this issue, and WHO is the one responsible for diffusing this situation, before someone really gets to throw the well worn court threat around, but it later become an issue entirely different for the court to handle then C and D and IP arguments.

Seriously, wouldn't the way that fans are being treated be in the lanes of being sold a defective, or faulty product? There was a description, if I remember correctly being "Implied covenant of good faith".

Basicly-" Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing n. a general assumption of the law of contracts, that people will act in good faith and deal fairly without breaking their word, using shifty means to avoid obligations, or denying what the other party obviously understood. A lawsuit (or one of the causes of action in a lawsuit) based on the breach of this covenant is often brought when the other party has been claiming technical excuses for breaching the contract or using the specific words of the contract to refuse to perform when the surrounding circumstances or apparent understanding of the parties were to the contrary. Example: an employer fires a long-time employee without cause and says it can fire at whim because the employment contract states the employment is "at will." However, the employee was encouraged to join the company on the basis of retirement plans and other conduct which led him/her to believe the job was permanent barring misconduct or financial downturn. Thus, there could be a breach of the implied covenant, since the surrounding circumstances implied that there would be career-long employment. (See: implied)

I picked this up from the web, over at http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/implied+covenant+of+good+faith+and+fair+dealing


YOU Blood Bowl players, The guy that worked on the Living Rule Book, All of the guys that made fan sites based on your game, and even those of you who picked up a Boxed game with the 2 ed rulebook should go ask about this phrase.

Notice anything familiar about the example that has been given at the end of the description?


I agree 110% with your two points. and I'm asking the question, WHO exactly is the consumer that GW is selling this game to? IS GW responsible for selling a product, or are we to infere that PLAYERS are supposed to play Blood Bowl with a jacked up rules system, and a lack of special characters?

Is the Blood Bowl Product a complete product, for fair use and value? Or is it a intentionally defective product?


If it is, then WHO is it being marketed to?

I would say the box game as sold is complete.

but it is not complete for the way the game is now played.

I think one would be hard pressed to find any group that plays BB as it is in the box game.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Hawkins wrote:
Well to give you a good guess at number 2. jervis, preistly, jackson, and Blanche arent getting any younger. do you really think they care where the company is in 20 years? Didnt think so.... most are right around the coner of retirement.

If you believe the 'source of evil' in GW is here with these guys, you are verymuch mistaken. Look to Kirby and board of directors, look to those in authority in the company with NO love of playing with toy soldiers or painting. The company would only grow worse with the passing of these guys, they remember back to the halcyon days, when they go, they will be replaced by those who grew up and took on the hobby during the Age of Strife AKA The Red Age.

It is with the soulless bean counters and middle management and 'adjusters' that you will find the rot that poisons this company and with Kirby, who's 'little red book' training manual is frankly the most egotistical and dire Gordon Gekko styled self-reacharound it has ever been my displeasure to read.

My post was not ment to say these persons were the root of the GW evil, it was to suggest that these individuals have more pressing matters coming up. i dout they are really looking to set GW strait, rather than just toe the line until pension time. They are getting ready to retire in the next 10 years, priorities change.

Warboss Hazrat wrote:OK, long time lurker, first time poster.

I've been involved in the hobby since the mid 90's, and while I wish that I could still buy Kerrunch and Hop-Splat blister packs in GW stores, that time is past.
I am no corporate fanboy, but I think people need to understand that while the company has a *perceived* responsibility to it's customers, it's real responsibility is to its shareholders. That's what happens in a publicly listed company. The funny thing is though, companies do best when the interests of their shareholders and customers coincide. That however is a hard balance to strike. GW are very fortunate to have such a loyal fanbase, and I can see how people feel aggrieved at what seems like a lack of support, however, the company wouldn't exist *at all* were it not for the management buyout, corporate re-structuring, and aggressive expansion that have characterised the last decade (or two).

That said, when a company behaves as GW have done recently, in a seemingly indiscriminate manner towards people who are trying to contribute with no seeming personal gain (C+D letters), it does nothing to endear them to people.

I know Dakka is probably not the forum (in the loosest sense of the word) for this, but we all know that it is monitored by people from the company. I don't think it would hurt for someone to respond to the community's concerns in an official way. Again, the likely party line would be that the company doesn't comment on ongoing legal proceedings, and I respect that, but I for one don't want to see the company whose products have given me so much pleasure over the years badmouthed unnecessarily any more - at least without responding.

Oh, and Tom Kirby has played wargames for years.

WBH

Glad to hear your thoughts, I think you're pretty much dead-on with most of your commentary.

In my mind, I think the biggest issue that Games Workshop has going for it right now is their lack of transparency. I personally don't feel that any of their decisions in recent years have been completely off the deep end when looked at from a corporate viewpoint, but the big problem for us 'fans' is that they do it all without giving any reasons behind their actions, which tends to make them seem like the big evil monolithic company that some make them out to be.

But IMHO, this stems from the fact that they are a corporation beholden to their shareholders. This is ultimately an issue with corporatism, rather than with Games Workshop specifically. When any piece of information released by the company can end up affecting the stock prices of the company, is it any real surprise that public companies keep *very* tight control over exactly what information is released and what is not?

There are very, very few public companies that give any kind of public information except in the form of a 'press release' that has been screened by media firms who are paid to make sure that the information being provided is spun as positively as possible.

I think GW's clamping down on rumors, images, etc of their products is exactly a by-product of this kind of mentality. Like all corporations they can become paranoid that information released in the wrong way will negatively affect their stock price.


So while I would like nothing more in this hobby than for GW to have someone be the figurehead of their company and constantly give us the perfectly rational reasons that they likely have for all the decisions they've made that look terrible to us fans. I know that this simply isn't possible with a publicly held company, and that makes me sad, but it is just part of the business world we live in today.


And when it comes to the LRB6 and Blood Bowl. One thing to consider about GW's decision is that the person who was mainly responsible for writing the rules (Galak) is also the head of a miniature company who makes 'fantasy football' models. While I'm absolutely positive that Galak did not start his miniature company or start working on writing the LRB in order to make a profit off of Blood Bowl (I'm positive both were done for the love of the game), the reality is, having someone writing rules and army lists for a GW game who also on the side essentially sells miniatures primarily for use in said game...well that's clearly a huge conflict of interests and I personally completely understand why they would issue a C&D in this particular case.

Is the Blood Bowl Product a complete product, for fair use and value? Or is it a intentionally defective product?

Well, unless you can find a smoking gun in the form of a directive from someone 20 years ago to release an intentionally defective product, then no, it isn't, and could never be proved as such.

While I think you have good points Yak, isn't the current way of how they're going about things MUCH worse. I can't imagine it will be long before someone decides to link the GW "attacks" on it's fans to more legitimate news sources. I know I've seen stories like this in the news. All it will take is little 12 year old Tommy in middle class America to get a C&D for his fansite for the drive by media to pick up the story "British games company hates it's fans."

This kind of press is bad for everyone involved. GW is a niche hobby, and a lot of it's new sales are driven by word of mouth. Locally, and I'm sure most can say this, it's the minority hobby. I know a lot more people playing board games, CCGs, or cheaper mini games. I know right now I have trouble recommending new people into the game without the caveat of telling them to look at armies people are shilling ready made on Ebay for a fraction of what it would cost them new.

yakface wrote:One thing to consider about GW's decision is that the person who was mainly responsible for writing the rules (Galak) is also the head of a miniature company who makes 'fantasy football' models. While I'm absolutely positive that Galak did not start his miniature company or start working on writing the LRB in order to make a profit off of Blood Bowl (I'm positive both were done for the love of the game), the reality is, having someone writing rules and army lists for a GW game who also on the side essentially sells miniatures primarily for use in said game...well that's clearly a huge conflict of interests and I personally completely understand why they would issue a C&D in this particular case.

THis. End of tread.

Anyone who can't understand the situation past this fact is totally unreasonable. GW cannot have someone writing the rules who will use said rules to sell competing miniatures. That is a simple concept in business.

It's not a simple question at all.

Firstly, a conflict of interest is only necessarily serious if it is hidden, which it wasn't.

Secondly, that one guy was part of a committee, he wasn't working on the rules by himself.

Thirdly, GW waited several years before making him resign. They clearly weren't worried about the conflict of interest.

Fourthly, there wasn't a C&D against this guy or his company. The action against Impact (and other manufacturers) wasn't a C&G because that was not legally possible, it was a naked threat to cripple or not release the LRBv6 rules.

mikhaila wrote:Is the Blood Bowl Product a complete product, for fair use and value? Or is it a intentionally defective product?

Well, unless you can find a smoking gun in the form of a directive from someone 20 years ago to release an intentionally defective product, then no, it isn't, and could never be proved as such.

How can you say No? The product is obviously defective. Intentionally or not doesn't matter, the proof is that if you go buy this game, it is unplayable.

I don't have to prove a thing. All I have to do is go down to my local shop, pick up a set, and try to play it with others that are already players.

Can I get so and so, the special character? No. Oh? So... Why is he included in the book?
Can I play a game with the gear right out of the box? No. Oh? Why not? Because there is a living rulebook that is out there, being written by a bunch of people that don't work for GW. Oh? So... WHY is the game rulebook say that it is the property of GW, then?

As for finding a smoking gun? I just want to know what GW is smoking, at all. THEN we get some company tool actually having the brass to come up in here and throw a snippit of information in the mix that is not generally known to the conversation. WTH is that about?

