With the release of the Space Wolves Games Workshop FAQ, a lot of people have noticed... similarities, to my Unofficial Codex: Space Wolves FAQ. With that In mind I decided to scour the GW FAQ to find out what had been taken and to my surprise, several sections have been completely copypasted, with absolutely no attribution. :(

The sections copypasted are detailed below, with the copypasted bits highlighted for you:

GW FAQ:
Q. If a Wolf Guard Pack Leader has joined a unit of Troops, does that unit cease to be a scoring unit? And does the Wolf Guard cease to count as an Elite model?
[...]

My FAQ:
SW.86.08 – Q: If a Wolf Guard Pack Leader has joined a unit of Troops, does that unit cease to be a Scoring Unit?
A: No. [R.a.W]
-----------------------------------------

GW FAQ:
Q. Does Jaws of the World Wolf allow the Rune Priest to target specific models within squads?
A. Yes.

My FAQ:
SW.37.11 – Q: Does “Jaws of the World Wolf” allow the Space Wolf player to target specific models within squads?
A: Yes. [R.a.W]
-------------------------------------------

GW FAQ:
Q. Can a Wolf Guard Pack that has nine Wolf Guard and Arjac Rockfist take a second heavy weapon?
A. Yes, as it is for ‘every five models’, not ‘every five Wolf Guard’.

My FAQ:
SW.86.04 – Q: Can a Wolf Guard Pack that has nine Wolf Guard and Arjac Rockfist take a second Heavy Weapon?
A: Yes, as it is for “every five models”, not “every five Wolf Guard”. [R.a.W]
-------------------------------------------

GW FAQ:
Q. How is the points cost for Lukas the Trickster calculated?
A. Lukas the Trickster costs the number of points in the options list (140) in addition to the base cost of a Blood Claw model (15).

My FAQ:
SW.89.03 – Q: How is the points cost for Lukas the Trickster calculated?
A: Lukas the Trickster costs the number of points in the Options list in addition to the base cost of a Blood Claw Model. [R.a.W]
-------------------------------------------

GW FAQ:
Q. If The Last Laugh removes a transport vehicle that has models embarked, are the embarked models also lost?
A. Yes.

My FAQ:
SW.52.03 – Q: If “The Last Laugh” removes a Transport vehicle that has models embarked, are the embarked models also lost?
A: Yes. [Clarification]
----------------------------------------------

GW FAQ:
Q. How does the Pelt of the Doppegangrel work?
A. Under normal circumstances, the Pelt of the Doppegangrel will only work if Lukas the Trickster is on his own(i.e. his Blood Claw buddies have all been killed off). Models with an ability to specifically target a certain model (e.g. a Vindicare Assassin) must re-roll all successful to hit rolls if targeting Lukas. The same ruling applies in close combat. Unless the enemy has a specific special rule allowing them to allocate attacks to specific models in close combat, Lukas cannot be targeted separately unless he is on his own. He really is that slippery a customer!

My FAQ:
SW.52.06 – Q: How exactly does the “Pelt of the Doppegangrel” work?
A: Under normal circumstances, the “Pelt of the Doppegangrel” will only work if Lukas the Trickster is on his own(i.e. his squad has all been killed off). Models with an ability to specifically target a certain model (e.g. Vindicare Assassin or Eldar Farseer using “Mind War”) must re-roll all successful To Hit rolls if targeting Lukas. The same situation applies in close combat. However, unless the enemy has a specific special rule allowing them to allocate attacks to specific models in close combat, he cannot be targeted separately unless he is on his own. [R.a.W]
--------------------------------

GW FAQ:
Q. How do Njal Stormcaller’s Driving Gale and Living Hurricane effects work if the Space Wolves player is the player going second?
A. These two abilities have no real effect in games where the Space Wolves player is going second – the tempest is yet to rage.

SW.53.04 – Q: How do the “Driving Gale” and “Living Hurricane” effects work if the Space Wolf Player is the player going second in the first game turn?
A: The two abilities have no real effect in games where the Space Wolf player is going second on the first game turn. [R.a.W]
--------------------------------------

GW FAQ:
Q. Can units that Ragnar Blackmane has joined run in the Shooting phase or fire weapons that would prevent them from launching an assault in the following Assault Phase?
A. Yes, they may. Insane Bravado states that they must assault only ‘if possible’. If it is not possible because of the unit's actions in the Shooting phase or some other reason, then they simply do not assault.

My FAQ:
SW.55.01 – Q: Can units that Ragnar Blackmane has joined Run in the Shooting phase or fire weapons that would prevent them from launching an assault in the following Assault Phase?
A: Yes, they may. “Insane Bravado” states that they must assault only “if possible”. If it is not possible because of the unit's actions in the Shooting phase or some other reason, then they simply do not assault. [R.a.W]
----------------------------

GW FAQ:
Q. Is the +1 Toughness from a Thunderwolf Mount considered bonus Toughness, i.e. the model becomes Toughness 4(5), or is it a modification to the base characteristic, i.e. the model becomes Toughness 5?
A. Unusually for such bonuses, it is a modification to the base characteristic. [...]

My FAQ:
SW.62.08 – Q: Is the +1 Toughness from a Thunderwolf Mount bonus toughness (i.e. The model becomes Toughness 4(5) ) or is it a modification to the base characteristic (i.e. The model becomes Toughness 5)?
A: It is a modification to the base characteristic (so a model with a Thunderwolf Mount is Toughness 5). [Clarification]
-----------------------------------------

GW FAQ:
Q. Can you clarify how The Leaders of the Pack works exactly?
A. The rules for selecting Sagas are detailed on page 64. As for wargear, no two HQ characters, including Special Characters, may have the exact same wargear and Weapons, even if they are different HQ units. Note that Fenrisian Wolves bought as wargear are included in this check, so if you had two otherwise identical Wolf Guard Battle Leaders, save that one has one Fenrisian Wolf and the other has two, then you are technically obeying this rule just fine. For the record, the intent of the rule is that you should field characterful and diverse heroes in your army, not identical clones with but an extra melta bomb to set them apart. Though we cannot really enforce players to embrace this attitude, the Codex does try to encourage it wherever possible.

Q. Can you clarify how The Leaders of the Pack works with regards to psychic powers?
A. No number of Rune Priests may share the exact same two psychic powers. For example, a Rune Priest may choose to take Living Lightning and Thunderclap. A second Rune Priest may then choose to take Living Lighting and Jaws of the World Wolf, as he will not have the same two psychic powers as the first Rune Priest. Note that the restriction on weapons and wargear still applies, so you have to have each Rune Priest with a unique wargear selection. Also note that Njal Stormcaller knows all seven powers rather than just two, so no other Rune Priest can end up having the same powers. Thus it is permitted to take Njal Stormcaller alongside other Rune Priests.

My FAQ:
SW.81.01 – Q: Can you clarify how “The Leaders of the Pack” works exactly?
A: When selecting HQ characters, no two models may share the same Saga. Special Characters do not count as having a Saga for this purpose (So for example, a generic Wolf Lord may take the “Saga of Majesty” even if Logan Grimnar is in the army.)

No two HQ characters, including Special Characters, may have the exact same Wargear and Weapons, even if they are different HQ units. For example, an army that includes Ragnar Blackmane may not have a Wolf Guard Battle Leader that is equipped with a Wolftooth Necklace, Wolf Tail Talisman, Frost Blade, Meltabombs and the “Saga of the Warrior Born” (as well as the standard equipment remaining), as this would result in two characters having the exact same wargear and weapons. If you were to remove the Meltabombs from the Wolf Guard Battle Leader though, it would be a legal selection. Note that Fenrisian Wolves bought as wargear are included in this check, so to take two otherwise identical Wolf Guard Battle Leaders, save that one has one Fenrisian Wolf and the other has two, is a legal selection.

No number of Rune Priests may share the same two Psychic Powers. For example, a Rune Priest may choose to take Living Lightning and Thunderclap. A second Rune Priest may then choose to take Living Lighting and Jaws of the World Wolf,as neither have the same two Psychic powers. A third Rune Priest however may not select Thunderclap and Living Lighting, as the first Rune Priest has those Powers. Note that the restriction on Weapons and Wargear still applies, so you have to have each Rune Priest with a unique wargear selection. Also note that as Njal knows all seven powers rather than just two, no other Rune Priest can end up having the same Powers, thus it is permitted to take Njal Stormcaller with another Rune Priest. [Clarification]
------------------------------

GW FAQ:
Q. Are Wolf Guard Packs genuine Troops selections in the Force Organisation chart instead of Elites when fielded in an army with Logan Grimnar? If so, is this optional?
A. Yes, they count as Troops and take up Troops Force Organisation Chart Selections. This is not an optional choice, so you can have at most six Wolf Guard Packs in an army with Logan Grimnar.

