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

Buzzsaw wrote:
I think you've misunderstood how I view the meeting, as I view it essentially the same way you seem to: there was the possibility of an offer, but the terms were a sticking point. Beyond that we have no ideas. My point in mentioning it is not to imply GW's terms were objectively "fair", since obviously no such valuation is possible. My point rather is to rebut the assumption that seems to be made that GW was categorically disinterested in a license. Far from believing Rob's lying, my position is that he is telling the truth, albeit the truth from his perspective.

Ok, I think I understand better now what you meant. I agree, in that I think it was a business meeting in which an agreement simply couldn't be met. There was a lot of talk from other posters about greed that I may have interlaced with your post, which was my mistake. I stand by my supposition that GW probaly thought they had LW over the barrel, and that AB would be worthless without a license. This was in the late 90's, before the legality of the devices that easily allow piracy was really established. A few court rulings that go the other way and AB is worth diddly.

You're engaged in a faulty bit of logic there: Putting aside that I did not dispute they help the community, the point is that unlike the example I gave of the EJ forum community, who provide assistance that is truly free, the AB file contributors are providing free services for a for-profit company. The fact that many people appreciate it isn't really important to the fact that the community isn't the only party benefiting, stated more plainly;

If AB datafile creators used Excel/Calc to develop their stylesheets: the community as a whole benefits, with no drawbacks or fees, as the programs are either available for free or already owned by the community.

If AB datafile creators produce files for AB: a portion of the community benefits, Lone Wolf benefits, but that portion that receives any benefit must buy Lone Wolf's product to access the benefit. The only pure beneficiary is Lone Wolf.

Again, you seem overly concerned with the windfall to LW in this analysis. That AB sales are primarily because of the 40k datafiles is not the controlling factor. The maintainers provide their service to enable those people how own AB with 40k files. Maybe a redrawing of what is meant by community is necessary, but they certainly provide a huge service to AB customers. The analogy I would draw is to mutliplayer maps for FPS games: they dramatically increase the value of the game, yet people create them to benefit the people who own the game, not the company that makes the FPS. That the FPS's author benefits is a windfall, not the goal.

Additionally, I'm kind of curious when you keep bringing up open source solutions from other sources if such a solution would work for 40k? I would imagine it could, but it would have to be a pretty complicated spreadsheet, with tons of pages. It might, just might, actually be easier for the creators of the datafiles to work in AB than in excel. If that's true (and I have a hunch that it is), then I think it shifts the case less away from maintainers solely working to benefit LW and it's customers to simply using the best tool for the job.

Well, yeah. Having compared them to Amway international I think it's fair to say I don't like their business model.

Although, in fairness, as an IP attorney the logistics of Lone Wolf's operations aren't exactly rubbing me the right way. That said, I really am a bit irked by this notion that giving free services to LW is a service to the community; it isn't, I don't know how much more plainly it can be said.

Why does AB bother you in regards to IP law? By my limited understanding, the tools used to allow copying can't really be regulated nearly as well as the actual acts of copying. Im also under the impression that the 40k datafile guys have a tacit understanding with GW. I find it difficult to believe that if GW wanted to, they couldn't shut down AB's 40k datafiles. The PR hit would probably offset any gain, but it's hard to pin GW as the victim of IP fraud when they have every means of shutting it down and don't.

I'm finding it suprising that you're having such a difficult time seperating the beneficiaries of their work. LW is a major third party beneficiary of the "contract" between the maintainers and the community, but my analysis on the situation is a bit more straightforward. The 40k datafiles improve my hobby, and the ability of many others to enjoy the hobby. If somebody is making some money off of it, then that's fine by me. You can't deny that their work makes the community better, even if only for the people that buy AB.

If your concern is that the maintainers are working hard for a monetary gain that LW is the only recipient of, well, that's just how it sometimes works.

That said, you do bring up a good point: if I'm not willing to develop datafiles, do I really have room to complain? Well, it's true that I have no interest in producing datafiles for AB, but I'll admit I have toyed with the idea of creating stylesheets for army building for Calc/Excel. As an academic question, would people be interested in that?

Edit: Whoo hoo! 100 Posts and a new title, hot dawg!

I'd be interested to see the results of such a product, but I'm of the opinion that one shouldn't reinvent the wheel. The AB stuff works really, really well for me.

