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.

spaceelf wrote:My favorite quote from GW's amended complaint is from item 58: "WARHAMMER $40000."

I think that GW will be hurt by the changes that they made to their models and books. For example, there was the old screamer killer carnifex, and now the plastic one. I understand that both models are copyright, but it certainly makes the trademark of carnifex confusing. GW also retcons the fluff. Again, this makes it difficult for them to say that something is X, when they then change it to Y. For example, what is a Necron? The old models look a whole lot different than the new ones, and now the fluff is all new. Possibly most significantly, GW also undermines their trademarks by making models with different names that look very similar. Two such models are the necron warrior and the plastic chaos android. Thus one could argue that visual appearance does not define their trademarks. You also have name changes like gretchin and grot. This would lead me to believe that the name is of little value.

Another related point are changes to their rules. There has been a long tradition of gamers making changes to the rules. Tournaments usually have their own rules. I think that this undermines GWs contention that it is solely their IP. People also publish fanzines, again emphsizing the fact that the hobby is a cooperative enterprise, not something that is controlled solely by GW.

I think that GW's hobby articles opened the door to using non-GW products in 40k and fantasy. My favorite is the famous deodorant tank. I think that they will have a hard time convincing a jury that a company cannot produce a generic item like a shoulderpad and sell it for use with GW products. Such shoulder pads occur in many sci fi settings including Unreal, and thus would not necessarily be considered copyright infringement from GW.

Indeed. Well put sir.

No news.

I would not expect any for more than a month.

You can check the status of the case at

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.docket.html

Other law recap sites also have the documents. There was a link to a different site further back in the thread.

Close of fact discovery is March 15th. The docket shows some motion practice in the last couple of weeks with a hearing and rulings scheduled for the 23rd. The Court has ruled that the document custodian for CHS should be deposed by then, among a few other rulings.

Because the topic of a possible delay due to the Chapterhouse lawsuit came up on Warseer and was immediately debunked as rubbish by the mods over there, straightsilver (the original source of that rumour) answered this:

straightsilver wrote:Concerning the Chapterhouse lawsuit, I would be the person concerned who first bought it to light.

Unfortunately my original comments were cut and pasted from DakkaDakka and spread like wildfire, and in many cases I was misquoted.

Essentially I was told over a year ago, by a very, very reliable source (who shall remain unnamed) that certain kits were being held back by GW as there were concerns regarding the Chapterhouse lawsuit.

GW had been advised that because they had not released physical representations of Thunderwolves, Tervigon, Tyrannofex, Doom etc that third parties who already had could contest ownership.

GW have never released a Thunderwolf model, they have released Canis Wolfborn, and as such own the rights to a model caleed Canis Wolfborn, but had not yet released Thunderwolves.

There was a fear that releasing these models after other third party manufacturers (not just CHS) would weaken their case against Chapterhouse.

The most contentious of these models being the Doom of Malantai, Tervigon and Thunderwolves.

However it is no coincidence that several months ago GW hired a new IP lawyer, who now advises them on exactly these kind of issues, and it is obvious that their legal advisors have said it's ok to release these models.

It's not a coincidence that Thunderwolves and the Tervigon have been released simultaneously just before the case gainst Chapterhouse goes to trial.
(...)
I reckon it will be at least a year if not longer before we get any resolution on that, if any resolution can ever be met as it looks as though neither side is willing to back down.

However I expect that GW is keen to win this (not that I'm saying that they will, I think they have made some howling errors tbh) if only because of license deals like the one for the Hobbit.

But I expect ChapterHouse and all the other third party companies will be trading for the forseeable future.
(...)
The general concensus (Edit: From people I know at GW HQ) is that these originally weren't going to be released together, but the schedule got messed up by some bad legal advice, and GW have been waiting for an opportunity to release them ever since.

They were well aware of the feeling of the community towards either not being released and a few months ago decided to add them into the Feb / March schedule as "birthday presents" for 40k fans.