My FAQ:
SW.82.01 – Q: Are Wolf Guard Packs Troops selections in the Force Organisation chart instead of Elites in an army with Logan Grimnar? If so is this Optional?
A: Yes, they count as Troops and take up Troops Force Organisation Chart Selections. Furthermore, this is not an optional choice, so you can have at most six Wolf Guard Packs in an army with Logan Grimnar and three in an army without. [R.a.W]
----------------------

GW FAQ:
Q. Similarly, are Fenrisian Wolf Packs Troops selections in the Force Organisation chart instead of Fast Attack in an army with Canis Wolfborn? If so is this optional?
A. Yes, they count as Troops and take up Troops Force Organisation Chart Selections. Again, this is not an optional choice, so you can have at most six Fenrisian Wolf Packs in an army with Canis Wolfborn. You could in theory have an army primarily composed of wolves, though you’d not be able to claim objectives because of their Supernumerary rule, so you’d better be prepared for a lot of draws…

My FAQ:
SW.83.01 – Q: Are Fenrisian Wolf Packs Troops selections in the Force Organisation chart instead of Fast Attack in an army with Canis Wolfborn? If so is this Optional?
A: Yes, they count as Troops and take up Troops Force Organisation Chart Selections. Furthermore, this is not an optional choice, so you can have at most six Fenrisian Wolf Packs in an army with Canis Wolfborn and three in an army without. [R.a.W]
-------------------------------

GW FAQ:
Q. Must a Grey Hunter unit that consists of ten models take the first special weapon at normal points cost in order to take the second free one?
A. Yes.

My FAQ:
SW.89.01 – Q: Must a Grey Hunter unit that consists of ten models have to take the first special weapon at normal points cost to take the second free one?
A: Yes. [R.a.W]

So, there you have it. Gwar! "officially" has more say over rules issues than 99.99% of Dakka.

Furious charge apparently works with counter charge. I did not expect that ruling.

Heh, awesome. Completely missed that one.

Shame they didn't fix Bjorns Save though :(

Multiple JotWW is allowed after all. :(

...and I was right, it's a shooting attack so it needs line of sight.

It's not the power itself that bothers me... it's the fact they can take 4 HQ's. Nothing like taking a stabilizing game mechanic, pissing on it and tossing it in the trash. I'm referring to the FOC chart by the way.

I have such a love/hate relationship with Codex: Space Wolves. :(

oni wrote:...and I was right, it's a shooting attack so it needs line of sight.

TBH, it needs line of sight to a target, not to the unit affected by the power. Another fine example of GW pissing on clear rules via FAQ

Just shows that GW don't play test enough before they print a codex, but its good that they have actually done something about it.

Playtesting, what's that?

oni wrote:Multiple JotWW is allowed after all. :(

...and I was right, it's a shooting attack so it needs line of sight.

It's not the power itself that bothers me... it's the fact they can take 4 HQ's. Nothing like taking a stabilizing game mechanic, pissing on it and tossing it in the trash. I'm referring to the FOC chart by the way.

I have such a love/hate relationship with Codex: Space Wolves. :(

They've always had the multiple HQ rule, though, and it was even worse in the last codex (mandatory HQ every 750pts or so, so you had to run 3 HQs at 2k). JotWW isn't that broken, anyways.

Almost every army has some instance of taking a standard rule and creating a special exception. Why would SW be different?

aka_mythos wrote:Almost every army has some instance of taking a standard rule and creating a special exception. Why would SW be different?

You're absolutely right and it's a problem.

Why is that a problem?

Nurglitch wrote:Why is that a problem?

No idea.

Oni, if you think special rules are a problem, try playing chess.

Actually, no, because Knights have a special rule, so that's no good.

How about Checkers? No, wait, sorry, Kings have special rules.

Gwar! wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Why is that a problem?

No idea.

Oni, if you think special rules are a problem, try playing chess.

Actually, no, because Knights have a special rule, so that's no good.

How about Checkers? No, wait, sorry, Kings have special rules.

Oh Gwar! YOU SO FUNNY!

Gwar! wrote:

oni wrote:...and I was right, it's a shooting attack so it needs line of sight.

TBH, it needs line of sight to a target, not to the unit affected by the power. Another fine example of GW pissing on clear rules via FAQ

It states that it needs line of site to the first model in line to be affected by the power, all the others behind it are affected collaterally.

The Rune Priest must
have line of sight to the first model that the
power affects – in effect he is treated as the target
model; the power just happens to hit everybody
else on its way through!

I believe that this means you cannot Jaws one unit while the Priest's unit shoots/assaults another unit. As the FAQ states that the first model hit by the power is "treated as the target model," and JOTWW is a shooting power.

Saldiven wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

oni wrote:...and I was right, it's a shooting attack so it needs line of sight.

TBH, it needs line of sight to a target, not to the unit affected by the power. Another fine example of GW pissing on clear rules via FAQ

It states that it needs line of site to the first model in line to be affected by the power, all the others behind it are affected collaterally.

The Rune Priest must
have line of sight to the first model that the
power affects – in effect he is treated as the target
model; the power just happens to hit everybody
else on its way through!

I believe that this means you cannot Jaws one unit while the Priest's unit shoots/assaults another unit. As the FAQ states that the first model hit by the power is "treated as the target model," and JOTWW is a shooting power.

The FAQ is wrong, plain and simple. Following the actual rules (that are clear as day) he needs LoS to an enemy model of some sort, but after that the line can be drawn wherever he wants.

oni wrote:Multiple JotWW is allowed after all. :(

...and I was right, it's a shooting attack so it needs line of sight.

It's not the power itself that bothers me... it's the fact they can take 4 HQ's. Nothing like taking a stabilizing game mechanic, pissing on it and tossing it in the trash. I'm referring to the FOC chart by the way.

I have such a love/hate relationship with Codex: Space Wolves. :(

that's why one of the local events uses modified kill points
2 points for hq's elites fast and heavy and 1 for troops and transports.
so you wrap up 8 kill points in your 4 hq's


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

oni wrote:...and I was right, it's a shooting attack so it needs line of sight.

TBH, it needs line of sight to a target, not to the unit affected by the power. Another fine example of GW pissing on clear rules via FAQ

It states that it needs line of site to the first model in line to be affected by the power, all the others behind it are affected collaterally.

The Rune Priest must
have line of sight to the first model that the
power affects – in effect he is treated as the target
model; the power just happens to hit everybody
else on its way through!

I believe that this means you cannot Jaws one unit while the Priest's unit shoots/assaults another unit. As the FAQ states that the first model hit by the power is "treated as the target model," and JOTWW is a shooting power.

The FAQ is wrong, plain and simple. Following the actual rules (that are clear as day) he needs LoS to an enemy model of some sort, but after that the line can be drawn wherever he wants.

FAQ's are never wrong unless they are re FAQ'd

Gwar! wrote:The FAQ is wrong, plain and simple. Following the actual rules (that are clear as day) he needs LoS to an enemy model of some sort, but after that the line can be drawn wherever he wants.

It can't be wrong just because you disagree with it

bhsman wrote:

Gwar! wrote:The FAQ is wrong, plain and simple. Following the actual rules (that are clear as day) he needs LoS to an enemy model of some sort, but after that the line can be drawn wherever he wants.

It can't be wrong just because you disagree with it

It isn't wrong because I disagree with it.

It's wrong because it's, well, not right, when you actually play by the rules.

Q. Does Arjac Rockfist confer the Stubborn
ability to his unit?
A. No, as he is not an Independent Character.
Arjac’s Stubborn ability only makes a difference
when he is on his own.

How does the Pelt of the Doppegangrel work?
A. Under normal circumstances, the Pelt of the
Doppegangrel will only work if Lukas the
Trickster is on his own (i.e. his Blood Claw
buddies have all been killed off)...

Then why on Earth did you bother? Oh God I hate GW.

DarkHound wrote:Q. Does Arjac Rockfist confer the Stubborn
ability to his unit?
A. No, as he is not an Independent Character.
Arjac’s Stubborn ability only makes a difference
when he is on his own.

How does the Pelt of the Doppegangrel work?
A. Under normal circumstances, the Pelt of the
Doppegangrel will only work if Lukas the
Trickster is on his own (i.e. his Blood Claw
buddies have all been killed off)...

Then why on Earth did you bother? Oh God I hate GW.

lol Yea thats like having the option to take a bolt gun on a SM bike, when the bike itself has a MUCH better loadout already on it. Why the hell would you chose to shoot a boltgun over what the bike has. I dunno you figure it out

I also looked to see if they FAQ'd some Orks stuff, a couple mentions on the deff rolla, but nothing no one already knew lol. Basterds! I WANT MY WIN DAMMIT!

I'm glad to see that overall the new FAQ has been well received so far. There will always be at least a few detractors, nothing new there really.

G

KingCracker wrote:

DarkHound wrote:Q. Does Arjac Rockfist confer the Stubborn
ability to his unit?
A. No, as he is not an Independent Character.
Arjac’s Stubborn ability only makes a difference
when he is on his own.

How does the Pelt of the Doppegangrel work?
A. Under normal circumstances, the Pelt of the
Doppegangrel will only work if Lukas the
Trickster is on his own (i.e. his Blood Claw
buddies have all been killed off)...