Polonius wrote:
I think that again, you seem to have a hostility towards LW (or the datafile maintainers) that seems to be coloring your posts more than any actual argument. Your post isn't hostile, but your argument seems to boil down to a simple dislike of LW's business model coupled with a complete inability to see the benefits of the AB interface on it's own merits.

I suppose I should point out my confusion that the "other camp" in this arguement are pretty much saying the same about GW and their actions... although no-one seems to be jumping at the fact that the tired all "evil GW" arguements seem to be coming up again that just seem silly.

It would appear GW and LW didn't make a business deal- regardless of what happened- some people see this as GW screwing LW over, some see this as LW being greedy- I see it as something that simply didn't make sense with the moves GW have been making and thus didn't fit with the business model- Does this make either party wrong/evil/horrible? Hell no- so why are people making it out as such?

I just checked the site today and it mentions that there is some disagreement between Army Roster and GW and GW is telling them to shut the operation down.

Bignutter wrote:

Polonius wrote:
I think that again, you seem to have a hostility towards LW (or the datafile maintainers) that seems to be coloring your posts more than any actual argument. Your post isn't hostile, but your argument seems to boil down to a simple dislike of LW's business model coupled with a complete inability to see the benefits of the AB interface on it's own merits.

I suppose I should point out my confusion that the "other camp" in this arguement are pretty much saying the same about GW and their actions... although no-one seems to be jumping at the fact that the tired all "evil GW" arguements seem to be coming up again that just seem silly.

It would appear GW and LW didn't make a business deal- regardless of what happened- some people see this as GW screwing LW over, some see this as LW being greedy- I see it as something that simply didn't make sense with the moves GW have been making and thus didn't fit with the business model- Does this make either party wrong/evil/horrible? Hell no- so why are people making it out as such?

Well, you might be right, although I'd hazard to say if you read through the entire thread you'll see more malice towards LW than towards GW. In all fairness on this account, AB is simply the far better product than the IAL was, and an officially licensed AB would have been a very good thing for the hobby, IMO. I think that any anti-Gw rhetoric has been pretty mild (and perhaps deserved in hindsight) and directed towards a specific decision, while the anti-AB language has been pretty persistent and widly applied to the product, the company, the companies owner, and the datafile maintainers.

A quick question Polonius, not to be overly inquisitive, but are you an attorney? I'm not trying to engage in a diploma fight, but some of the legal terms you are using are being used in a fashion I find somewhat unusual. Although, in all fairness, it's been my experience that most attorneys understanding of things outside of their own practice areas is usually somewhat vague. I'll hold off on elaborating my problems with their IP "solution" till I know the appropriate level of jargon to indulge in.

Polonius wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:You're engaged in a faulty bit of logic there: Putting aside that I did not dispute they help the community, the point is that unlike the example I gave of the EJ forum community, who provide assistance that is truly free, the AB file contributors are providing free services for a for-profit company. The fact that many people appreciate it isn't really important to the fact that the community isn't the only party benefiting, stated more plainly;

If AB datafile creators used Excel/Calc to develop their stylesheets: the community as a whole benefits, with no drawbacks or fees, as the programs are either available for free or already owned by the community.

If AB datafile creators produce files for AB: a portion of the community benefits, Lone Wolf benefits, but that portion that receives any benefit must buy Lone Wolf's product to access the benefit. The only pure beneficiary is Lone Wolf.

Again, you seem overly concerned with the windfall to LW in this analysis. That AB sales are primarily because of the 40k datafiles is not the controlling factor. The maintainers provide their service to enable those people how own AB with 40k files. Maybe a redrawing of what is meant by community is necessary, but they certainly provide a huge service to AB customers. The analogy I would draw is to mutliplayer maps for FPS games: they dramatically increase the value of the game, yet people create them to benefit the people who own the game, not the company that makes the FPS. That the FPS's author benefits is a windfall, not the goal.

Additionally, I'm kind of curious when you keep bringing up open source solutions from other sources if such a solution would work for 40k? I would imagine it could, but it would have to be a pretty complicated spreadsheet, with tons of pages. It might, just might, actually be easier for the creators of the datafiles to work in AB than in excel. If that's true (and I have a hunch that it is), then I think it shifts the case less away from maintainers solely working to benefit LW and it's customers to simply using the best tool for the job.

