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.

AndrewC wrote:So yes, GW is in the business of selling models, but it is in the context of playing their games.

I've always believed in this. I've always felt GW's contrary attitude as a bit of a cop out.

If GW was only a model company, they wouldn't nearly have been as successful

Ian Sturrock wrote:Arguably WYSIWYG and true LOS mean that you *do* need to use miniatures of a particular form, in games. Or else there wouldn't be a problem of modelling for advantage, or issues where people don't like to play against counts-as armies because they're too confusing.

Really you "need" to use a miniature of a particular form? Care to explain very carefully what that exact form is? Because about the only thing TLOS requires is that you use miniatures of roughly the same height as your oponent. They could be 15mm, 20mm, 25mm, 28mm, 32mm, 54mm, or even 90mm. So what particular form would that be? Can I not use Pig Iron miniaures to represent my imperial guard and still play 40k rules? Certainly I can. Hell I could use 2D card board print outs and paint them as space marines and play space marines and TLOS would pretty much be satisfied. So no you do not need to have a particular form to satisfy TLOS.

WYSIWYG maybe you have a better argument but then again how big of a component of the overall game is it? I could still play the game without WYSIWYG rather easily. Most of us do it to one degree or another already.

It is an interesting question but I would say that these have a very good chance of not being considered functional pieces.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AndrewC wrote:

FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:GW is a model firm first and foremost. The games are just there to help sell the models. GW is in the business of selling models to children aged 10-16.

Then you got Jervis blithing on about most of our customer's don't even play the games, and plastic space marine sales blowing him away that he things its a front for drugs... sighs I really miss the old Jervis.

But why are they selling those models? While I see your point, as the majority of their profits come from the models and not the rules, they do not seem to be selling the models as individual pieces but as part of the game. The last few times I have been in a GW store, I am always asked what system/army I play/own.

So yes, GW is in the business of selling models, but it is in the context of playing their games.

Cheers

Andrew

I think you need to remember that everything has utility in some context but that isn't how the law decides if it has intrinsic utility.

You *could* play the game with cardboard counters that each had a bit of wire sticking up to denote the height of the mini, for TLOS purposes, and were numerically coded so as to identify what model they represented.

But, would it be as much fun? If not -- well, isn't the point of a game "to have fun"?

Certainly a miniatures wargame needs miniatures as part of its fun, just the same way a film needs visual and audio elements as its fun. Yes, you could understand the story of Star Wars just by reading the script -- but it wouldn't be most people's idea of fun.

AndrewC wrote:

FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:GW is a model firm first and foremost. The games are just there to help sell the models. GW is in the business of selling models to children aged 10-16.

Then you got Jervis blithing on about most of our customer's don't even play the games, and plastic space marine sales blowing him away that he things its a front for drugs... sighs I really miss the old Jervis.

But why are they selling those models? While I see your point, as the majority of their profits come from the models and not the rules, they do not seem to be selling the models as individual pieces but as part of the game. The last few times I have been in a GW store, I am always asked what system/army I play/own.

So yes, GW is in the business of selling models, but it is in the context of playing their games.

Cheers

Andrew

They are selling the models to make money. Everything else about it exists to make the purchase more attractive with the goal of making more money.

Ian Sturrock wrote:You *could* play the game with cardboard counters that each had a bit of wire sticking up to denote the height of the mini, for TLOS purposes, and were numerically coded so as to identify what model they represented.

The fact you can wouldn't necessarily alleviate the fact that the miniatures have that functionality beyond their aesthetic design.

Ian Sturrock wrote:You *could* play the game with cardboard counters that each had a bit of wire sticking up to denote the height of the mini, for TLOS purposes, and were numerically coded so as to identify what model they represented.

But, would it be as much fun? If not -- well, isn't the point of a game "to have fun"?

Certainly a miniatures wargame needs miniatures as part of its fun, just the same way a film needs visual and audio elements as its fun. Yes, you could understand the story of Star Wars just by reading the script -- but it wouldn't be most people's idea of fun.

Actually you do not need miniatures to play a miniature game and perhaps more importantly you don't need GW specific miniatures to play the game. My point is only that the possible finctionality of the miniature is not tied to the game at all. Does it still posess inherent functionality? I don't know enough about it to make that call but just because a game has TLOS or WYSIWG doesn't impar that inherent functionality.

aka_mythos wrote:

Ian Sturrock wrote:You *could* play the game with cardboard counters that each had a bit of wire sticking up to denote the height of the mini, for TLOS purposes, and were numerically coded so as to identify what model they represented.