Branderic wrote:It irks me that you say there is a general consensus that the Nids were delayed for legal reasons, so I must post that I dissent from this opinion.

Hi Branderic,

No worries, I have edited my post for clarity, but I agree that not everybody will agree with my perception of what has gone on, I am just passing on rumours that I hear when I vist Lenton, as I have friends there.
(...)
I am 99% sure it's (i.e. the Harpy)coming, and will be on the oval flying stand, roughly between Razorwing and Valkyrie size.

Almost all of the new Codexes will have flyers in, and those that do will get a model, at some point.

The last part I totally believe, GW would never miss the chance to sell a large over priced model kit. I can see all flyers getting models eventually.

Hey hey, Fighta Bombas!

Kroothawk wrote:Because the topic of a possible delay due to the Chapterhouse lawsuit came up on Warseer and was immediately debunked as rubbish by the mods over there, straightsilver (the original source of that rumour) answered this:

straightsilver wrote:Concerning the Chapterhouse lawsuit, I would be the person concerned who first bought it to light.

Unfortunately my original comments were cut and pasted from DakkaDakka and spread like wildfire, and in many cases I was misquoted.

Essentially I was told over a year ago, by a very, very reliable source (who shall remain unnamed) that certain kits were being held back by GW as there were concerns regarding the Chapterhouse lawsuit.

GW had been advised that because they had not released physical representations of Thunderwolves, Tervigon, Tyrannofex, Doom etc that third parties who already had could contest ownership.

GW have never released a Thunderwolf model, they have released Canis Wolfborn, and as such own the rights to a model caleed Canis Wolfborn, but had not yet released Thunderwolves.

There was a fear that releasing these models after other third party manufacturers (not just CHS) would weaken their case against Chapterhouse.

The most contentious of these models being the Doom of Malantai, Tervigon and Thunderwolves.

However it is no coincidence that several months ago GW hired a new IP lawyer, who now advises them on exactly these kind of issues, and it is obvious that their legal advisors have said it's ok to release these models.

It's not a coincidence that Thunderwolves and the Tervigon have been released simultaneously just before the case gainst Chapterhouse goes to trial.
(...)
I reckon it will be at least a year if not longer before we get any resolution on that, if any resolution can ever be met as it looks as though neither side is willing to back down.

However I expect that GW is keen to win this (not that I'm saying that they will, I think they have made some howling errors tbh) if only because of license deals like the one for the Hobbit.

But I expect ChapterHouse and all the other third party companies will be trading for the forseeable future.
(...)
The general concensus (Edit: From people I know at GW HQ) is that these originally weren't going to be released together, but the schedule got messed up by some bad legal advice, and GW have been waiting for an opportunity to release them ever since.

They were well aware of the feeling of the community towards either not being released and a few months ago decided to add them into the Feb / March schedule as "birthday presents" for 40k fans.

Branderic wrote:It irks me that you say there is a general consensus that the Nids were delayed for legal reasons, so I must post that I dissent from this opinion.

Hi Branderic,

No worries, I have edited my post for clarity, but I agree that not everybody will agree with my perception of what has gone on, I am just passing on rumours that I hear when I vist Lenton, as I have friends there.
(...)
I am 99% sure it's (i.e. the Harpy)coming, and will be on the oval flying stand, roughly between Razorwing and Valkyrie size.

Almost all of the new Codexes will have flyers in, and those that do will get a model, at some point.

And what GW takes away from this is; "We need to institute even tighter security measures."

Sneak-peeks, teasers and hype doesn't even begin to enter the fog-filled brains of GW HQ.

It's not clear to me why a £100 million IP based corporation would not have had good IP legal advice before it started suing people over IP.

Yeah, exactly... just seems a little far-fetched. Doesn't mean it's not the truth, though...

You could take it one step further- GW wants people to think that companies like CH are hurting the hobby. Still far-fetched, but imo about as likely as the above being the actual truth and not a bit of a misinformation campaign. None of it makes any sense to me...