Heh, take a gander at the Roguecraft spreadsheet I linked earlier and then wonder about complicated spreadsheets, heh.

I think your example of the FPS map-maker is a good one, but take a second look at it: the mapmakers increase the value of the FPS, but in a situation relative to the other FPS makers, they are essentially being provided with free work. That creates a situation where no-one can compete on a level playing field: even a superior product runs into the problem that their product may be better or cheaper, but they can't compete because the first FPS maker has convinced people to basically be unpaid employees.

Note that Rob as much as admits this in the post Ghaz originally linked: he flat out claims that LW drove GW out of the market for army builder programs.

Polonius wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:
Well, yeah. Having compared them to Amway international I think it's fair to say I don't like their business model.

Although, in fairness, as an IP attorney the logistics of Lone Wolf's operations aren't exactly rubbing me the right way. That said, I really am a bit irked by this notion that giving free services to LW is a service to the community; it isn't, I don't know how much more plainly it can be said.

Why does AB bother you in regards to IP law? By my limited understanding, the tools used to allow copying can't really be regulated nearly as well as the actual acts of copying. Im also under the impression that the 40k datafile guys have a tacit understanding with GW. I find it difficult to believe that if GW wanted to, they couldn't shut down AB's 40k datafiles. The PR hit would probably offset any gain, but it's hard to pin GW as the victim of IP fraud when they have every means of shutting it down and don't.

I'm finding it suprising that you're having such a difficult time seperating the beneficiaries of their work. LW is a major third party beneficiary of the "contract" between the maintainers and the community, but my analysis on the situation is a bit more straightforward. The 40k datafiles improve my hobby, and the ability of many others to enjoy the hobby. If somebody is making some money off of it, then that's fine by me. You can't deny that their work makes the community better, even if only for the people that buy AB.

I can't, which is, of course, why I don't. But the issue isn't making people able to enjoy the hobby, after all, how could a piece of software decrease enjoyment of the hobby? I think also you're mistaking my attitude: I view the datafile maintainers not with anger, but with pity. And while I am annoyed at LW's tactics from a perspective of IP protection, I can't help but admire them: they not only have avoided paying for a license for any of the propertiues that they are marketed for, but they have convinced people to donate hundreds or thousands of hours of production and testing time!

Polonius wrote:If your concern is that the maintainers are working hard for a monetary gain that LW is the only recipient of, well, that's just how it sometimes works.

That said, you do bring up a good point: if I'm not willing to develop datafiles, do I really have room to complain? Well, it's true that I have no interest in producing datafiles for AB, but I'll admit I have toyed with the idea of creating stylesheets for army building for Calc/Excel. As an academic question, would people be interested in that?

Edit: Whoo hoo! 100 Posts and a new title, hot dawg!

I'd be interested to see the results of such a product, but I'm of the opinion that one shouldn't reinvent the wheel. The AB stuff works really, really well for me.

@ Buzzsaw: I'm a 3L in law school, but I haven't taken any IP law at all. I'm going into Tax myself.

In my FPS example, I think that a developer that includes good mapbuilding tools and tries to develop an aftermarket community to build maps is being smart. Timing is key, but so is having the right blend of tools and support. AB has gained the fruits of the maintainers, but it could only have done so if the tools it provided worked well.

Why do you pity the maintainers? I think you underestimate the values of pride, problem solving, community building, and even control over something. I don't pity them any more than I pity anybody else that puts out free stuff onto the web.

I think you are right, in that LW would be hurt in any truly open source army building software. What I think is important to mention is that I think there's a higher argument to be made, in that I think it's good for the community for third party companies like LW to be able to make a profit in the hobby. Open source is great, but having retail products available is a good thing for me, and most hobby members. So, even if the maintainers and everybody help prop up LW's bottom line, that will help convince other companies to take the plunge with other products that are useful to hobbyists. I'm not saying LW deserves charity or that people that don't like the product should buy it. I'm merely saying that these small garage companies, like the FLGS, are small firms that deserve support from paying customers that like their product. If an open source product came along that beat out AB, well, that's competition for you. In the absence of such a product, I don't see supporting LW as a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination.