The fact you can wouldn't necessarily alleviate the fact that the miniatures have that functionality beyond their aesthetic design.

Many people do play the game with "counts as" armies though and models with different stances altering their weapon and eye positions, which indicates to the contrary. Even in PP's quite restrictive Conversion policy there's plenty of scope to modify your miniatures away from the standard, although it will have no game effect due to the way that those rules work.

brettz123 wrote:

Ian Sturrock wrote:You *could* play the game with cardboard counters that each had a bit of wire sticking up to denote the height of the mini, for TLOS purposes, and were numerically coded so as to identify what model they represented.

But, would it be as much fun? If not -- well, isn't the point of a game "to have fun"?

Certainly a miniatures wargame needs miniatures as part of its fun, just the same way a film needs visual and audio elements as its fun. Yes, you could understand the story of Star Wars just by reading the script -- but it wouldn't be most people's idea of fun.

Actually you do not need miniatures to play a miniature game and perhaps more importantly you don't need GW specific miniatures to play the game. My point is only that the possible finctionality of the miniature is not tied to the game at all. Does it still posess inherent functionality? I don't know enough about it to make that call but just because a game has TLOS or WYSIWG doesn't impar that inherent functionality.

Especially when the miniatures GW makes themselves do not meet WYSIWYG. The majority of the models in the basic Chaos Space Marine set do not have bolt pistols, frag grenades, krak grenades or close combat weapons, which their rules all state that they have.

So would you guys argue that the film Star Wars is just a more aesthetically pleasing version of the typewritten script? Or does it have some other quality beyond that?

Gotta say that as a 7-year-old hearing for the first time the Millennium Falcon taking off from Mos Eisley Spaceport, I would have disagreed with that stance. I'm pretty sure that as a 42-year-old film buff and gamer, I disagree, too.

Ian Sturrock wrote:You *could* play the game with cardboard counters that each had a bit of wire sticking up to denote the height of the mini, for TLOS purposes, and were numerically coded so as to identify what model they represented.

But, would it be as much fun? If not -- well, isn't the point of a game "to have fun"?

Certainly a miniatures wargame needs miniatures as part of its fun, just the same way a film needs visual and audio elements as its fun. Yes, you could understand the story of Star Wars just by reading the script -- but it wouldn't be most people's idea of fun.

None of which has any bearing of the law.

Ian Sturrock wrote:So would you guys argue that the film Star Wars is just a more aesthetically pleasing version of the typewritten script? Or does it have some other quality beyond that?

Gotta say that as a 7-year-old hearing for the first time the Millennium Falcon taking off from Mos Eisley Spaceport, I would have disagreed with that stance. I'm pretty sure that as a 42-year-old film buff and gamer, I disagree, too.

Fair enough, but that still has nothing to do with the legalities of the matter. The law doesn't take into account how "pleasing" it would be to use the models.

Eric

Ian Sturrock wrote:So would you guys argue that the film Star Wars is just a more aesthetically pleasing version of the typewritten script? Or does it have some other quality beyond that?

Gotta say that as a 7-year-old hearing for the first time the Millennium Falcon taking off from Mos Eisley Spaceport, I would have disagreed with that stance. I'm pretty sure that as a 42-year-old film buff and gamer, I disagree, too.

I'm not sure what you are trying to ask? What does that have to do with anything?

Holdenstein wrote:
Many people do play the game with "counts as" armies though and models with different stances altering their weapon and eye positions, which indicates to the contrary. Even in PP's quite restrictive Conversion policy there's plenty of scope to modify your miniatures away from the standard, although it will have no game effect due to the way that those rules work.

I don't think the willingness of people in allowing a lax interpretation of the rules would have much bearing in whether there is a functionality beyond aesthetic.

Anvildude wrote:You know, if this discussion of 'replacement parts' and Copyright being 'passable' for purposes of pure utility is all true, GW would actually want miniatures to be counted as objects d'Art- as if Wysiwyg, Tlos and all are intrinsic functionings of the models in pursuit of being tokens to play the game, that means that things like ''Space Knights" that are the same size, shape, and have interchangeable parts would be completely legal, and GW wouldn't be able to do anything to companies that create them.

