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.

 krazynadechukr wrote:
Is the most generic way to put it. I'm sorry, I can not grasp how someone can over ride their beliefs/morals (maybe strong words), and still support the root of the thing they dislike.

Because the problem here isn't anything to do with beliefs or morals?

GW's recent actions haven't been 'morally' wrong. Just annoying and stupid. If they were, I dunno, exploiting homeless kids in Africa, then you might have a point.

"God I hate dunken donuts, but these donuts are so delicious!"

Because if you're choosing Dunkin' Donuts over Krispy Kremes or Voodoo Donuts, you are bad and should feel bad.

Dunkin' Donut is a specific producer of donuts, with an in-house recipe and manner of making them. "Donut" is a generic term for a kind of fried pastry.

Dunkin Donuts are hot garbage. Krispy Kreme for life.

 krazynadechukr wrote:
Idolator, the fish thing makes no sense.

"I hate the company that makes the product I love."

Is the most generic way to put it. I'm sorry, I can not grasp how someone can over ride their beliefs/morals (maybe strong words), and still support the root of the thing they dislike. It's like a fat person saying "God I hate dunken donuts, but these donuts are so delicious!" As they shove donuts in their face. And they continue that way... Their the same people that blame Dunkin donuts for being fat! Anyway, this dead horse has been beatin' enough...

Dead fish are the source of fish meal fertilizer,and it is wonderful, makes my tomatoes thrive. I am repelled/disgusted by dead fish in general though for many reasons.

GW is the source of 40K. I am repelled/disgusted by GW in general though, for many reasons.

It's a bit of a joke. Connected to the argument to show that the source of a thing can be disliked while still liking something that it produces. I also hate mold on bread, but penicillin is awesome.

40k is not GW. Warhammer 40K is one product made by a company, much like the X-box is one product made by a company.If another company made the X-box, I would still like it.. GW is a company that is publicly traded and has changed leadership and business practices to the point that it is no longer the same company that it once was. 40K can be divorced from GW and picked up by another company. I would still dislike GW and would still like 40K. I do truly enjoy the intellectual property that is Warhammer 40,000 but I haven't purchased anything from GW in over a year, mostly because their product has gone from being a seafood dinner to being something that I dump in the ground.

Edit: just to throw in another fish reference.

So, that analogy proves, then, that either GW is Great Cthulhu, or that 40K is the Kitten of the Sea. Could go either way.

 Psienesis wrote:
So, that analogy proves, then, that either GW is Great Cthulhu, or that 40K is the Kitten of the Sea. Could go either way.

At least you get it.

Ridiculous? How about this:

Terrain that are clearly ruins confer a cover save if you are covered by them. Cool, we all know that. It also says that if there is a base, the base is area terrain thus inducing a 5+ cover and difficult terrain checks. Cool, makes sense.

One of my opponents took that one step further. The rules for area terrains, specifically forests, state you ignore the crap on top of the base when moving models around. So he tried to move his soldiers THROUGH A WALL lol. i said "Oh hell naw! Even if that was legal by reading with a 1000x microscope between the lines i wouldnt allow that bullcrap because thats jet/jump/skimmer's strengths out the window if that was true!"

 Vineheart01 wrote:
So he tried to move his soldiers THROUGH A WALL lol. i said "Oh hell naw! Even if that was legal by reading with a 1000x microscope between the lines i wouldnt allow that bullcrap because thats jet/jump/skimmer's strengths out the window if that was true!"

No microscope required. This is 100% explicitly allowed by the Ruins rules.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Ridiculous? How about this:

Terrain that are clearly ruins confer a cover save if you are covered by them. Cool, we all know that. It also says that if there is a base, the base is area terrain thus inducing a 5+ cover and difficult terrain checks. Cool, makes sense.

One of my opponents took that one step further. The rules for area terrains, specifically forests, state you ignore the crap on top of the base when moving models around. So he tried to move his soldiers THROUGH A WALL lol. i said "Oh hell naw! Even if that was legal by reading with a 1000x microscope between the lines i wouldnt allow that bullcrap because thats jet/jump/skimmer's strengths out the window if that was true!"

While open to discussion (meaning bad rule design), pg. 99 does state: It's perfectly acceptable to assume that combatants on both sides have brought plenty of cutting tools, acidic things, or naked ferocity to muscle their way through any wall so foolish as to block their path. Indeed, the normal rules for moving through difficult terrain allow you to do just this.