RiTides wrote:Yeah, exactly... just seems a little far-fetched. Doesn't mean it's not the truth, though...

You could take it one step further- GW wants people to think that companies like CH are hurting the hobby. Still far-fetched, but imo about as likely as the above being the actual truth and not a bit of a misinformation campaign. None of it makes any sense to me...

GW is a publically-traded company where its IP means everything. It's legally obligated to its shareholders to, unfortunately, go after companies that threaten this IP.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's not clear to me why a £100 million IP based corporation would not have had good IP legal advice before it started suing people over IP.

Happens when the bosses think they know everything and fire all people not agreeing and only hire yes-men.

What happened isn't strange at all. GW hired a lawyer to file a suit that was supposed to be over and done with in a few months at best; barely a blip on the IP enforcement radar.

The whole thing unexpectedly exploded and when word got back to GW HQ that the thing had turned into a legal mess, they panicked and delayed the release of certain products because they had never planned to deal with that kind of situation.

Eventually the slow-moving corporate machinery addressed the issue and now we have the expected release of the aforementioned products.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's not clear to me why a £100 million IP based corporation would not have had good IP legal advice before it started suing people over IP.

Agreed!

This really should be something that they really are on top of because:

Absolutionis wrote:GW is a publically-traded company where its IP means everything. It's legally obligated to its shareholders to, unfortunately, go after companies that threaten this IP.

weeble1000 wrote:What happened isn't strange at all. GW hired a lawyer to file a suit that was supposed to be over and done with in a few months at best; barely a blip on the IP enforcement radar.

I don't think the delay of product releases was the 'strange thing', but the fact that GW wasn't running a tighter ship in terms of IP/Legal.

I suppose that the old days and successes of the Cease and Desist mass mailings gave them a false sense of security?

Alpharius wrote:I don't think the delay of product releases was the 'strange thing', but the fact that GW wasn't running a tighter ship in terms of IP/Legal.

Yeah, I guess I wasn't clear- this is what I meant. It's really odd that GW could be so out of sorts to: 1) Think CH would roll over 2) When they didn't roll over, delay release of their own products as a result 3) Finally get different counsel and release said products.

Basically, it sounds rather incompetent... if that's not "strange" to the rest of you, that's fine but if a company's bottom line / what shareholders think / etc etc is all that matters to the decision makers, then that's a pretty darn big snafu right there.

Alpharius wrote:I don't think the delay of product releases was the 'strange thing', but the fact that GW wasn't running a tighter ship in terms of IP/Legal.

No, this type of thing really does happen all of the time.

I'm currently dealing with a Fortune 500 company that signed a terrible licensing agreement. They never talked to us and now we have to figure out how to salvage the deal without paying ~$4-5 million to the other side.

Kroothawk wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:It's not clear to me why a £100 million IP based corporation would not have had good IP legal advice before it started suing people over IP.

Happens when the bosses think they know everything and fire all people not agreeing and only hire yes-men.

You mean Mr. Kirby's and Mr Well's business plan for the last 14 years isn't working?? I am shocked and amazed.

biccat wrote:
No, this type of thing really does happen all of the time.

I'm currently dealing with a Fortune 500 company that signed a terrible licensing agreement. They never talked to us and now we have to figure out how to salvage the deal without paying ~$4-5 million to the other side.

I concur. I have worked many cases in which I have asked why the hell someone would word a contract like that. Hindsight is 20-20. Once the gak hits the fan, it is easy to see how it got all over the walls. Sometimes people make mistakes. Sometimes folks don't consider certain outcomes. Sometimes it is unreasonable to prepare for the wildest eventualities. Sometimes people have blinders on.

As Ive no dog in the hunt and dont care either way, I havent contributed much to this thread, but I really don't understand why this is such a complex issue personally.

Look at the True-Scale marines kits that CH just released, they are identical to SM, and pretty much every dollar they make by selling them is due to the existence of Warhammer 40k.