Then why on Earth did you bother? Oh God I hate GW.

lol Yea thats like having the option to take a bolt gun on a SM bike, when the bike itself has a MUCH better loadout already on it. Why the hell would you chose to shoot a boltgun over what the bike has. I dunno you figure it out

I also looked to see if they FAQ'd some Orks stuff, a couple mentions on the deff rolla, but nothing no one already knew lol. Basterds! I WANT MY WIN DAMMIT!

I think he is referring to how these have been literally copypasted from my SW faq AT least I hope he is :p

AHHhhhhh doesnt that annoy you at least a little?? I read your FAQ, but since no one in my group is a SW player, I didnt pay much attention to it lol.

Q. Does Jaws of the World Wolf affect Jetbikes?
How about Artillery?
A. Yes, because ‘Jetbikes’ is a subcategory of the
‘Bike’ unit type. As for Artillery, the crew models
may be affected, but the gun models, being
vehicles, are not affected

This part is stupid, lol.

Yes, my Deffkoptas fall in the crack in the earth, oh wait, they're FLYING.

Gwar! wrote:I think he is referring to how these have been literally copypasted from my SW faq AT least I hope he is :p

Gwar! I think they're watching you. There's probably a van outside right now.
Don't look for it though, Jervis is likely inside with a large hammer ready to "fix" any mistakes in the rules.

n0t_u wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I think he is referring to how these have been literally copypasted from my SW faq AT least I hope he is :p

Gwar! I think they're watching you. There's probably a van outside right now.
Don't look for it though, Jervis is likely inside with a large hammer ready to "fix" any mistakes in the rules.

But because it's Jervis, it will only happen on a 4+

5+ if you play Dark Angels.

G

I like the clarification that Lucas can take out a Warlord Titan in one shot.

Really? I mean.....frickin' REALLY?! What the hell are these stasis capsules and why didn't someone use one on Horus?

Another thing people fail to realize is that JotWW is a LINE, not a plane. So if you target someone on the second level of a building, you won't hit guys that are in front, but at lower levels. The power isn't really all that good, and since they've clarified you DO have to pick a target, that saves a lot of CCs and also limits what the player can assault with the unit he's attached to.

Righty, included a handy comparison to prove GW are an evil thieving corporation

So does this mean I need to congratulate you on basically seeming to have single handedly sped up the entire GW FAQ process by doing most of the work for them...

...or need I offer condolences for them not even giving you an 'atta boy note?

You know this FAQ was put together by some underpaid schlub who just managed to have Gwar save him a bunch of work hours.

Hurrrrr! Right.

G

Haven't I read this thread somewhere before?

Gwar probably wrote that one, too.

Isn't putting a lot of the SW faq in the start of this thread infringing GW's copyright? (I know you are trying to show how its the same or similar to yours Gwar but it could cause Dakka hassle).
Mick

Q. Does Jaws of the World Wolf affect Jetbikes?
How about Artillery?
A. Yes, because ‘Jetbikes’ is a subcategory of the
‘Bike’ unit type. As for Artillery, the crew models
may be affected, but the gun models, being
vehicles, are not affected

This part is stupid, lol.

Yes, my Deffkoptas fall in the crack in the earth, oh wait, they're FLYING.

Happy day for my hydras and now ignoring turbo boosting saves of jetbikes

The proper response to this is; "Cool! They actually listens to what goes on outside of GW and my hard work has not been in vain.", not "Oh man! They didn't credit me and they didn't copy-paste all of it".

Eh, if they're going to crib note from it (especially since they did copy-paste some of it) then yes, they really should credit him (or at the very least send him an email asking if they could do so). I absolutely disagree with your stance on this Steelmage.

Thor665 wrote:Eh, if they're going to crib note from it (especially since they did copy-paste some of it) then yes, they really should credit him (or at the very least send him an email asking if they could do so). I absolutely disagree with your stance on this Steelmage.

I agree its out of order but this is GW we're talking about. If they won't credit the writers of their actual rules (Bloodbowl LRB 6th edition) they certainly won't credit for part of a faq especially when Gwar wasn't asked, or volunteered, to do it.
Mick

Maybe I expressed myself poorly.

I was merely trying to point out the amazing amount of whining (in several threads). I would have hoped that people at least recognised GW fast turnaround (for them anyway) and their willingness to look outside Nottingham for input.

I totally agree. It seems like Gwar! should be credited.
I also understand why GW didn't do it (the debacle when Yakface and the ruling council was credited), but I am sure they will be happy to correct that should Gwar! contact them.

It is not like I am oblivious to the glaring irony in the fact that GW copy-pastes (steals?) with impunity while conducting a C&D crusade of their own.

Games Workshop's Space Wolves FAQ wrote:The questions answered in our FAQs have been gathered from
many sources. Some have been submitted by members of the
public, others by representatives of the online gaming
community and more still are the result of face to face
meetings with keen and inquisitive players at a myriad of
gaming events. We are always happy to consider more
questions, and aim to update these FAQs as frequently as is
practical. See the Contact Us page of the Games Workshop
website for the address to which you can send your questions.
Thanks to all those who have done so already!

They probably don't credit Gwar! because they'd have to credit every single person who submitted/answered the questions mentioned.

Crediting who asked a question and crediting a person who word for word wrote the questions and the answers to those questions are two entirely different things.

They should credit who answers the questions if that person does not receive a paycheck from them.

Its obvious. Gwar! hacked GW's servers and stole the half finished FAQ and slapped a big seal of his own on it thinking he could take credit.

I can not believe how badly you've wronged GW, Gwar!. For shame.

Thor665 wrote:Crediting who asked a question and crediting a person who word for word wrote the questions and the answers to those questions are two entirely different things.

They should credit who answers the questions if that person does not receive a paycheck from them.

True, but there's also the possibility that there are legal issues involved (which would cost GW more cash) to get permission from every person who answered a question on an internets forum to print the person's identifiers.

Kanluwen wrote:True, but there's also the possibility that there are legal issues involved (which would cost GW more cash) to get permission from every person who answered a question on an internets forum to print the person's identifiers.

I have a solution I will offer them for free; just change the flipping language instead of using the exact words another person wrote. There, done, and no need to credit anyone. When they copy paste that's when they should include credit and I don't really care if there are legal fees. If they want to avoid legal fees then do the same thing you're required to do for a high school lit paper and don't copy paste someone else's work and act like it's yours.

You do realize that even if they just paraphrase--they would still have to do SOME form of crediting?

Anyone who's passed high school lit knows that just because you paraphrased doesn't mean you get to avoid crediting.

The text may be close enough for Gwar to sue them. That'd be interesting.

Depends on the usage actually (though you are correct about English papers I will give you). Gwar is writing questions and answers for a rule set - since a rule set is theoretically a set series of proofs (debatable with GW I know but go with me) they can easily use different language and simply claim deductive results without having to claim paraphrasing and in the case of answers for a set of proofs it's impossible to tell paraphrasing from original content and if the language were different I would never even begin to suggest Gwar deserved some credit.

Also, while we're at it - they could just note in their little opening disclaimer that you quoted that questions and answers came from these sources. Again, they'd be good to go.

However, since you agree with me that copying and paraphrasing deserve credit then I suppose you concur that Gwar! deserves credit as well, and thus we agree - yes?

Thor665 wrote:Depends on the usage actually (though you are correct about English papers I will give you). Gwar is writing questions and answers for a rule set - since a rule set is theoretically a set series of proofs (debatable with GW I know but go with me) they can easily use different language and simply claim deductive results without having to claim paraphrasing and in the case of answers for a set of proofs it's impossible to tell paraphrasing from original content and if the language were different I would never even begin to suggest Gwar deserved some credit.

Also, while we're at it - they could just note in their little opening disclaimer that you quoted that questions and answers came from these sources. Again, they'd be good to go.

However, since you agree with me that copying and paraphrasing deserve credit then I suppose you concur that Gwar! deserves credit as well, and thus we agree - yes?

Oh, I don't disagree that it would be a fantastic idea to accredit the persons responsible.

But it's entirely possible there are reasons they don't, especially given that it's possible you'd get an influx of people harassing the folks answering the questions.

Gwar!, apparently they need you to clarify their own codex.
Any plans to cut out the middle man and have you write the codexes?

So Gwar lives in the Uk? damn, that means I'm going to be at ground zero when his ego explodes any second now.

DarkHound wrote:The text may be close enough for Gwar to sue them. That'd be interesting.

Not interested in Sueing them :p I just want proper attribution, as required by the Creative Commons licence I released the FAQ under.

Thorgut wrote:Gwar!, apparently they need you to clarify their own codex.
Any plans to cut out the middle man and have you write the codexes?

I wish. I could do with the stable job and, lets be honest, I could do a better job in my sleep than the monkeys at GW atm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:So Gwar lives in the Uk? damn, that means I'm going to be at ground zero when his ego explodes any second now.