So basically, wishy wash rules that say "Yea, we mean to allow this, but in case you forget to cover this in one of the 47 other topics you'll need discuss prior to starting, you can now have another rules dispute based on our poor wording. Which may or may not be used by your opponent to their advantage. But remember, have FUN!"

I have never used the word permissive rule set in regards to wargaming. It means something within martial arts though.

When talking about martial arts a permissive rule set is one that allows a great number of styles and techniques to use with fewer rules separating it from a real fight.

For example mma is a permissive rule set. Muay Thai is a permissive striking rule set where as Olympic TKD and point fighting karate are not.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
One of my opponents took that one step further. The rules for area terrains, specifically forests, state you ignore the crap on top of the base when moving models around. So he tried to move his soldiers THROUGH A WALL lol. i said "Oh hell naw! Even if that was legal by reading with a 1000x microscope between the lines i wouldnt allow that bullcrap because thats jet/jump/skimmer's strengths out the window if that was true!"

Was it classified as a ruin?
You can move through it.
Skimmers, etc. can bounce over impassable terrain where normal models can't.

I've seen the terrain thing with ruins taken further: driving straight through the wall Kool-Aid Man Style.

The most ridiculous thing I have heard, outside of this website, is that Chapterhouse Studios was a dick for trying to sue poor ol' Games Workshop. Now Games Workshop has to remove is forced to remove units with no models from their codices and it is all CHS's fault for trying to challenge GW's bogus claims.

While I do think CHS is at least partially responsible for putting GW in a position where they feel things need to be removed if they don't have the money to make them (and let's be honest, that's why things went without models before, budgetting reasons) I don't blame CHS for everything that happened.

Of course it doesn't help that GW seemed to think they have the same kind of legal power as Disney, but now that they've been proven wrong they're pulling back on a lot of things.

I think it also shocked them how negative the reaction was over the dot the space marine debacle.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
While I do think CHS is at least partially responsible for putting GW in a position where they feel things need to be removed if they don't have the money to make them (and let's be honest, that's why things went without models before, budgetting reasons) I don't blame CHS for everything that happened.

Of course it doesn't help that GW seemed to think they have the same kind of legal power as Disney, but now that they've been proven wrong they're pulling back on a lot of things.

As they were the defendant it isn't fair to blame CHS for anything that happened.

If GW had let sleeping dogs lie, everyone would have carried on as they were, but instead chose to pursue a lawsuit which actually managed to expose a whole bunch of stuff that has subsequently cause them issues.

GW has nobody to blame but themselves for any fallout from the CHS case.

 azreal13 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
While I do think CHS is at least partially responsible for putting GW in a position where they feel things need to be removed if they don't have the money to make them (and let's be honest, that's why things went without models before, budgetting reasons) I don't blame CHS for everything that happened.

Of course it doesn't help that GW seemed to think they have the same kind of legal power as Disney, but now that they've been proven wrong they're pulling back on a lot of things.

As they were the defendant it isn't fair to blame CHS for anything that happened.

If GW had let sleeping dogs lie, everyone would have carried on as they were, but instead chose to pursue a lawsuit which actually managed to expose a whole bunch of stuff that has subsequently cause them issues.

GW has nobody to blame but themselves for any fallout from the CHS case.

CHS had very intentionally decided to try and make models to fill GW's gaps. To pretend that choosing to do that didn't lead to the whole chain of events that's leading to us losing stuff in codexes now would be silly.

I'm not saying they're wrong for doing so, but I am saying that they definitely deliberately tried to make products to cash in on GW not having a model to fill that gap. That's as far as I'm putting any "blame" on them.

All I'm saying is choices were made deliberately and the events that occurred afterwards only occurred because they chose to go down that road, and then keep going down it in the way that they did even after they knew GW was watching what they were doing.

No, loads of companies fill the gaps. One could make the argument, perhaps, that CHS were a little more relaxed in disguising it, but regardless, they weren't unique.

Rather than acknowledge that they were only making money if GW themselves made money (as the majority of their catalogue required you to have a GW kit already to want or need them) and leave them be, GW chose to go down the route that led to the current situation.

There are any number of ways they could have protected themselves historically, or at least taken steps before they initiated the suit, but they weren't aware/competent/humble enough to do so, therefore, I repeat, this situation has come about solely at the instigation of GW and their inability to do things properly.