I'm not a GW fanboy so I don't much give a gak, and I've bought plenty of stuff off CH and will continue to do so, but It seems totally cut and shut to me, exactly what am I missing with my overtly simplistic view of the affair?

CH makes money because of GW's game.

Isn't that the definition of copyright infringement? You don't need to be Johnny L Cochran to make this blatantly obvious point in a court do you?!

What am I missing?!

mattyrm wrote:
Isn't that the definition of copyright infringement? You don't need to be Johnny L Cochran to make this blatantly obvious point in a court do you?!

What am I missing?!

You are missing the reason that the entire after-market parts market of any industry exists.
You are paying a premium price and royalties for using the original vendors parts (GW in this case). For example if you wanted to buy a Toyota and an original Toyota radio head unit is $500USD... how can TEAC sell one with better features for $300USD? Isn't that infringing copyright by selling a part you can use in the car?

I can see copyright infringement if the aftermarket part maker lives on making exact duplicates of existing parts but... if you need to buy space marines to use the after-market parts, who cares? The way the red-shirt at my local store put it (it's his opinion and not official GW) was that GW was pissed off that people were confusing CHS with GW and the "poor" quality of the sculpts with original GW, thus incurring brand damage.

The reasons are many for the disagreement, but hopefully sense prevails. In other notes, I love the look of the new Tervigon sculpt... I'll be buying a few of those when I save up...

severedblue wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
Isn't that the definition of copyright infringement? You don't need to be Johnny L Cochran to make this blatantly obvious point in a court do you?!

What am I missing?!

You are missing the reason that the entire after-market parts market of any industry exists.
You are paying a premium price and royalties for using the original vendors parts (GW in this case). For example if you wanted to buy a Toyota and an original Toyota radio head unit is $500USD... how can TEAC sell one with better features for $300USD? Isn't that infringing copyright by selling a part you can use in the car?

I can see copyright infringement if the aftermarket part maker lives on making exact duplicates of existing parts but... if you need to buy space marines to use the after-market parts, who cares? The way the red-shirt at my local store put it (it's his opinion and not official GW) was that GW was pissed off that people were confusing CHS with GW and the "poor" quality of the sculpts with original GW, thus incurring brand damage.

The reasons are many for the disagreement, but hopefully sense prevails. In other notes, I love the look of the new Tervigon sculpt... I'll be buying a few of those when I save up...

Well the car part analogy makes sense, GW should just get busy and get their own gak in order instead, I mean, I bought like 12 combi weapons from CH, but if GW made their own versions, even if they were a buck more expensive I would buy them because they are better. The CH stuff is decent, but their combi weapons don't look as good as the GW stuff, if they just made these things themselves at the same price they would win hands down, so why not just do that?

They should just play them at their own game instead. They have more money, more sculptors and more equipment. If I was the head honcho down there I would check the CH site every day, copy their output and sell it at the same price. They are making tru scale marines? Ok, we make them, sell them for the same price, advertise them a bit more, win hands down right? GWs SMs look awesome, add 20% to their size and pump them out, they sell like hot cakes over the CH ones.

When your enemy is down in the dirt, you have to be prepared to get covered in gak yourself.

mattyrm wrote:
CH makes money because of GW's game.

Isn't that the definition of copyright infringement? You don't need to be Johnny L Cochran to make this blatantly obvious point in a court do you?!

What am I missing?!

That is absolutely not the definition of copyright infringement. That might be your personal impression of what is equitable, but it is not copyright protection. There are very good reasons why copyright laws are designed the way that they have been in countries around the world.

§106 · Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

(emphasis mine)

Those are the exclusive rights of a copyright holder. And note too the subject matter of copyright:

§102 (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. (emphasis mine)

Copyright protects original works and only the work. It is called copyright.

An author only has exclusive rights to what is original. Just like a patent claim may contain many elements that are all clearly in the prior art, a work of art likely incorporates many elements that are not original. Copyright gives an author the exclusive rights to reproduce the work, perform or display the work, distribute copies of the work, and to prepare derivative works which are still copied from the root work.