@ Polonius: I think, after digesting what you're saying, that in the end it comes down to a difference of opinion. That is to say, we have the same facts, we just are applying different sets of values to them. My opinion of LW is colored by their actions to the detriment of GW's IP. I believe that this detriment is factual, but it's not unreasonable to argue that it's also small, possibly inconsequential. Further coloring my opinion is a lot of time spent on the EJ forums before I got back into Warhammer.

When you've gotten used to the idea that monumental undertakings like Rawr and the Roguecraft spreadsheet are just given away, the idea that people pay for something that depends on user-generated content to exist as a functional tool is shocking.

Similarly, once you start seeing LW as a private enterprise interested in maximizing profit, it's hard to see the volunteers as anything other then at least slightly taken in. But, as you say, LW has also given them a structure for self-importance, for a kind of achievement and pride; look at the works that EJ maintains and you see efforts that are, perhaps more "pure", but also for that far more onerous undertakings.

Also, let's be completely honest here, all of these arguments are about something that, as was so accurately pointed out by MDG, is essentially a slightly better-looking improvement over pen and paper.

Do I have a different opinion of LW's legal status then others? Sure, but I don't work for GW, and in the end, even if GW shares my opinion, they've decided they have nothing to gain by pursuing legal action, so my opinion and $2.50 will get me on the NY subway. If I think the datafile makers are being taken advantage of, well, I'm not yet so egotistical to imagine my opinion of them will really matter to their self-esteem.

Finally, for all my talk about open source solutions, the fact is I'm not about to undertake providing a replacement for the services the datafile maintainers are giving. If by happenstance I happen to make a template I find useful for army building I'll post it on Dakka, but it's... low, shall we say, on my list of priorities. The AB maintainers are putting their time where there priorities are, and my misgivings about LW doesn't take that away from them.

Thanks for posting that, It makes more sense now.

I think some of your issue might be from seeing the effort being poured into work that requires a buy-in when that community effort could instead apply to a completely open source solution. That makes sense to me, I just don't see the $40 buy-in as much for me, but it is a lot more than free, and the multi-functionality is something that I really enjoy. I've used AB for 40k, fantasy, bloodbowl, epic, chainmail, LotR, flames of war, etc.

Trying to claim that Lone Wolf has somehow 'conned' the maintainers into making the datafiles for 40K is akin to saying GW 'conned' first Russ and the Yakface into running Dakka Dakka. That most assuredly is NOT the case.

Buzzsaw wrote:... Beyond that, is the "convenience" of AB seriously worth paying for?

Yes, I'd like to think so. The tweaking of an armylist ("I'll takes one less Sternguard here and skip Extra Armour there, so I can fit in an Attack Bike") is infinitly easier in Army Builder than when using pen and paper. Not to mention the courtesy you extend to your opponent as you hand him a readable and pleasent looking armylist.

As you have chosen to use anecdotal evidence, I will follow suit. The one time I played against an opponent using a free Exel sheet downloaded of the net, it was filled to mistakes. There was a complete disregard for pointvalues, FOC and rules in general.

Does this mean that I should completely disregard Exel as a armybuilding tool? Does this mean that I should expound on its weaknesses any chance I get?

Of course not. I will look over an opponents armylist, not matter the origin of said list, with the same critical eye towards validity, tactics and feel.


I sounds to me like, that you would be more suspicious of an Army Builder armylist than you would of a scrawled, water damaged, unreadable, "back-of-a-cerealbox", handwritten armylist. This is just odd.

Ghaz wrote:Trying to claim that Lone Wolf has somehow 'conned' the maintainers into making the datafiles for 40K is akin to saying GW 'conned' first Russ and the Yakface into running Dakka Dakka. That most assuredly is NOT the case.

And trying to claim that Army Builder is "useless", is like trying to claim that radios are useless.....and cars.....and Exel.....and computers........
These are all items that require the input of a secondary source not related to the original manufacturer.

But I am sure that the "anti-Army Builder" crowd doesn't any any of those either, right?.......right?.....hallo?!?

Uh, I'm not trying to claim that Army Builder is 'useless'. Quite the contrary, considering I'm the datafile maintainer's rules judge It is quite useful, when used as intended (with a codex).

While this discussion is certainly interesting, it really is a bit off-topic from the News of Army Roster.com shutting their site down.

As such, I'm going to go ahead and lock this thread. If you wish to discuss Army Builder further, feel free to start another thread in the Dakka Discussions forum.