Actually I live in Ireland, though I am a smelly Limey. Got my Flag Locked as a sign of Patriotism

I notice they didn't say anything about TWC base sizes. Makes me think they don't have a forthcoming model; or if they do, they haven't decided on a base size yet.

Ironhide wrote:I notice they didn't say anything about TWC base sizes. Makes me think they don't have a forthcoming model; or if they do, they haven't decided on a base size yet.

Where have you been?

They've been confirmed as on Forge World's "Things to Do" list for quite awhile. The issue is we don't know when we'll get them. Could be a few months, could be tomorrow, or could be the summer.
I'd guess March, however.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That came out too harsh. My bad.

But yeah.
Thunderwolf Cavalry ARE on Forge World's list of things to do. Nothing more than that is really known.

"Fan developed material" can sometimes make it weird for a company to interact with
their communities. One sure way to not get something developed by some companies is
to post it on a website or forum. It's just too tricky for them to use without a get out
of jail free End User License Agreement of some kind.

Kanluwen wrote:

Ironhide wrote:I notice they didn't say anything about TWC base sizes. Makes me think they don't have a forthcoming model; or if they do, they haven't decided on a base size yet.

Where have you been?

They've been confirmed as on Forge World's "Things to Do" list for quite awhile. The issue is we don't know when we'll get them. Could be a few months, could be tomorrow, or could be the summer.
I'd guess March, however.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That came out too harsh. My bad.

But yeah.
Thunderwolf Cavalry ARE on Forge World's list of things to do. Nothing more than that is really known.

No prob. So if it is on their "to do" list, why can't they give a ruling on the base size for the model then?

I love how the title reads "Gwar! wrote most of it!"

I guess his 14 "copypasted" FAQ answers among their 47 FAQ answers (not counting the Errata) = most? Actually, it's about 29.787234% of the FAQ. That's not really "most". Get off your high horse.

Also, I would loooove to see him sue them. That would be rich. So, you're sueing over an intellectual property that you don't own, that is comprised of 30% of "soft house rules" that don't even "have the same authority as the main rules" as they don't "modify the published material."?

Please do. *grabs popcorn*

Edit: I don't know what kind of CC you did. From what you posted, it sounds like you did a CC-BY (Attribution). Also, don't CC's allow the original right-holders (read GW) to redistribute said CC'ed work for "non-commercial purpose without modification"?

puma713 wrote:Edit: I don't know what kind of CC you did. From what you posted, it sounds like you did a CC-BY (Attribution). Also, don't CC's allow the original right-holders (read GW) to redistribute said CC'ed work for "non-commercial purpose without modification"?

I used the Attribution No Derive Non Commercial Licence.

Gwar! wrote:

puma713 wrote:Edit: I don't know what kind of CC you did. From what you posted, it sounds like you did a CC-BY (Attribution). Also, don't CC's allow the original right-holders (read GW) to redistribute said CC'ed work for "non-commercial purpose without modification"?

I used the Attribution No Derive Non Commercial Licence.

That's what I'm getting at. An ND means they can't modify it (which, according to you, they didn't really) and they can't use it commercially, which they're not. How much are they selling those FAQ's for anyway?

"This court finds the defendant, Games Workshop, Ltd. guilty as charged. They must pay Gwar! the amount equal to the profit that they made as a result of his FAQ rulings."

<Jervis hands Gwar! a check for $0.0>

"This court is adjourned."

Well, they didn't follow the "Attribute" part of the licence. And if you had bothered reading the thread, I don't want to sue them for all their worth (I am not an American), I just want to be properly credited.

Gwar! wrote:Well, they didn't follow the "Attribute" part of the licence. And if you had bothered reading the thread, I don't want to sue them for all their worth (I am not an American), I just want to be properly credited.

That's what I was getting at with my question above. I'm not sure about the "attribution" part of it, but I'm pretty sure, if you're using someone else's material, that rightholder can use your CC'ed material without attribution so long as they're doing it for non-profit.

For instance: someone records a song. You remix the song and CC-ND-NC it. As long as they don't make a profit from it, they can reproduce your remix and not give you credit at all. Not everyone, just the original right-holder.

And I know you weren't talking about sueing them at all (although that is uniquely American, I'll give you that) - but as I was reading through the thread everyone is basically crying foul at GW. Well, as the rightholder to the Space Wolves and all intellectual property related thereto, they've done nothing wrong. Sure, it would've been nice for them to say, "And a thanks to Gwar! for help with this FAQ." (Because, let's face it Gwar!, you didn't write the FAQ. You have snippets here and there within it.) But there is nothing legally binding them to do that.

Ironhide wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Ironhide wrote:I notice they didn't say anything about TWC base sizes. Makes me think they don't have a forthcoming model; or if they do, they haven't decided on a base size yet.

Where have you been?

They've been confirmed as on Forge World's "Things to Do" list for quite awhile. The issue is we don't know when we'll get them. Could be a few months, could be tomorrow, or could be the summer.
I'd guess March, however.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That came out too harsh. My bad.

But yeah.
Thunderwolf Cavalry ARE on Forge World's list of things to do. Nothing more than that is really known.

No prob. So if it is on their "to do" list, why can't they give a ruling on the base size for the model then?

I was unaware there was an issue with base size?

Seems like they'd be the standard walker sized base.

I've seen that base size used and I've seen cavalry bases used. Both sides have good arguments as to why they use the bases they use. I have no problem with either so long as the person informs what base size he is using before we play. Tourney players on the other hand, tend to argue over which is correct.

It's hilarious but not suprising that GW copy pasted Gwar's work without crediting him.
Sorry to hear about that, man.

Da Boss wrote:It's hilarious but not suprising that GW copy pasted Gwar's work without crediting him.
Sorry to hear about that, man.

I have half a mind to Go to the Dublin GW in a Top hat and Monocle and start lording it over you common folk.

Da Boss wrote:It's hilarious but not suprising that GW copy pasted Gwar's work without crediting him.
Sorry to hear about that, man.

think of it from their point of view, they have no idea where Gwar gets his information from.

You'd not find me gaming there, I'm afraid- Gamer's World around the corner on Thursdays is my usual.

You should come down for a game sometime though!
Make sure you get a cane with a silver knob on the end too- very classy, those.

Da Boss wrote:You'd not find me gaming there, I'm afraid- Gamer's World around the corner on Thursdays is my usual.

You should come down for a game sometime though!
Make sure you get a cane with a silver knob on the end too- very classy, those.

Hmm, I should at that. However, I currently have a load of Unpainted and Unbuilt Models rather than an army, because I suck so much at painting its not even funny

So, I got a reply from GW Legal.

They "assured" me that "Alessio is a very busy man and does not have time to spend trawling forums to look for questions. In addition, he has confirmed that he was not aware of your FAQ page and so cannot have copied the text."

Ah well, C'est la vie!

Gwar! wrote: "Alessio is a very busy man and does not have time to spend trawling forums to look for questions."

Then how do they know what the "frequently asked questions are?

Gwar! wrote:So, I got a reply from GW Legal.

They "assured" me that "Alessio is a very busy man and does not have time to spend trawling forums to look for questions. In addition, he has confirmed that he was not aware of your FAQ page and so cannot have copied the text."

Ah well, C'est la vie!

you should send them a C&D Gwar.

Gwar! wrote:So, I got a reply from GW Legal.

They "assured" me that "Alessio is a very busy man and does not have time to spend trawling forums to look for questions. In addition, he has confirmed that he was not aware of your FAQ page and so cannot have copied the text."

Ah well, C'est la vie!

Why not ask if the Design Studio has any interest in outsourcing the compilation and the "hard work" of spotting the issues to yourself and other rules lawyers?

It's no external playtesting, but it's one step closer.

It would save Alessio some time so he could concentrate on writing stuff with fewer mistakes in it.

Kilkrazy wrote:It would save Alessio some time so he could concentrate on writing stuff with fewer mistakes in it.

I suspect that they did consider that at one point...

Then Jervis came in and they lost the roll off.

Karon wrote:Yes, my Deffkoptas fall in the crack in the earth, oh wait, they're FLYING.

From a fluff perspective this is particularly annoying, especially for models that completely ignore terrain (like Wraiths and C'Tan for us Necron players).

Something to remember about the Jaws of the World Wolf is that all the unit-types affected are affected when that 24" line is drawn. There's a powerful likelihood of friendly fire if you approach the Rune Priest from the direction of friendly troops.

Throw a Carnifex in a Mycetic Spore, land him between the Rune Priest and any Long Fangs or Thunderwolves that may be in the same army, and if he doesn't zap it because he doesn't want the risk of friendly fire then trap him in close combat.

BluntmanDC wrote:Just shows that GW don't play test enough before they print a codex, but its good that Gwar! has actually done something about it.

Fixed

Gwar! wrote:So, I got a reply from GW Legal.

They "assured" me that "Alessio is a very busy man and does not have time to spend trawling forums to look for questions. In addition, he has confirmed that he was not aware of your FAQ page and so cannot have copied the text."