This is apparently what you are missing.

In order to get all the way to copyright infringement, which means that someone other than the owner of a copyright exercised the above-described exclusive rights (keeping in mind a long list of exceptions), you have to follow these steps:

Does the plaintiff own the copyright?

If yes, is the asserted work original?

If yes, what portion of the work is original?

Does the accused work copy that which is original in the asserted work?

The plaintiff in a copyright infringement lawsuit bears the burden of proof with regard to all of these questions. Additionally, the defendant has a wide array of potential affirmative defenses.

Whether or not Chapterhouse makes money because of Games Workshop's game is immaterial with regard to the above questions. Distributing copies of a work is an exclusive right of a copyright holder, but one must show that the works being distributed are copies of a protectible expression. Your opinion is that the Tru-scale products are copies, but the issue is not so open and shut as you believe. Can you show that the Tru scale products are direct recasts of a Games Workshop product, i.e. copies? If not, the issue of whether the works are copies of a protectible expression is not so clear cut at all. The law contemplates that one cannot circumvent infringement by making insubstantial alterations to a protectible expression. But what constitutes insubstantial? You will find that attempting to answer that question wades deeply into the murky realm of subjective interpretation about what "art" is. And the same arguments one would make to prove that an accused work is a copy of a protectible expression in the absence of direct evidence could and should be used to determine the scope of protection inherent in the asserted work itself.

Is it not equitable that the degree of "insubstantial" difference between an asserted work and an accused work apply equally to the asserted work in comparison to any and all preexisting works? If a lemon is a copy of an orange because the two are citrus fruits, then surely the orange is a copy of a preexisting grapefruit on the same basis. Thus the lemon is not a copy of the orange, but a copy of the grapefruit, for the orange is itself a copy of the grapefruit, and under this fanciful example, there are nothing but grapefruits, in spite of what your eyes, nose, and mouth tell you.

When you begin to reach towards arguing that two things that are not exactly the same are indeed exactly the same, it is important to sober your mind with context. Any determination that two works that are not exact copies are the same thing under the law threatens to capture any other work, even those that do not yet exist, with a similar degree of difference. Had you never known what a grapefruit was, or indeed what any other fruit was, a lemon and an orange could indeed seem awfully similar.

mattyrm wrote: CH makes money because of GW's game.

Isn't that the definition of copyright infringement? You don't need to be Johnny L Cochran to make this blatantly obvious point in a court do you?!

What am I missing?!

To follow up on weeble's post:

The relevant question isn't: "Is Chapterhouse making money on GW's game"; the relevant question is: "has GW lost sales because of Chapterhouse?"

biccat wrote:The relevant question isn't: "Is Chapterhouse making money on GW's game"; the relevant question is: "has GW lost sales because of Chapterhouse?"

And, given the vast majority of CH's products require some elements from a GW kit (up to and including a Carnifex or Stormraven), I'm going to guess at "probably not".

Actually, that raises a question for the lawyery-types in here - how do you go about proving that you've lost sales due to someone else's actions, generally?

biccat wrote:

mattyrm wrote: CH makes money because of GW's game.

Isn't that the definition of copyright infringement? You don't need to be Johnny L Cochran to make this blatantly obvious point in a court do you?!

What am I missing?!

To follow up on weeble's post:

The relevant question isn't: "Is Chapterhouse making money on GW's game"; the relevant question is: "has GW lost sales because of Chapterhouse?"

I prefer your post to his, I'm not interested enough in the case to bother reading it all.

Its probably hard to say that GW has lost sales because of CH, because as I said, they dont make most of it. I bought 12 CH combi weapons because the best GW offer is a pack with one combi flamer in and a load of pre heresy bolters.

Like I said, GW should just take a more pragmatic aggressive approach like CH. They should realise the limits of the legal system and square their own gak away.

