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.

Good on the posters of Dakka for not linking a highly sarcastic picture of a pen and paper yet..

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I just don't get why GW will never entertain a mutually beneficial licensing agreement with strong boundaries written in if they fear that.

Instead they are removing something of use to us in the hobby and not providing their own version. We also know when/if they do, it will be far more limited and far more expensive.

Right, kind of like Battlefront did with the Flames of War Army Builder?

Rather than just try and shut them down, which as shown above is murky legal waters, they just gave them an official sanction to do continue distribution. I'm presuming now that the guy who made the army builder (I forget the name!) just pays Battlefront in some form. Although, it's not likely that they will get much as I believe it's only £1 or so for each data file!

End result in any case; the fans lose out again. I don't think even the people who are arguing here for GW's 'right' to do so would argue against that.

Presumably there will be some kind of official version on the way?

Ouze wrote:This was as predictable as it was inevitable. Sorry, all you guys who paid for it.

I really hope noone paid for the data files.

No one paid for datafiles. I know I have never received any payments for my work, and would also never accept any payments for that work as well. I am confident this is the same for all the maintainers that work and have worked on the datafiles.

They are provided free of charge for use in conjunction with a paid/purchased rulebook(codex). While we understand some people may choose to use the files without a legal book version of the rules, that is not the intention of the files. They are provided to aid paying players with a tool to improve accurancy in rules validation while building armies. If you use the files, it is your responsibility to have a legal purchased codex rules for any army lists you are working with.

I don't think GW takes into consideration the corilation between the use of AB and the sales it produces for GW. I already have easily over 6500pts of Necrons and I will sit and play around with combinations in AB and find still more reasons to buy more Necrons. The introduction of allies is only increasing this opportunity for sales for GW because for example, right now I don't own the BA codex but I have built a list with a Death Company attachment to my Necrons. Once I find a solid 1850 list I like I am going to purchase the BA. If I didn't have AB, it would be more of a hassle and less likely for me to make a purchase.

I was going to make a similar comment before. I have found that AB encourages me to buy more models as I fiddle with lists all the time. The other thing it does it keep me from painting...

 Ouze wrote:
Also, before we continue this thread, I have to beg a question of Janthkin or any other interested moderator. As the discussion veered towards IP considerations, there was a public warning to keep it on-topic. If AB is being shut down for IP related reasons, are IP discussions about this product considered offtopic? Honest question, that comment may have been directed at a post that no longer is visible or something like that.

Yes, IP discussions are off-topic. Why? Because it's pure speculation; there is no information available indicating whether it's true or not.

Actually, to that end, I'm locking this thread. Various of the file maintainers have suggested some more definitive information will be forthcoming; let's table the conversation until then.