Ah well, C'est la vie!

Is that the whole sum of their reply to you?

If so, that is rather pathetic.

You did send them the 'point for point' comparison, right?

Unbelievable...

Unbelievable...

This IS GW we are talking about...

Alpharius wrote:

Gwar! wrote:So, I got a reply from GW Legal.

They "assured" me that "Alessio is a very busy man and does not have time to spend trawling forums to look for questions. In addition, he has confirmed that he was not aware of your FAQ page and so cannot have copied the text."

Ah well, C'est la vie!

Is that the whole sum of their reply to you?

If so, that is rather pathetic.

You did send them the 'point for point' comparison, right?

Unbelievable...

Pretty much. Oh, there was also the bit where they accused me of deriving from the SW codex and as they own the SW copyrights they don't have to credit me anyway.

Gwar! wrote:

Alpharius wrote:

Gwar! wrote:So, I got a reply from GW Legal.

They "assured" me that "Alessio is a very busy man and does not have time to spend trawling forums to look for questions. In addition, he has confirmed that he was not aware of your FAQ page and so cannot have copied the text."

Ah well, C'est la vie!

Is that the whole sum of their reply to you?

If so, that is rather pathetic.

You did send them the 'point for point' comparison, right?

Unbelievable...

Pretty much. Oh, there was also the bit where they accused me of deriving from the SW codex and as they own the SW copyrights they don't have to credit me anyway.

That is a ridiculous claim on their part. Better they just write back saying "no comment" than blatantly lie, or even just say "Yeah, he did. Suck it Gwar!"

I don't see why they'd lie, seeing as by Fair Use, you certainly don't qualify, unless by the fact the fact you are "criticising" their work, and it would be a bit of a stretch to say your FAQ offers a "critique". The Fair Use policy use of the word "criticism" is not meant in the sense of "being critical".

Ah well, GW do more needless antagonising. I'd have actually laughed and thought they were a little more human if they had written back saying "Yeah, we did, nur nur nur."

Gwar! wrote:
They "assured" me that "Alessio is a very busy man and does not have time to spend trawling forums to look for questions. In addition, he has confirmed that he was not aware of your FAQ page and so cannot have copied the text."

Sure Alessio is innocent. Some nameless minions did the dirty work of "trawling forums for questions". This way he can wash his hands of responsibility and claim innocence. I repeat my statement form another thread: I will be looking forward for the GW Tyranid FAQ with GREAT interest. If a similar "parallel evolution" down to the choice of words and punctuation happens AGAIN, I call BS .

Well, I doubt it will this time, since they've been, in effect, 'called on it'.

Still, you never know!

Yeah... they'll cover their tracks better.

I would love to see you send a C&D to Games Workshop because they send so many of these.
The good thing out of this is that we got a great FAQ .

I am wondering if you can take some legal action to better resolve this issue to your liking. We all know that GW has given public credit to yakface... Surely you deserve the same for your hard work.

G

Someone should ask yakface what he thinks about all this.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I am wondering if you can take some legal action to better resolve this issue to your liking. We all know that GW has given public credit to yakface... Surely you deserve the same for your hard work.

In all honesty, I don't care anymore. In Fact, I now realise it is a GOOD thing. a) It shows GWs true colours and 2) I don't want my name attached to to god awful other half of the FAQ (the bit they tried to write themselves )

Green Blow Fly wrote:We all know that GW has given public credit to yakface...

And by some reports copped quite a bit of flack for it. As did Yakface, for parts of the FAQ he had nothing to do with, as people just assumed that he had written the whole thing.

Which is quite possibly why they stopped adding credits on the bottom of them...

I respect Jon immensely for his tact and the contribution he has made towards interpreting the rules. Jon has excellent communication skills and comes across as a sincere person. I think GW having gave him credit is huge. The way he went about marketing (so to speak) his rules interpretations is why he was successful. He did a lot of research and for the most part went with what the majority thinks is right. I should add he had some help and those significant others also deserve their share of the credit. Jon always chooses his words wisely and I think that should serve as a lesson to us all. We can stand to learn at times, it's part of the human equation.

G

Gornall wrote:Yeah... they'll cover their tracks better.

Personally I find the idea of GW taking Gwar!'s Tyranid FAQ and rewriting the whole thing so it has different wording utterly delicious. They'd actually be putting effort into plagiarism!!!

I phoned GW to get a comment on this, however all I got was Alessio's voicemail.....

"Alessio is unavailiable right now as he is currently trawling Dakka to discover the results of his project to improve Gwar!'s efame. Gwar! for president of Dakka!"

Green Blow Fly wrote:I respect Jon immensely for his tact and the contribution he has made towards interpreting the rules. Jon has excellent communication skills and comes across as a sincere person. I think GW having gave him credit is huge. The way he went about marketing (so to speak) his rules interpretations is why he was successful. He did a lot of research and for the most part went with what the majority thinks is right. I should add he had some help and those significant others also deserve their share of the credit. Jon always chooses his words wisely and I think that should serve as a lesson to us all. We can stand to learn at times, it's part of the human equation.

G

I appreciate the kind words G.

But GW didn't give me (and the rest of the Adepticon council) credit on their FAQs because they liked me (or us) and didn't give Gwar credit because they don't like him or they want to maliciously 'steal' his work.

The simple truth is that Games Workshop thanked us in their FAQs presumably because the INAT was a good source of questions for them at the time and they used a whole lot of our questions and some of our answers in as their FAQ.

While I appreciated the nice sentiment, they quickly realized that was a huge mistake, and I received a personal email from one of the design studio apologizing to me for the fact that they had thanked me and letting me know that they wouldn't be thanking me, or anyone else by name in the future on their FAQs.

Why, you might wonder?

Because to this very day, I still get emails and PMs from people who think either:

A) Because my name is on those FAQs I wrote them and they want to complain about how stupid XXX ruling is.
B) Because my name is on them I have some sort of official capacity to answer rules questions and they want to know the answer to question XXX.
C) Because my name is on them I clearly know someone in the design studio and they want me to pass XXX question onto the studio for inclusion in the FAQ.


Via their email I understand that when GW released those FAQs they got a wave of emails from people complaining and wondering why they let the 'Adepticon guys' make rulings on their FAQs and that they should clearly not let us do that because of how stupid they thought the rulings were.


In short, it was a mistake to thank us publicly on those FAQ documents by name and I agree that GW shouldn't do that anymore unless they're going to actually let someone outside of the studio actually write the FAQs.

And no, Gwar didn't write the SW FAQ anymore than I wrote all the FAQs in which I'm thanked...I mean, yeah, technically we did write many of the words and sentences, but the fact is, a FAQ is just a series of questions and answers about rules and whomever is 'really' writing these FAQs is the one who decides which ruling to make. Sure they take the wording from Gwar's FAQ or the INAT FAQ when it matches with their idea about what the ruling should be, but when it doesn't, they write another question or answer to fit.


And isn't that the whole point of a FAQ from a games company? When did everyone become so caught up in getting credit for their FAQ being ripped off? Isn't the whole point of writing FAQ questions for a game is that you hope the game designers find your questions and answer them in an official capacity?

I know that's the whole point for me writing the INAT FAQ! I'd love for GW to 'steal' each and every line of the INAT FAQ, change the rulings however they see fit and never give me a lick of credit.

The POINT is for them to answer the questions.

Or at least that's my take on it.

Do we really need a 4-page ego stroke thread for Gwar!....really?

Gwar really needs those strokes. He is the Billy Squire of 40k.

Jon your response was enlightening. Thanks for sharing.

G

Nurgleboy77 wrote:Do we really need a 4-page ego stroke thread for Gwar!....really?

Yes we do. Gwar for President!

Serioulsy again, why do people have to complain about a thread? If you don't like it, don't read it anymore, let other people enjoy it by having fun or what not.

I can only hope that a certain Italian is in Nottingham on a certain Weekend in August

yakface wrote:
The POINT is for them to answer the questions.

Or at least that's my take on it.

This. I don't care who gets credited as long as we get an official ruling to end the bitching and arguing about what the rule in question actually says.

I can understand Gwar!'s frustration at it, it does look like blatant copying which they still deny.
However I think Yakface (Jon?) hit the nail on the head, they were none-the-less providing an FAQ and an official one at that, Gwar!'s work or not, they were doing their job. It's just that, unlike Yakface, Gwar! wants the credit he deserves from it...

I think...

Something that people might want to take into consideration is that there's only so many ways of saying the same thing.

Its why plagarism is such a problem in academic circles, not because any large proportion of students are evil idiots furiously copying other people's stuff, but because they're all essentially writing the same thing.

I have no doubt that were Gwar to introduce himself as "Gwar" to Alessio Cavatore (sp?) at Nottingham, Mr Cavatore's face would go blank with confusion about whether he's supposed to know who Gwar is. Gwar's relentless self-aggrandizing does not makes him relevant to people who actually matter in the GW community.