Thats what I would do If I was in charge, I would monitor their website (CH), use my superior number of sculptors and resources and advertising, and then play them out of the game the hard way. If CH make some magnetic combi-weapons, GW should do the same and make them 50 cents cheaper. Everything they make, you make. Jet bikes? Ok were making some. Centurion helmets? Quick get Juan Diaz to have some on my desk by tomorrow morning and I want them cast by Friday. Stick them in White Dwarf, advertise it more and sell them all for the same price or less. Crush the competition, Problem solved.

If GW made magnetic combi-weapons, then I wouldn't have bought the CH stuff in the first place!

Its definitely a tough one for me though, I do think that if some guy invented a game, and then every single thing that another random company makes is sold to be used in the game you invented, well, then I believe said designer should be entitled to something. If I invented Space Marines and CH started knocking them out to my spec, I think I would be a little pissed about it. But as you say, the whole legality of the thing seems to be an immensely complicated affair.

Such is life these days. If its this complex over some minis, no wonder countries are fethed up, politicians cant achieve anything, and the UN is totally fething useless eh?

mattyrm wrote:

biccat wrote:

mattyrm wrote: CH makes money because of GW's game.

Isn't that the definition of copyright infringement? You don't need to be Johnny L Cochran to make this blatantly obvious point in a court do you?!

What am I missing?!

To follow up on weeble's post:

The relevant question isn't: "Is Chapterhouse making money on GW's game"; the relevant question is: "has GW lost sales because of Chapterhouse?"

I prefer your post to his, I'm not interested enough in the case to bother reading it all.

Its probably hard to say that GW has lost sales because of CH, because as I said, they dont make most of it. I bought 12 CH combi weapons because the best GW offer is a pack with one combi flamer in and a load of pre heresy bolters.

Like I said, GW should just take a more pragmatic aggressive approach like CH. They should realise the limits of the legal system and square their own gak away.

Thats what I would do If I was in charge, I would monitor their website (CH), use my superior number of sculptors and resources and advertising, and then play them out of the game the hard way. If CH make some magnetic combi-weapons, GW should do the same and make them 50 cents cheaper. Everything they make, you make. Jet bikes? Ok were making some. Centurion helmets? Quick get Juan Diaz to have some on my desk by tomorrow morning and I want them cast by Friday. Stick them in White Dwarf, advertise it more and sell them all for the same price or less. Crush the competition, Problem solved.

If GW made magnetic combi-weapons, then I wouldn't have bought the CH stuff in the first place!

Its definitely a tough one for me though, I do think that if some guy invented a game, and then every single thing that another random company makes is sold to be used in the game you invented, well, then I believe said designer should be entitled to something. If I invented Space Marines and CH started knocking them out to my spec, I think I would be a little pissed about it. But as you say, the whole legality of the thing seems to be an immensely complicated affair.

Such is life these days. If its this complex over some minis, no wonder countries are fethed up, politicians cant achieve anything, and the UN is totally fething useless eh?

I look at it from a different perspective, what if you were a car developer, would you have a leg to stand on if another company made an 'after market' product, lets say a turbo or an exhaust system? Not much you can really do, you still have to buy a car to use those parts, same kind of concept with CH. Least in my opinion.

I'm still under the assumption that GW's business model involves starving the market of demanded items.

Them not selling a magnetic combi melta requires you to either: buy more of their whole models to make what you need, or buy it from third parties.

So if they remove third parties, it boosts their business model.

Emerett wrote:I'm still under the assumption that GW's business model involves starving the market of demanded items.

Them not selling a magnetic combi melta requires you to either: buy more of their whole models to make what you need, or buy it from third parties.

So if they remove third parties, it boosts their business model.

True, having to buy whole kits of stuff you don't want or need simply for 1-2 pieces is kind of insane.

Emerett wrote:Them not selling a magnetic combi melta requires you to either: buy more of their whole models to make what you need, or buy it from third parties.

So if they remove third parties, it boosts their business model.