And Killkrazy, Trade Marks are only protected when they are used specifically for the service they advertise or represent. This is why you can have an ACME Grocers, and an ACME Junkyard, with neither of them violating trademark.

Unless the mark is famous, in which case one can make a dilution claim, which requires neither competition nor confusion. But then, dilution typically carries with it no damages, merely equitable relief, unless the dilution is found to be willful.

Like if someone with the last name of "Cola" could start a Coke (the fuel) company and call it Coke-o'-Cola... right?

But yeah, what Weeble said.

aka_mythos wrote:

Holdenstein wrote:
Many people do play the game with "counts as" armies though and models with different stances altering their weapon and eye positions, which indicates to the contrary. Even in PP's quite restrictive Conversion policy there's plenty of scope to modify your miniatures away from the standard, although it will have no game effect due to the way that those rules work.

I don't think the willingness of people in allowing a lax interpretation of the rules would have much bearing in whether there is a functionality beyond aesthetic.

Funny thing is there aren't any rules about WYSIWIG or what models you should be using in the rule book, although there is an assumption that you are going to be using Citadel miniatures. All that stuff has always been in individual tournament packs, social convention and store house rules.

Holdenstein wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:

Holdenstein wrote:
Many people do play the game with "counts as" armies though and models with different stances altering their weapon and eye positions, which indicates to the contrary. Even in PP's quite restrictive Conversion policy there's plenty of scope to modify your miniatures away from the standard, although it will have no game effect due to the way that those rules work.

I don't think the willingness of people in allowing a lax interpretation of the rules would have much bearing in whether there is a functionality beyond aesthetic.

Funny thing is there aren't any rules about WYSIWIG or what models you should be using in the rule book, although there is an assumption that you are going to be using Citadel miniatures. All that stuff has always been in individual tournament packs, social convention and store house rules.

Page 3:

The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow.

Page 47:

‘What You See Is What You Get’
Character models in particular tend to have a lot of options as to what weapons and wargear they can use – given in the army list of their Codex.
The rule is that such equipment must be visually represented on the model so your opponents can clearly see what they are facing.
This concept is often referred to as WYSIWYG, which stands for ‘what you see is what you get’.

So yes, the 40k rules absolutely refer to Citadel models, and WYSIWYG is a rule for characters that typically gets extended to all upgrades.

Sorry I'll change that.

Funny thing is there aren't any rules about WYSIWIG on standard troopers or what models you should be using in the rule book, although there is an assumption that you are going to be using Citadel miniatures. All that stuff has always been in individual tournament packs, social convention and store house rules.

Holdenstein wrote:Sorry I'll change that.

Funny thing is there aren't any rules about WYSIWIG on standard troopers or what models you should be using in the rule book, although there is an assumption that you are going to be using Citadel miniatures. All that stuff has always been in individual tournament packs, social convention and store house rules.

Still incorrect. Every time you see the word model you should be reading Citadel model - as the quote from page 3 shows. Which means that the rules *dictate* Citadel models only.
Not that everyone follows that, but the rules do say that.

MagickalMemories, my point isn't that adding visual elements to a game or other experience is only more "pleasing". My point is that it is an entirely different experience once you add colour and shape. The Star Wars thing was just an analogy.

There is plenty of psychological and sociological literature about the different qualities of different experiences. It's not just an aesthetic thing.

Why do you think TV advertising costs more than radio or magazine advertising? It's not just about audience numbers; humans respond to visually interesting information in a completely different way than audio or textual info. It's a *different* experience, not just a "more pleasing" one.

rigeld2 wrote:

Holdenstein wrote:Sorry I'll change that.

Funny thing is there aren't any rules about WYSIWIG on standard troopers or what models you should be using in the rule book, although there is an assumption that you are going to be using Citadel miniatures. All that stuff has always been in individual tournament packs, social convention and store house rules.

Still incorrect. Every time you see the word model you should be reading Citadel model - as the quote from page 3 shows. Which means that the rules *dictate* Citadel models only.
Not that everyone follows that, but the rules do say that.

So what about units which Citadel hasn't done a model for?

A Town Called Malus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Holdenstein wrote:Sorry I'll change that.