Edited for truth

Gwar! wrote:I can only hope that a certain Italian is in Nottingham on a certain Weekend in August

This Italian?

Nurglitch wrote:I have no doubt that were Gwar to introduce himself as "Gwar" to Alessio Cavatore (sp?) at Nottingham, Mr Cavatore's face would go blank with confusion about whether he's supposed to know who Gwar is. Gwar's relentless self-aggrandizing does makes him relevant to people who actually matter in the GW community.

Hate the game, don't hate the Playa!

But don't suck yerself off either... It's stil gehy either way you slice it.

G

Nurglitch wrote:Something that people might want to take into consideration is that there's only so many ways of saying the same thing.

Its why plagarism is such a problem in academic circles, not because any large proportion of students are evil idiots furiously copying other people's stuff, but because they're all essentially writing the same thing.

I have no doubt that were Gwar to introduce himself as "Gwar" to Alessio Cavatore (sp?) at Nottingham, Mr Cavatore's face would go blank with confusion about whether he's supposed to know who Gwar is. Gwar's relentless self-aggrandizing does makes him relevant to people who actually matter in the GW community.

Do you really think that this:

Gwar! wrote:

Q. Can a Wolf Guard Pack that has nine Wolf Guard and Arjac Rockfist take a second heavy weapon?
A. Yes, as it is for ‘every five models’, not ‘every five Wolf Guard’.

My FAQ:
SW.86.04 – Q: Can a Wolf Guard Pack that has nine Wolf Guard and Arjac Rockfist take a second Heavy Weapon?
A: Yes, as it is for “every five models”, not “every five Wolf Guard”. [R.a.W]

Is an example of two people accidentally writing the same thing?

That they :

a) Came to the same R.A.W. conclusion
b) Worded the question in the same fashion VERBATIM.
c) Worded the answer in the same fashin VERBATIM.


The fact that this happened several times makes it seem to me that coincidentally including the same content is a far cry from what was going on here. . .

Lets assume they did. We should care why?

Frazzled wrote:Lets assume they did. We should care why?

That's not really the point I was arguing with. . .I deliberately quoted the part of the argument I was crying shenanigans on.

apwill4765 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Lets assume they did. We should care why?

That's not really the point I was arguing with. . .I deliberately quoted the part of the argument I was crying shenanigans on.

Oh yea, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you.

Frazzled wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Lets assume they did. We should care why?

That's not really the point I was arguing with. . .I deliberately quoted the part of the argument I was crying shenanigans on.

Oh yea, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you.

Nor I, you =P

I don't personally care, but if I were Gwar! I would be bothered. It seems that cutting and pasting someone else's work into an official FAQ is not doing one's job as a lot of people suggest. I bet compiling questions, making rulings, and explaining many of those rulings is a difficult and time consuming process. If I took the time to do all that, I would want some recognition of my work as well.

I can see GW's POV as well, however. They are screwed either way. Credit Gwar! and then get slammed when Gwar!'s email inbox is full of whiners (OK Gwar! would probably love this, but he would be the exception). Don't credit Gwar! and get blasted for not writing their own FAQ. What it comes down to I think is they should have contacted Gwar! before using his work, and asked if he wanted a credit. I would never publish work that wasn't mine without the author's consent.

apwill4765 wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Something that people might want to take into consideration is that there's only so many ways of saying the same thing.

Its why plagarism is such a problem in academic circles, not because any large proportion of students are evil idiots furiously copying other people's stuff, but because they're all essentially writing the same thing.

I have no doubt that were Gwar to introduce himself as "Gwar" to Alessio Cavatore (sp?) at Nottingham, Mr Cavatore's face would go blank with confusion about whether he's supposed to know who Gwar is. Gwar's relentless self-aggrandizing does makes him relevant to people who actually matter in the GW community.

Do you really think that this:

Gwar! wrote:

Q. Can a Wolf Guard Pack that has nine Wolf Guard and Arjac Rockfist take a second heavy weapon?
A. Yes, as it is for ‘every five models’, not ‘every five Wolf Guard’.

My FAQ:
SW.86.04 – Q: Can a Wolf Guard Pack that has nine Wolf Guard and Arjac Rockfist take a second Heavy Weapon?
A: Yes, as it is for “every five models”, not “every five Wolf Guard”. [R.a.W]

Is an example of two people accidentally writing the same thing?

That they :

a) Came to the same R.A.W. conclusion
b) Worded the question in the same fashion VERBATIM.
c) Worded the answer in the same fashin VERBATIM.


The fact that this happened several times makes it seem to me that coincidentally including the same content is a far cry from what was going on here. . .

Frankly i doubt that GW even saw Gwar's faq. Gwar wrote his faq in the style of the official GW faqs with the akward back and forths and overly formal answers. Things that Gwar (someone who cares about the rules to the extent that no other person who plays this game would care) and they (the inventors of the game) saw wrong with the codex are likely to be the same thing. In conclusion it only shows that Gwar knows what he's talking about albiet i'm sure everyone has already accepted that

Joetaco wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Something that people might want to take into consideration is that there's only so many ways of saying the same thing.

Its why plagarism is such a problem in academic circles, not because any large proportion of students are evil idiots furiously copying other people's stuff, but because they're all essentially writing the same thing.

I have no doubt that were Gwar to introduce himself as "Gwar" to Alessio Cavatore (sp?) at Nottingham, Mr Cavatore's face would go blank with confusion about whether he's supposed to know who Gwar is. Gwar's relentless self-aggrandizing does makes him relevant to people who actually matter in the GW community.

Do you really think that this:

Gwar! wrote:

Q. Can a Wolf Guard Pack that has nine Wolf Guard and Arjac Rockfist take a second heavy weapon?
A. Yes, as it is for ‘every five models’, not ‘every five Wolf Guard’.

My FAQ:
SW.86.04 – Q: Can a Wolf Guard Pack that has nine Wolf Guard and Arjac Rockfist take a second Heavy Weapon?
A: Yes, as it is for “every five models”, not “every five Wolf Guard”. [R.a.W]

Is an example of two people accidentally writing the same thing?

That they :

a) Came to the same R.A.W. conclusion
b) Worded the question in the same fashion VERBATIM.
c) Worded the answer in the same fashin VERBATIM.


The fact that this happened several times makes it seem to me that coincidentally including the same content is a far cry from what was going on here. . .

Frankly i doubt that GW even saw Gwar's faq. Gwar wrote his faq in the style of the official GW faqs with the akward back and forths and overly formal answers. Things that Gwar (someone who cares about the rules to the extent that no other person who plays this game would care) and they (the inventors of the game) saw wrong with the codex are likely to be the same thing. In conclusion it only shows that Gwar knows what he's talking about albiet i'm sure everyone has already accepted that

So you think that they wrote the exact same thing, word for word, punctuation for punctuation, multiple sentences carbon copied, all by coincidence.

1. Puncuation is a silly point to make if they wrote the same thing the puncuation is in the same places.
2. If Gwar copied the style of the previous FAQ's then one coming out is likely to be similar to Gwar's.
3. Not every word is copied straight from Gwar's faq there are only so many ways to say something with a simiar writing style and it was bound to look similar.

Joetaco wrote:1. Puncuation is a silly point to make if they wrote the same thing the puncuation is in the same places.
2. If Gwar copied the style of the previous FAQ's then one coming out is likely to be similar to Gwar's.
3. Not every word is copied straight from Gwar's faq there are only so many ways to say something with a simiar writing style and it was bound to look similar.

Many of the sentences are not similar, they are identical. Question, answer, explanation, all identical. I'll ask again since you didn't answer. Do you think that GW copied many of Gwar!'s rulings verbatim completely by coincidence and without knowledge of his work.

I'll refine with an example.

You believe that this:

"Troops selections in the Force Organisation chart instead of Elites when fielded in an army with Logan Grimnar? If so, is this optional?
A. Yes, they count as Troops and take up Troops Force Organisation Chart Selections. This is not an optional choice, so you can have at most six Wolf Guard Packs in an army with Logan Grimnar. "

is not directly copied from this:

"Troops selections in the Force Organisation chart instead of Elites in an army with Logan Grimnar? If so is this Optional?
A: Yes, they count as Troops and take up Troops Force Organisation Chart Selections. Furthermore, this is not an optional choice, so you can have at most six Wolf Guard Packs in an army with Logan Grimnar"

apwill4765 wrote:

Joetaco wrote:1. Puncuation is a silly point to make if they wrote the same thing the puncuation is in the same places.
2. If Gwar copied the style of the previous FAQ's then one coming out is likely to be similar to Gwar's.
3. Not every word is copied straight from Gwar's faq there are only so many ways to say something with a simiar writing style and it was bound to look similar.

Many of the sentences are not similar, they are identical. Question, answer, explanation, all identical. I'll ask again since you didn't answer. Do you think that GW copied many of Gwar!'s rulings verbatim completely by coincidence and without knowledge of his work.

