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.

Noir wrote:
So your familiar with the lawsuit and didn't get that. You sure you have a clue what your talking about. Becouse one effects the other.

So are you going to explain it, or just toss out my opinion with some snark nanny-nanny-boo-boo style?

 MisterMoon wrote:

Noir wrote:
So your familiar with the lawsuit and didn't get that. You sure you have a clue what your talking about. Becouse one effects the other.

So are you going to explain it, or just toss out my opinion with some snark nanny-nanny-boo-boo style?

LOL, if the a game company they make game pieces, they can copy right they whole game but not the parts, models would be a part. If there a model company then they can copy right there models. So if you are right, and they are a game company, good forevery one but GW.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Keeping up?

With your pedantry? I'm trying hard not to.

Anyway, thanks for playing. I shall never again leave off "IMO" again, for I shall forever be worrying that people like yourself will assume I consider myself a being sitting in absolute, objective judgement over gaming systems, rather than a person sat at a keyboard with an opinion.

If you'd like to carry on this line of debate and thus take take the thread even further off topic, I suggest unplugging the keyboard from the computer first and then bashing away. Just as many people will care.

Stay on-topic, people. And remember Rule Number One is Be Polite. Thanks.

Chef Vegas wrote:
Have you checked out Wild West Exodus on Kickstarter? My friends and I have been playing the prerelease rules and think it will replace 40k for us.

I'm sure it will.

Noir wrote:

 MisterMoon wrote:

Noir wrote:
So your familiar with the lawsuit and didn't get that. You sure you have a clue what your talking about. Becouse one effects the other.

So are you going to explain it, or just toss out my opinion with some snark nanny-nanny-boo-boo style?

LOL, if the a game company they make game pieces, they can copy right they whole game but not the parts, models would be a part. If there a model company then they can copy right there models. So if you are right, and they are a game company, good forevery one but GW.

Not to be mean, but if I can cipher that, I get what you're saying (I think). But, I don't see the connection to selling "aftermarket parts," and I'm not quite sure what you mean by it. I'll go back to what I said; in a court of law GW will say they are an exercise and fitness company, if the judge allows it, and it helps win their case. Of course this is an extreme example, but I think you get my drift. Also, I'm not convinced either way by their notion of being a hobby miniature company vs. a game company any more than I'd say the same for PP, or other game companies. A.) I still want to see a link or transcript of them saying this, and in context, and B.) I can see why GW would say this in a court case defending their alleged IP of miniatures, just as I could if it was PP, or another game company. Basically, all of these companies are hobby and miniature companies at some level. At some point any company draws a line in the sand and says these things are our IP, GW just draws it to include things which IMO shouldn't be protected.

the /= they
copyright is one word
'their' not 'there' for ownership.

 Alfndrate wrote:

Riquende wrote:
Specifically Necromunda scale. 6-12 guys, no squad cohesion, that sort of thing.

I don't know of any that are that small and are IGUG

Song of Blades and Heroes is IGOUGO (the most widely used abbreviation) in that one player attempts to activate his entire force, then the other player does the same. What sets it apart is that the gambling mechanic whereby the player rolls to activate each of their character while attempting 1-3 actions and if they fail on two actions passes to the opponent. I find it much more satisfying than 40k/Necro IGOUGO which guarantees every unit it's actions unless incapacitated. Still, it is IGOUGO in that one player does everything they are able to do in their turn before the the other player does everything they can, then it moves to the next game turn.

I wouldn't say that Necromunda "falls flat on it's face". After all, even Necromunda had a true overwatch mechanic, something that has been lacking (despite the anemic firing-vs-chargers rule that takes that name in 6th ed) in 40k since then. Still I would say that subsequent developments in rules have led to rules that are much more engaging of both players and require a faster exchange of pro-active player actions. GW's solution for engaging the "inactive" player has traditionally been to have them roll for saves. That may have seemed adequate a few decades ago, but there are many other options now.

Most simply use alternating unit activations, but there are many other systems. Some have rules whereby a unit's action may result in a cascade of reactions from other players (Tomorrow's war) and sometimes even from the unit that made the initial action (5150 Star Army). Also, there are some games that modify alternate unit activation by having units activate by draw of cards (CAV, Warlord, Battlemasters, Malifaux maybe?) or activate in order of "quality" (FUBAR). And there are others like Warmaster, Future War Commander, Warengine/Shockforce etc, that combine aspects of various activation mechanics.

Eilif wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

Riquende wrote:
Specifically Necromunda scale. 6-12 guys, no squad cohesion, that sort of thing.

I don't know of any that are that small and are IGUG

Song of Blades and Heroes is IGOUGO (the most widely used abbreviation) in that one player attempts to activate his entire force, then the other player does the same. What sets it apart is that the gambling mechanic whereby the player rolls to activate each of their character while attempting 1-3 actions and if they fail on two actions passes to the opponent. I find it much more satisfying than 40k/Necro IGOUGO which guarantees every unit it's actions unless incapacitated. Still, it is IGOUGO in that one player does everything they are able to do in their turn before the the other player does everything they can, then it moves to the next game turn.

I wouldn't say that Necromunda "falls flat on it's face". After all, even Necromunda had a true overwatch mechanic, something that has been lacking (despite the anemic firing-vs-chargers rule that takes that name in 6th ed) in 40k since then. Still I would say that subsequent developments in rules have led to rules that are much more engaging of both players and require a faster exchange of pro-active player actions. GW's solution for engaging the "inactive" player has traditionally been to have them roll for saves. That may have seemed adequate a few decades ago, but there are many other options now.

Most simply use alternating unit activations, but there are many other systems. Some have rules whereby a unit's action may result in a cascade of reactions from other players (Tomorrow's war) and sometimes even from the unit that made the initial action (5150 Star Army). Also, there are some games that modify alternate unit activation by having units activate by draw of cards (CAV, Warlord, Battlemasters, Malifaux maybe?) or activate in order of "quality" (FUBAR). And there are others like Warmaster, Future War Commander, Warengine/Shockforce etc, that combine aspects of various activation mechanics.

Having played Necromunda myself, I really feel that it would have benefited from something to "spice up" the IGOUGO turn sequence. I mean if you think about the setting of the game and the atmosphere (gang firefights and all), incorporating "turnovers" similar to how Song of Blades or Blood Bowl does would have made the game feel a lot more intense. I don't know, maybe I'm spoilt by all the interesting mechanics in games nowadays, but having a 6-12 figure skirmish game with a turn system adopted from mass battle wargames makes Necromunda (to me) feel a bit bland. I mean as a player you don't have a particularly large amount of choice during gameplay; you are forced to move all your troops first, then shoot with them, and then fight combats in that order. Things like overwatch and the various skills helped, but to me it felt like they were inserted to try and remedy the mundane turn system, whereas implementing a more interactive/exciting core turn mechanic would probably have been better.