Funny thing is there aren't any rules about WYSIWIG on standard troopers or what models you should be using in the rule book, although there is an assumption that you are going to be using Citadel miniatures. All that stuff has always been in individual tournament packs, social convention and store house rules.

Still incorrect. Every time you see the word model you should be reading Citadel model - as the quote from page 3 shows. Which means that the rules *dictate* Citadel models only.
Not that everyone follows that, but the rules do say that.

So what about units which Citadel hasn't done a model for?

Clearly you aren't allowed to use that unit until GW can make a buck off it.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Holdenstein wrote:Sorry I'll change that.

Funny thing is there aren't any rules about WYSIWIG on standard troopers or what models you should be using in the rule book, although there is an assumption that you are going to be using Citadel miniatures. All that stuff has always been in individual tournament packs, social convention and store house rules.

Still incorrect. Every time you see the word model you should be reading Citadel model - as the quote from page 3 shows. Which means that the rules *dictate* Citadel models only.
Not that everyone follows that, but the rules do say that.

So what about units which Citadel hasn't done a model for?

There's no rules support for being able to use that unit.
Unofficially, conversions are fine - and even talked about in the rules. But that doesn't change what's printed.

Not sure that WYSIWYG and GW's stance on it is entirely relevant here. Maybe a good topic for a different thread?

Please endeavor to keep this thread on topic - thanks!

AndrewC wrote:

FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:GW is a model firm first and foremost. The games are just there to help sell the models. GW is in the business of selling models to children aged 10-16.

Then you got Jervis blithing on about most of our customer's don't even play the games, and plastic space marine sales blowing him away that he things its a front for drugs... sighs I really miss the old Jervis.

But why are they selling those models? While I see your point, as the majority of their profits come from the models and not the rules, they do not seem to be selling the models as individual pieces but as part of the game. The last few times I have been in a GW store, I am always asked what system/army I play/own.

So yes, GW is in the business of selling models, but it is in the context of playing their games.

Cheers

Andrew

Actually no you are wrong, sorry to say it. GW's target audience is 10-16 year old children who will make a initial purchase starter box (AoBR, IOB, MoM) with supporting codex/army book, this customer will make some 'hobby' purchases like paint, tools, models and whatever else for the next 18 months or so. The plan is to get one or two big purchases like a birthday or christmas in there. After this the customer will drop out of the GW PLC Hobby.

That is GW's target audience. It's called churn and burn and it's been there MO for quite a while now. EVERYTHING else is just icing on the cake for them. I am shure if GW could ban vets they would as they make more money by churn and burn then they do from vets (according to them then again the GW higher ups live in LALA land so take that for what its worth). After the 18-24 months are up GW has made its target off of you and it's off to the next 'little timmy', get him a demo game and get him into the HHHobby.

Honestly have you read the 40k/Fantasy rules? They are terrible. The fluff is squarely aimed at kids/ teens now a days. The game mechanics are almost non existent. It is a good ruleset for what it is (beer and pretzels) but honestly, can you tell me the rules are anywhere near as good as they used to be? If they are so good why the huge threads on RAW vs RAI? Why do you have to roll a D6 to figure out who is interpretation is right? Why is it so complicated compared to complex?

I am not trying to be a duche, honestly I love the 40k universe. It's a great place to set stories in. But please take a good look at the vehicle they use to sell models.

brettz123 wrote:
WYSIWYG maybe you have a better argument but then again how big of a component of the overall game is it? I could still play the game without WYSIWYG rather easily. Most of us do it to one degree or another already.

I'd argue not that big a component since it's only in the 40K rule book. Fantasy and, as far as I can recall, LotR don't have WYSIWYG rules in them.

Anvildude wrote:You know, if this discussion of 'replacement parts' and Copyright being 'passable' for purposes of pure utility is all true, GW would actually want miniatures to be counted as objects d'Art- as if Wysiwyg, Tlos and all are intrinsic functionings of the models in pursuit of being tokens to play the game, that means that things like ''Space Knights" that are the same size, shape, and have interchangeable parts would be completely legal, and GW wouldn't be able to do anything to companies that create them.

And Killkrazy, Trade Marks are only protected when they are used specifically for the service they advertise or represent. This is why you can have an ACME Grocers, and an ACME Junkyard, with neither of them violating trademark.