"I am no corporate fanboy, but I think people need to understand that while the company has a *perceived* responsibility to it's customers, it's real responsibility is to its shareholders. That's what happens in a publicly listed company. The funny thing is though, companies do best when the interests of their shareholders and customers coincide. That however is a hard balance to strike. GW are very fortunate to have such a loyal fanbase, and I can see how people feel aggrieved at what seems like a lack of support, however, the company wouldn't exist *at all* were it not for the management buyout, corporate re-structuring, and aggressive expansion that have characterised the last decade (or two). "- Warboss Hazrat

Did you read what you wrote here? It IS NOT a perceved Lack of support, it is an outright neglect of the game.
What is exactly the point then? How do you see the shotgun blast of C and D mess as good for shareholders, fans, or CUSTOMERS who, by the way are not even getting dividend when your so called" publicly listed" company is not even pushing this game in its current form to actually be played?
Hell, this is a niche game of a niche hobby. It's not like we are talking about the coveted Spazz Muhreenz here.

everyojne knows that specialisat games have been getting the shaft for years. RELIGATED to fan supported material.

I'm not even a player of this BB game, but even I can see the preverbial two finger salute here. With the way that GW is peeing on it's so called "Coveted" fanbase, it is a wonder that they even want to stay in buisness. They would rather shut down a store to make profit then put out solid product.

The crap thing about this is There has been an ongoing evolution of these GW games based on figure conversions, modeling, and making up your own figures to play with, because either ONE- The model in question was not available, or TWO- The players were ENCOURAGED to make up thier own models and convert thier own models to play to "Have fun" with. NOW we see that the fan base is making up better product and models then are being made by the company, WHO by the way has NEGELECTED its specialist games line for the past 5 or so years.

And as for Tom Kirby? Pfft. Who cares. It has no relevence if he plays games, or courts the pope on this matter. We can see what kind of games this tool has been playing with the so called "Hobby".
This company needs to explain itself and put out a press statement or at least discuss this matter regarding its treatment of the so called " valued fan base". Do you think that these actions are not being noticed? Think again. Of course, to GW any press is good press I guess.

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/28/games-workshop-decla.html

http://technews.am/conversations/techdirt/games_workshop_goes_after_its_biggest_fans_with_takedown_order

http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2009/11/17/31483/comment-page-1

http://games.slashdot.org/story/09/12/01/070232/Games-Workshop-Goes-After-Fan-Site

And Yes, Virgina, there are more where this came from.

As for the rest, a company is in the buisness to make money. You want to make money, you better sell stuff. You don't do that by being douche bags and throwing threats around, and selling out your fan base.

"And when it comes to the LRB6 and Blood Bowl. One thing to consider about GW's decision is that the person who was mainly responsible for writing the rules (Galak) is also the head of a miniature company who makes 'fantasy football' models. While I'm absolutely positive that Galak did not start his miniature company or start working on writing the LRB in order to make a profit off of Blood Bowl (I'm positive both were done for the love of the game), the reality is, having someone writing rules and army lists for a GW game who also on the side essentially sells miniatures primarily for use in said game...well that's clearly a huge conflict of interests and I personally completely understand why they would issue a C&D in this particular case."- Yakface

That might even be relevent, except that this game has been tooling around for over HOW many years again? This guy has been involved since WHEN? If that would have been an issue, then they would have sent him packing years ago with a C and D, when his so called "buisness" was actually overt enough to have been of influence on the game.

Besides, if that was even the case, Where then was an ACTUAL game designer that worked for GW? It takes until the middle of winter, almost Christmas time to be an issue? How long has this Living Rulebook thing been going on, again? WHO is responsible for this? WHY did they lose control of thier project?

SO, a company puts out a shoddy product, encourages "FANS" to take the lead to continue to develop the game, and then pulls the rug out on them when someone makes up the missing material that the game is lacking? Right... good play.

I'm not seeing a conflict, when on one hand you actively encouraged this guy to continue to write, even AFTER the fact that he was already making his own game and on the other we see the product effectively stagnate when you throw it out with the bath water. As a matter of fact, I am seeing a conflict of interest when you have a company that encouraged fans to contribute, when it is more then obvious that they didn't want the contribution.

Grot 6 wrote: How can you say No? The product is obviously defective. Intentionally or not doesn't matter, the proof is that if you go buy this game, it is unplayable.

How is it unplayable? I didn't have any problems with mine.

Can I get so and so, the special character? No. Oh? So... Why is he included in the book?

That doesn't make it unplayable. I don't have any of the Star Player models... I just grab the most suitable model in the cabinet.

Can I play a game with the gear right out of the box? No. Oh? Why not? Because there is a living rulebook that is out there, being written by a bunch of people that don't work for GW.

That's only a problem if you're trying to play with people using the living rulebook. For sure, a game is unplayable if you're trying to play a completely different edition of it... That's kind of like saying that Battlefield 1942 is unplayable because you can't connect to a Battlefield 2 server with it...