CHS being blatant about it was definitely the issue I think that made GW so ready to try and sue. CHS could have backed down about been ing quite as blatant when they were C&Dad but they doubled down which made things more of a mess.

Not that I feel GW handled it all that well either.

My favorite is the guy who tried to tell me that my army was not right and that i had to take x and y or i'd never win. i proceeded to totally wipe his "internet" army with my themed force. he threw a hisy fit got one of the guys running the event over as he was sure my army was illegal and that i was cheating. turned out he was the one cheating as he had weighted dice.

So CHS, who have subsequently emerged as being mostly in the right, and have a fighting chance of being completely exonerated, given the inconsistency in some of the rulings and the representation they're now rocking for the appeal stage, could have backed down?

Please, I think the reflection off your armour is getting in your eyes.

 azreal13 wrote:
So CHS, who have subsequently emerged as being mostly in the right, and have a fighting chance of being completely exonerated, given the inconsistency in some of the rulings and the representation they're now rocking for the appeal stage, could have backed down?

Please, I think the reflection off your armour is getting in your eyes.

Easy with the accusations, you'll find I'm no blind defender of GW if you actually pay attention to the things I say. I'm not saying CHS was wrong, but we have to admit that their choosing to fight did lead to negative repercussions to us, the consumer and how GW handles things that they don't have the budget to make models for. Is it GW's fault for putting too much into the codexes when they knew they didn't have the time or money available to make models for it? Pretty much, but because they did and the case made things change we have to give up models now. No longer do we get things to get wave releases later nor do we get stuff we can play by kit-bashing together an appropriate character.

It's a large reason the codexes aren't feeling like the changes are as big and I think it's worth recognizing that when CHS doubled down (and this is before they got a legal team, I mean when they basically flipped GW the bird over the C&D) that the ripple effect occurred and we're feeling some of those ripples even now. I won't claim CHS was wrong for trying to monetize an obvious hole in the market or that they were wrong to do so, but it's clear that we lost some things because of it and I don't think we should ignore it. Things aren't black and white in the real world and even if they were mostly right a little gray comes with it too.

I do pay attention to the things you say, and as a result I have come to the conclusion that, while taking great pains about appearing to be reasonable, you are frequently the poster, or amongst the posters who look for a reason to let GW off the hook in any discussion that centers around the correctness or otherwise of their actions.

It isn't really an accusation, so I wouldn't get all up in arms about it, more an observation.

I will object to you using 'we' in the way you did there though, 'we' do not 'have' to do anything. 'You' are welcome to make any assumptions you like, but don't presume I wish to be included.

There is basically nothing in the whole situation that can be considered negative to the consumer that can't be laid at GWs feet either as a result of their actions bringing the case, conducting the case, or failure to take sensible actions to protect themselves in the past.

 azreal13 wrote:
I do pay attention to the things you say, and as a result I have come to the conclusion that, while taking great pains about appearing to be reasonable, you are frequently the poster, or amongst the posters who look for a reason to let GW off the hook in any discussion that centers around the correctness or otherwise of their actions.

I don't take "great pains" to look reasonable, I am actually (at least as far as I see myself) a reasonable person. And as such I'm not going to keep going back and forth and how much blame for rocking the boat CHS should or should not get in regards to upsetting the status quo that has lead to the loss of things that don't have models and so on. It's a lot of gray and all opinion on the end so let's leave it at that.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
So CHS, who have subsequently emerged as being mostly in the right, and have a fighting chance of being completely exonerated, given the inconsistency in some of the rulings and the representation they're now rocking for the appeal stage, could have backed down?

Please, I think the reflection off your armour is getting in your eyes.

Easy with the accusations, you'll find I'm no blind defender of GW if you actually pay attention to the things I say. I'm not saying CHS was wrong, but we have to admit that their choosing to fight did lead to negative repercussions to us, the consumer and how GW handles things that they don't have the budget to make models for. Is it GW's fault for putting too much into the codexes when they knew they didn't have the time or money available to make models for it? Pretty much, but because they did and the case made things change we have to give up models now. No longer do we get things to get wave releases later nor do we get stuff we can play by kit-bashing together an appropriate character.