If you look at trademark registration it's grouped into classes of business.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-applying/t-class.htm

Nintendo have registered Star Fox as a trademark in the business area of games and playthings (and several others). It would not be possible for GW to have the same trade mark for a plaything.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ohim?ohimnum=E2503795
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ohim?ohimnum=E5209432

rigeld2 wrote:
Still incorrect. Every time you see the word model you should be reading Citadel model - as the quote from page 3 shows. Which means that the rules *dictate* Citadel models only.
Not that everyone follows that, but the rules do say that.

Not everything in the rule book is actually a rule.
No where in the book does it say that you're required to use GW/Citadel models as part of the game rules.

Ian Sturrock wrote:MagickalMemories, my point isn't that adding visual elements to a game or other experience is only more "pleasing". My point is that it is an entirely different experience once you add colour and shape. The Star Wars thing was just an analogy.

There is plenty of psychological and sociological literature about the different qualities of different experiences. It's not just an aesthetic thing.

Why do you think TV advertising costs more than radio or magazine advertising? It's not just about audience numbers; humans respond to visually interesting information in a completely different way than audio or textual info. It's a *different* experience, not just a "more pleasing" one.

That still has nothing to do with IP law and has no bearing on this case.

Eric

So wouldn't GW's stance on always mentioning that the games are to be played "only" with Citadel Miniatures imply the functitonality of said models? If you read any of the rulebooks it does clearly state Citadel Miniatures throughout. This alone would give at least a measure of functionality. Their hardline stance of only Citadel Miniatures in events (even ones not run by them.) should also imply a level of functionality.

Their attitude towards conversions that use other companies pieces should also imply functionality. I have never purchased a single model kit from any other model kit company that listed this restriction. Most model building events/competitions encourage mixing kits for better detail. 3rd party brass, resin and plastic kits exist just to make existing models more detailed and I do not recall ever hearing complaints about it until GW.

Even the way GW packages their miniatures may imply functionality. If I am buying a model for display or for the joy of ownership, typically it is not packaged in a squad sized set that states "for use in Alpha army of the Beta game system.". Only miniatures that have the intended purpose of being used in a gaming setting are packaged like that AND include the actual intended use right on the package. I am not a lawyer and do not play one on TV, but that seems to imply all kinds of functionality to me.

As for WYSIWYG...if GW has such a restrictive policy built into their gaming system, but do not actually produce models with all of the WYSIWYG options available, then I would say they have no real argument against a company that makes a buck/Pound/Euro picking up their slack.

The same goes for models not produced, but represented in the rules. If GW does not produce said model, then someone who does should not suffer for giving people what they want. I believe that this also has a chance to imply functionality. Which models get produced and when they are produced are directly related to game release schedules as well as how popular they are in the game. As an example of this...new models get produced when a new army book/codex is released. Not all of the models though. Some models are never produced because after the book comes out, GW finds that no one is using said unit because the rules are crap or the points cost is to high, etc., so they never produce the model becaus it would not sell. The Ork Codex unit "Flash Gitz" are a perfect example. Horrible unit that only got a single "direct only" model. Others never even see that one model.

So I most definitely believe that GW models do exist for the express purpose of functioning as playing pieces in the various game systems that GW supports. All of the other uses for said miniatures are a secondary consideration for GW. If collectors where , in fact, their target audience, they would not produce miniatures in the manner that they do.

Shepherd23 wrote: Some models are never produced because after the book comes out, GW finds that no one is using said unit because the rules are crap or the points cost is to high, etc., so they never produce the model becaus it would not sell. The Ork Codex unit "Flash Gitz" are a perfect example. Horrible unit that only got a single "direct only" model. Others never even see that one model.

Would this not mean that GW is a Games company, then, and that the miniatures are only shaped and sized as they are in accordance with how they're meant to be used in the games?

I know that Flash Gitz might not be popular to use in games, but they're one of the favorite squads for Ork and non-Ork players to convert and paint. If GW made a Flash Gitz kit with decent detail and character, it'd sell like hotcakes just for the modeling and painting potential.

Kilkrazy wrote:Nintendo have registered Star Fox as a trademark in the business area of games and playthings (and several others). It would not be possible for GW to have the same trade mark for a plaything.

What does that tell us about GW's lawyers that they claim to have that specific trademark in an official lawsuit?