I thought my responses made my opinion overtly clear but if you need me to spell it out, yes i do believe that the writers of the Space Wolf FAQ did not copy Gwar's work. Coincidence or not i can't say for sure, but i'll go on a limb and say yes that they didn't even know he had written one.
There are many coincidences in the world people and as much as it pains me to say this " great minds think alike "
I've written many papers throughout my school experince that have had many sentances that appear to be direct as you would say "carbon copies" of other peoples work and i am by no means a plageriser. When writing on the same topic in the same style there are bound to be the same sentances.

Joetaco wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Joetaco wrote:1. Puncuation is a silly point to make if they wrote the same thing the puncuation is in the same places.
2. If Gwar copied the style of the previous FAQ's then one coming out is likely to be similar to Gwar's.
3. Not every word is copied straight from Gwar's faq there are only so many ways to say something with a simiar writing style and it was bound to look similar.

Many of the sentences are not similar, they are identical. Question, answer, explanation, all identical. I'll ask again since you didn't answer. Do you think that GW copied many of Gwar!'s rulings verbatim completely by coincidence and without knowledge of his work.

I thought my responses made my opinion overtly clear but if you need me to spell it out, yes i do believe that the writers of the Space Wolf FAQ did not copy Gwar's work. Coincidence or not i can't say for sure, but i'll go on a limb and say yes that they didn't even know he had written one.
There are many coincidences in the world people and as much as it pains me to say this " great minds think alike "
I've written many papers throughout my school experince that have had many sentances that appear to be direct as you would say "carbon copies" of other peoples work and i am by no means a plageriser. When writing on the same topic in the same style there are bound to be the same sentances.

Okiedoke. . .

I could see your POV if it was just the same questions answered in the same manner, or if there were a clause or even a sentence or two that were exactly the same (as you say). But entire rulings? Entire PARAGRAPHS?

I don't buy it, and if I turned in a term paper with entire PARAGRAPHS that were almost exactly the same as another person, I would be failed for plagiarism, and I think you are grossly overestimating the odds of this happening.

This is ESPECIALLY unlikely, since GW has used people's work before and given them credit, and afterward said they would no longer give thanks for work done on their FAQ (see yakface's post)

I thought GW was famous for Copy and Paste. So all they did was Copy and Paste Gwar's FAQ, and add a bit more to look like they didn't take his entire FAQ.

Davor wrote:I thought GW was famous for Copy and Paste. So all they did was Copy and Paste Gwar's FAQ, and add a bit more to look like they didn't take his entire FAQ.

That's fairly obvious to most people, yep. And I agree with you.

I suggest that since you all seem to dislike GW so much you should stop playing. My advice.

Seriously... Does it matter? If they did in fact copypaste it (not saying whether they did or not, I'm staying out of it) and didn't give Gwar! credit, doesn't Yak's post prove why they didn't give him credit? I guess not. Someone at GW was like "HA! Now we got 'em!"

It is FREE! It HELPS us! Why are we going to complain that they didn't give someone credit when they've stopped giving Yak and the gang credit?

Honestly I say: Thanks GW for fixing your mistakes (with or without help) and I will continue to play your games and buy your products in the future!


Oh yeah,

Nurglitch wrote:Something that people might want to take into consideration is that there's only so many ways of saying the same thing.

Its why plagarism is such a problem in academic circles, not because any large proportion of students are evil idiots furiously copying other people's stuff, but because they're all essentially writing the same thing.

I have no doubt that were Gwar to introduce himself as "Gwar" to Alessio Cavatore (sp?) at Nottingham, Mr Cavatore's face would go blank with confusion about whether he's supposed to know who Gwar is. Gwar's relentless self-aggrandizing does not makes him relevant to people who actually matter in the GW community.

Edited for truth

So it turns out I mispoke myself.

CrazyThang wrote:I suggest that since you all seem to dislike GW so much you should stop playing. My advice.

Seriously... Does it matter? If they did in fact copypaste it (not saying whether they did or not, I'm staying out of it) and didn't give Gwar! credit, doesn't Yak's post prove why they didn't give him credit? I guess not. Someone at GW was like "HA! Now we got 'em!"

It is FREE! It HELPS us! Why are we going to complain that they didn't give someone credit when they've stopped giving Yak and the gang credit?

Honestly I say: Thanks GW for fixing your mistakes (with or without help) and I will continue to play your games and buy your products in the future!


Oh yeah,

Whoah whoah whoah. I'm not saying I dislike GW at all. I actually really like GW for the most part. I even said I understand their position, given what yak said earlier.

That being said, they should have asked before copying someone else's work, and there's simply no way around that.

They have no obligation too though. That's the point, they're not legally required to credit or acknowledge him. Gwar! made that faq for whatever reason, whether you think its cos he's a big bad egotisttical 40k warlord or just likes having clear well-defined playable rules, and it was purely voluntary. He wasn't requested to, and its their IP, so they can do with it as they will.

I don't agree with it personally, but they're not legally required to acknowledge jack.

apwill4765 wrote:

CrazyThang wrote:I suggest that since you all seem to dislike GW so much you should stop playing. My advice.

Seriously... Does it matter? If they did in fact copypaste it (not saying whether they did or not, I'm staying out of it) and didn't give Gwar! credit, doesn't Yak's post prove why they didn't give him credit? I guess not. Someone at GW was like "HA! Now we got 'em!"

It is FREE! It HELPS us! Why are we going to complain that they didn't give someone credit when they've stopped giving Yak and the gang credit?

Honestly I say: Thanks GW for fixing your mistakes (with or without help) and I will continue to play your games and buy your products in the future!


Oh yeah,

Whoah whoah whoah. I'm not saying I dislike GW at all. I actually really like GW for the most part. I even said I understand their position, given what yak said earlier.

That being said, they should have asked before copying someone else's work, and there's simply no way around that.

Didn't mean for it to be hostile, but I don't mean you in particular. This community in general seems to have a pretty gakky attitude towards the very company that makes the major games discussed here (not all). But agreed with the above poster, they have no obligation at all to credit him. Whether they should or shouldn't have not withstanding.

I don't have a problem with GW taking Gwars work and not crediting him for it (and seriously guys, when you have sections that identical, its clearly plagiarism). As John said, they have their reasons for not crediting. Not only that, its their IP, they don't have to ask him for it either.

What irritates me is that they didn't do the courtesy of dropping a email saying, 'Yes, we're taking your FAQ, cheers mate for the effort, we appreciate it, but we won't be crediting you for reasons XYZ'. It wouldn't take them more than 5 minutes, would stroke Gwar's ego as appropriate, and wouldn't leave everyone thinking (as usual), that they're a bunch of inhuman jackasses.

I swear, do they even have a public relations department? 'cause they really need to get one.

Ketara wrote:I don't have a problem with GW taking Gwars work and not crediting him for it (and seriously guys, when you have sections that identical, its clearly plagiarism). As John said, they have their reasons for not crediting. Not only that, its their IP, they don't have to ask him for it either.

What irritates me is that they didn't do the courtesy of dropping a email saying, 'Yes, we're taking your FAQ, cheers mate for the effort, we appreciate it, but we won't be crediting you for reasons XYZ'. It wouldn't take them more than 5 minutes, would stroke Gwar's ego as appropriate, and wouldn't leave everyone thinking (as usual), that they're a bunch of inhuman jackasses.

I swear, do they even have a public relations department? 'cause they really need to get one.

What planet do you live on?

Nurglitch wrote:

Ketara wrote:I don't have a problem with GW taking Gwars work and not crediting him for it (and seriously guys, when you have sections that identical, its clearly plagiarism). As John said, they have their reasons for not crediting. Not only that, its their IP, they don't have to ask him for it either.

What irritates me is that they didn't do the courtesy of dropping a email saying, 'Yes, we're taking your FAQ, cheers mate for the effort, we appreciate it, but we won't be crediting you for reasons XYZ'. It wouldn't take them more than 5 minutes, would stroke Gwar's ego as appropriate, and wouldn't leave everyone thinking (as usual), that they're a bunch of inhuman jackasses.

I swear, do they even have a public relations department? 'cause they really need to get one.

What planet do you live on?

Planets? What are these sci-fi concepts? Everyone knows the world is flat!

I actually heard someone recently say "Earth rotates the sun" ha!

Ketara wrote:I swear, do they even have a public relations department? 'cause they really need to get one.

No. Apparently they don't have play testers or proper writers either.

GW's PR and playtesting dept:

I don't think Gwar has done anything to endear himself with GW. Gwar simply has quite a big ego and likes to stroke it. Now if this wasn't the case I might feel differently. People copy other people's all the time and don't give them credit. In this case no one as yet can prove without a doubt that GW copied Gwar's FAQ. I think it's important to remember that Gwar released his FAQ prior to the release of the actual SW codex. We have no idea who Gwar really is; for all we know he could be an employee of GW having a bit of fun with us. At the end of the day I don't really care but that is just me for what that is worth. In a few days or couple of weeks it will be forgotten by most.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote: We have no idea who Gwar really is; for all we know he could be an employee of GW having a bit of fun with us

GWar!=A Certain Italian?