It's a large reason the codexes aren't feeling like the changes are as big and I think it's worth recognizing that when CHS doubled down (and this is before they got a legal team, I mean when they basically flipped GW the bird over the C&D) that the ripple effect occurred and we're feeling some of those ripples even now. I won't claim CHS was wrong for trying to monetize an obvious hole in the market or that they were wrong to do so, but it's clear that we lost some things because of it and I don't think we should ignore it. Things aren't black and white in the real world and even if they were mostly right a little gray comes with it too.

While i don't agree with the accusation I can see where it came from.
There have been reproductions for us, the consumers, from this but ALL of the blame rests squarely on GWs shoulders. If you haven't read the thread on the case I really do suggest finding it and filtering to just read Weeble's posts or something.
GW gave Chapterhouse no reason to back down, they where bullies from the start suing over things they didn't own with the intention of shutting down CH for good. Hell, thanks to this case we now know Chapterhouse could have been MORE blatant with what they have been doing as we now know there is nothing wrong with saying that their parts are compatible with a games workshop space marine.

I simply don't see where the grey you speak of comes from here. Chapterhouse made a product, GW decided it was infringing their IP and attempted to bully CH. Over the course of the trial they continued to play the part of the bully and even lied to the court on a couple of occasions. CH got some pro bono lawyers and fought back because the other option was to effectively close down.



So, keeping on topic, the most ridiculous thing I have heard was when someone who either really didn't understand the situation at all or was just blatantly trolling posted in that thread saying that GW won the case and the guy running CH was now a criminal.

 jonolikespie wrote:

While i don't agree with the accusation I can see where it came from.
There have been reproductions for us, the consumers, from this but ALL of the blame rests squarely on GWs shoulders. If you haven't read the thread on the case I really do suggest finding it and filtering to just read Weeble's posts or something.

I don't really mean it as an accusation, but an observation. By rocking the boat they changed the status quo and we're losing stuff out of codexes because of it. Now we can definitely argue that it shouldn't have been there in the first place and if it was going to be there it should have been supported with models, but frankly that doesn't change the past and GW's definite dropping the ball on those products doesn't change with "should haves" unfortunately.

 jonolikespie wrote:
GW gave Chapterhouse no reason to back down, they where bullies from the start suing over things they didn't own with the intention of shutting down CH for good. Hell, thanks to this case we now know Chapterhouse could have been MORE blatant with what they have been doing as we now know there is nothing wrong with saying that their parts are compatible with a games workshop space marine.

I'm not saying CHS was wrong, I'm just saying that sometimes good acts come with negative repercussions.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I simply don't see where the grey you speak of comes from here. Chapterhouse made a product, GW decided it was infringing their IP and attempted to bully CH. Over the course of the trial they continued to play the part of the bully and even lied to the court on a couple of occasions. CH got some pro bono lawyers and fought back because the other option was to effectively close down.

The bullying is why I said GW seemed to think they could approach IP like Disney does. I see some grey in CHS' motives and claims, but then again I don't believe there are any real heroes, especially in cases like this. Anyone who claims a company is a hero is saying some ridiculious stuff in my book.

As for ridiculious things, I've known some people who felt it was alright to horribly beat down the new players just because they were skull dragged when they where new.

This whole thing had been an interesting development.

GW would write about units they may not have models for.

GW would depend on completed models to be used as a means to prevent copying their IP.

By not releasing the models with the codex it would create a demand for the model.

CHS would "ninja" GW and make a model.

Now GW runs the risk of running into IP infringement because someone else made the model first.

CHS had the poor manners to now put GW in an uncomfortable position and have to rethink how they do codex releases. It really is a cool legal problem; you describe a model and it's function in rules but the real legal item is the physical model.

Now we are faced with a core codex and a series of supplements. All priced properly to cover their legal costs from this whole debacle.

<edit> So to stay on topic, a "ridiculous thing" would be blaming CHS for making use of a glaring opportunity that GW forgot was their primary means of defending their IP. Just answering the call of supply and demand.

 Talizvar wrote:
Now GW runs the risk of running into IP infringement because someone else made the model first.

That's always been the assumption of internet non-lawyers and isn't true. Unless GW wanted to directly copy CHS' model of course.

" If one model out of 50 is in range, the entire unit is in range"

Come on, that's just stupid.

It's true though, using the rules for measuring distances between units.

It doesn't matter for shooting though - you can only kill what's in range of the longest range weapon you're firing.