I'm inclined to believe you that this may be their tactic. Before the tervigon was released for advanced order, the local GW store manager (who ran Tyranids himself and had them on display in the store) suggested that I buy both a carnifex AND an Arachnarok Spider from the Orcs and Goblins range.

That's $83 AUD + $96 AUD per tervigon! I'm not willing to pay ~AUD$190 per monsterous creature (when I will need 2 or 3 for a competitive list).

I've wanted to create conversions of models like this for sometime (e.g. a CRUX pattern stormraven out of a Whirlwind + Valkyrie) but the cost of kits in Australia is prohibitive. That is why the CHS tervigon was very attractive in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jstncloud wrote:True, having to buy whole kits of stuff you don't want or need simply for 1-2 pieces is kind of insane.

As I've indicated above, try paying Australian prices for those kits!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS I know about international sellers, I bought from maelstrom before the EU embargo by GW

Jstncloud wrote:

Emerett wrote:I'm still under the assumption that GW's business model involves starving the market of demanded items.

Them not selling a magnetic combi melta requires you to either: buy more of their whole models to make what you need, or buy it from third parties.

So if they remove third parties, it boosts their business model.

True, having to buy whole kits of stuff you don't want or need simply for 1-2 pieces is kind of insane.

I agree here. As a Tau player I now have 3 Crisis Suits that I barely ever use. I had to buy them so I could get spare Missile Pods and Plasma Rifles to twin link (they are almost always sold out on bitz sites). So I'm left with Flamers, Fusion Blasters and Burst Cannons. I don't usually use a Flamer/Burst Cannon combo as it needs to get closer to the enemy to be effective which puts me at greater risk of being assaulted on the next turn and Fusion Blasters are better off on other units in the army, such as Piranhas.

I long for the day when GW releases a Weapon Sprue for Suits which can be bought on its own...

mattyrm wrote:

biccat wrote:

mattyrm wrote: CH makes money because of GW's game.

Isn't that the definition of copyright infringement? You don't need to be Johnny L Cochran to make this blatantly obvious point in a court do you?!

What am I missing?!

To follow up on weeble's post:

The relevant question isn't: "Is Chapterhouse making money on GW's game"; the relevant question is: "has GW lost sales because of Chapterhouse?"

I prefer your post to his, I'm not interested enough in the case to bother reading it all.

Its probably hard to say that GW has lost sales because of CH, because as I said, they dont make most of it. I bought 12 CH combi weapons because the best GW offer is a pack with one combi flamer in and a load of pre heresy bolters.

Like I said, GW should just take a more pragmatic aggressive approach like CH. They should realise the limits of the legal system and square their own gak away.

Thats what I would do If I was in charge, I would monitor their website (CH), use my superior number of sculptors and resources and advertising, and then play them out of the game the hard way. If CH make some magnetic combi-weapons, GW should do the same and make them 50 cents cheaper. Everything they make, you make. Jet bikes? Ok were making some. Centurion helmets? Quick get Juan Diaz to have some on my desk by tomorrow morning and I want them cast by Friday. Stick them in White Dwarf, advertise it more and sell them all for the same price or less. Crush the competition, Problem solved.

If GW made magnetic combi-weapons, then I wouldn't have bought the CH stuff in the first place!

Its definitely a tough one for me though, I do think that if some guy invented a game, and then every single thing that another random company makes is sold to be used in the game you invented, well, then I believe said designer should be entitled to something. If I invented Space Marines and CH started knocking them out to my spec, I think I would be a little pissed about it. But as you say, the whole legality of the thing seems to be an immensely complicated affair.

Such is life these days. If its this complex over some minis, no wonder countries are fethed up, politicians cant achieve anything, and the UN is totally fething useless eh?

Well another problem is GW used to offer a 'Bits Service'. Every single piece had a different product code, and you could mix and match pieces. Sadly in GW's opinion this was a money looser and they scraped it and turned it into what they have today.

Edit; Also GW has a much longer lead time with their models. It's not like they could produce models at the same pace as CH in any meaningful way.