Think about it....

All this whining about GWs copying GWAR!s FAQ might have a very simple consequence:

GW wont do it again. They will not look online for inspiration for questions and answers to include in their FAQ. They will not look at home-made FAQs for input.
They might not even take a peek at them in fear of getting influenced when it comes to the wording they eventually choose.

IS THIS A GOOD THING?!?

Of course it isn't! Due to GWAR!s immense ego and his desire for recognition (in the world of doll-pushers, no less) he might have closed off a way of influencing the games designers.

"Ha! That'll teach em to ignore my awesome powers!" might make one warm and fuzzy now.
But wouldn't it have been more intelligent (and heaps more productive in the long run) to think; "This is great!. I have an opportunity to influence the games designers. I will have a better game to play with rules I agree with....and in the process I might even get to swing the designers into my way of thinking. This is a golden opportunity"?

Guess not. *shakes head at the futility of mankind in general and all-capital-profile-name-individuals in particular*

Am I being overly harsh? Am I flamebaiting?
Or do I just lament a wasted opportinuty?

Steelmage99 wrote:All this whining about GWs copying GWAR!s FAQ might have a very simple consequence:

GW wont do it again. They will not look online for inspiration for questions and answers to include in their FAQ. They will not look at home-made FAQs for input.
They might not even take a peek at them in fear of getting influenced when it comes to the wording they eventually choose.

IS THIS A GOOD THING?!?

Of course it isn't! Due to GWAR!s immense ego and his desire for recognition (in the world of doll-pushers, no less) he might have closed off a way of influencing the games designers.

"Ha! That'll teach em to ignore my awesome powers!" might make one warm and fuzzy now.
But wouldn't it have been more intelligent (and heaps more productive in the long run) to think; "This is great!. I have an opportunity to influence the games designers. I will have a better game to play with rules I agree with....and in the process I might even get to swing the designers into my way of thinking. This is a golden opportunity"?

Guess not. *shakes head at the futility of mankind in general and all-capital-profile-name-individuals in particular*

Am I being overly harsh? Am I flamebaiting?
Or do I just lament a wasted opportinuty?

1) . . .What?
2) Yea you are being overly dramatic.
3) I don't care how big Gwar!'s ego is. I also roll my eyes at all of you members who say he shouldn't care about people copying his work without consent or credit, or that it happens all the time. When it does happen it is called plagiarism.
4) Gwar! doesn't even recognize GW FAQ's as official for his rules arguments, which is what he cares about, so why would he care if GW continued making the crappiest FAQ's on the block? I doubt he is "lamenting a wasted opportunity".
5) And seriously, the "futility of all mankind"? You kidding me? This is a forum about toy-soldiers, not a UN committee meeting.


I understand why GW did not give him credit; in fact, it makes a lot of sense. However, I used to field calls for my old place of business on a fairly frequent basis. These calls had to do with asking permission to republish pieces of studies my company published on composites properties. So while I understand why GW didn't publicly credit him, can you honestly tell me they shouldn't have at least e-mailed and/or PM'ed him beforehand?

You completely and utterly missed the point.

Of course GW should have contacted GWAR!.
Of course GW blatantly copy-pasted GWAR!s FAQ.
Of course it is a dill weed-move.

But I am not talking about GWs behaviour here.
I am talking about the response of GWAR! and a number of members of this forum.

I am presenting the scenario that reacting in a different way could have lead to a more productive future of FAQs.

You don't agree? Fine. Hell, my doomsday-scenario might not even come to pass.
Perhaps GWs designers will simply say; "Who is this GWAR! they all talk about?".

Steelmage99 wrote:You completely and utterly missed the point.

Of course GW should have contacted GWAR!.
Of course GW blatantly copy-pasted GWAR!s FAQ.
Of course it is a dill weed-move.

But I am not talking about GWs behaviour here.
I am talking about the response of GWAR! and a number of members of this forum.

I am presenting the scenario that reacting in a different way could have lead to a more productive future of FAQs.

You don't agree? Fine. Hell, my doomsday-scenario might not even come to pass.
Perhaps GWs designers will simply say; "Who is this GWAR! they all talk about?".

GW has a long standing history of doing what they want, customers be damned

Seriously though, I don't think it will stop GW using outside material for their FAQ, and I think Gwar! is entitled to a little indignancy over this thing, and if he wants to post a thread about it, that's not the end of the world.

To all of you saying "this is just an ego boost" I would say that he succeeded, 5 pages of people arguing whether or not GW is wrong and how bad they feel for Gwar! would seem to be a success as far as ego goes. This is assuming he did it all for ego of course (whether or not this is true can not be known by one such as myself).

Of course they will do it again!

1) It saves them time
2) It results in a better FAQ
3) There is absolutely no legal reason why they should not do it
4) 99.9% of their customers will never even know they did it..
5) 0.05% of their customers agree that what they did is okay
6) 0.03% don't care eitehr way
7) 0.019% care, but won't alter their buying habits
8) 0.001% might buy a few less models
9) Even Gwar! doesn't seem to mind all that much.

This thread is a good read though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joetaco wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Something that people might want to take into consideration is that there's only so many ways of saying the same thing.

Its why plagarism is such a problem in academic circles, not because any large proportion of students are evil idiots furiously copying other people's stuff, but because they're all essentially writing the same thing.

I have no doubt that were Gwar to introduce himself as "Gwar" to Alessio Cavatore (sp?) at Nottingham, Mr Cavatore's face would go blank with confusion about whether he's supposed to know who Gwar is. Gwar's relentless self-aggrandizing does makes him relevant to people who actually matter in the GW community.

Do you really think that this:

Gwar! wrote:

Q. Can a Wolf Guard Pack that has nine Wolf Guard and Arjac Rockfist take a second heavy weapon?
A. Yes, as it is for ‘every five models’, not ‘every five Wolf Guard’.

My FAQ:
SW.86.04 – Q: Can a Wolf Guard Pack that has nine Wolf Guard and Arjac Rockfist take a second Heavy Weapon?
A: Yes, as it is for “every five models”, not “every five Wolf Guard”. [R.a.W]

Is an example of two people accidentally writing the same thing?

That they :

a) Came to the same R.A.W. conclusion
b) Worded the question in the same fashion VERBATIM.
c) Worded the answer in the same fashin VERBATIM.


The fact that this happened several times makes it seem to me that coincidentally including the same content is a far cry from what was going on here. . .

Frankly i doubt that GW even saw Gwar's faq. Gwar wrote his faq in the style of the official GW faqs with the akward back and forths and overly formal answers. Things that Gwar (someone who cares about the rules to the extent that no other person who plays this game would care) and they (the inventors of the game) saw wrong with the codex are likely to be the same thing. In conclusion it only shows that Gwar knows what he's talking about albiet i'm sure everyone has already accepted that

Believe me, I've seen exam boards exclude pupils from entire subjects because of far less, and as a teacher, I've agreed with them about it.

If you think that can be coincidence, you must have a very shaky grasp of several things, including statistics, writing styles and the way the human brain works in a logical sense.

Fifty wrote:Of course they will do it again!

1) It saves them time
2) It results in a better FAQ
3) There is absolutely no legal reason why they should not do it
4) 99.9% of their customers will never even know they did it..
5) 0.05% of their customers agree that what they did is okay
6) 0.03% don't care eitehr way
7) 0.019% care, but won't alter their buying habits
8) 0.001% might buy a few less models
9) Even Gwar! doesn't seem to mind all that much.

This thread is a good read though.

I have issue with your statistics.

0.018% care, but won't alter their buying habits while 0.002% might buy a few less models. Wikipedia told me so!
And No, I don't mind too much, but I am a little annoyed. I also found it ironic because, at the time I posted the thread, I was getting a lot of "You don't write the GW FAQs so your opinion doesn't matter" comments

I notice they have stopped now

Playing it cool now huh? What a hypocrite.

G

Fifty wrote:

Believe me, I've seen exam boards exclude pupils from entire subjects because of far less, and as a teacher, I've agreed with them about it.

If you think that can be coincidence, you must have a very shaky grasp of several things, including statistics, writing styles and the way the human brain works in a logical sense.

Well then Believe me, Mr. "i'm a teacher and because i point it out i'm clearly right", As green blow fly so eloquently pointed out there is as of yet no proof that GW has taken/ seen/ heard of Gwar's space wolf faq. If you think that this is some huge statistical impossibility thats fine, but as of this moment it would appear that it is some coincidence not some evil conspiracy where the english want to get some hits off of Gwar's work.
If you think that it can't be coincidence, you must have a very shaky grasp of the several things, including business, social skills and overall trust in people.


now that, that's been said i'm sticking to my guns, but not arguing this anymore. Theres no sense in continuing this because i'm not going to change your opinion and your not going to change mine. I hope that when the truth comes out we will be able to admit we were wrong to the correct party.
-Joetaco

This is getting flamy and my funmeter is low. Closing now.

I think we've all learned a valuable lesson here: