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.

jbunny wrote:

Yzz wrote:

jbunny wrote:Keep in mind that your idea needs to be original. You can't just take Space Marines, and re-name them something else and it be ok.

I'm assuming this was adressed to me? In any case, I was suggesting that RT rules can be a basis for crunch, not fluff.

jbunny wrote:Also the rules need to be different enough from GW that you can't say you just copied (and fixed) their rules.

In short you need to come up with a whole new system for the game.

Retro-clones such as Labyrinth Lord, Mutant Future, Dark Dungeons, Swords & Wizardry, OSRIC, and Mazes & Minotaurs show that you do not need to write a new system to create a game. The only issue with retro-cloning RT is that unique terminology like WS & BS would have to be changed.

~~Yzz

First I was not addressing anyone with my comments, just general statement.

To your second comment, Were any of those games owned or designed by GW? GW has proven time and time again that they will bury a company in legal fees and paperwork if it comes even remotely close to Copy Right Infringment.

Which i find funny since GW got all their ideas by ripping off every other Sci-fi and Fantasy creation in existance.

Lanrak wrote:HI all.
I have written a basic outline for a rule set that can be used for 28mm.
It covers all the basic interaction in a simple way.

I LOVE that Orders system. Perhaps I shall retro-clone it...

My only nitpicks are that the "Ready" action isn't really described, and that you wrote "moral" when I believe you meant "morale".

~~Yzz

Has Wizards ever sued a company because said company made a head that was too similar to Wizards?

GW will sue for anything.

Coping Wizards games, and copiing GW's games are two different conversations.

... Lego models with 40k-style rules? I tried that when I started. It worked okay... battle droids sucked though.

jbunny wrote:Has Wizards ever sued a company because said company made a head that was too similar to Wizards?

GW will sue for anything.

Coping Wizards games, and copiing GW's games are two different conversations.

Wizards of the Coast and TSR (if anyone out there is old enough to remember them) sued plenty of people trying to cop the D&D system or even make a similar name. Chaosium once sued TSR for using a deity's faction to which they owned the copyright.

Don't demonize GW without knowing all the facts.

jbunny wrote:Has Wizards ever sued a company because said company made a head that was too similar to Wizards?

No, mainly because pretty much nobody wants copy WoTC's minis.

jbunny wrote:GW will sue for anything.

Except that all lawsuits we have seen so far have been concerning models, not rules/text.

~~Yzz

I'm in the early stages of coming up with the rules system I want to play (squad based sci fi with some heroic elements).
It's as fun as modelling or painting for me, since I love statistics and conceptual stuff. I say, go nuts, have fun, and see if it gets anywhere but never let the "job" get in the way of your enjoyment.

Have a Meta game. For example an online community campaign map or smartphone GPS 'turf'. In terms of minis have an 'anything goes' approach, a tank is a tank, a dude in power armour is in power armour etc, of course sticking to a common base size. In counterpoint introduce scale for example 'the Barghest apc is 3.4m high, 4.1m wide and 8.5m long' with the scaled down measurements next to it. Also have the base size on the datasheet for each type of unit. In general leave as liitle room for questions about size as possible.

To further the 'meta game' concept there should be a wider scope but faster playing, pre game to determine who goes first etc perhaps a naval battle or a convoy/tower defence game both of which could be smartphone apps.

Another thing i would recommend is three different level of game called something like 'altercation' (small (~5v5)) 'Escalation' (Points based skirmish (~10v10 + 1 Inf. fighting vehicle a side)) and 'Interdiction' (multiple squads with ded. transports, artillery pieces and naval/aeronautic/battle armature support)

As you can see i am giving you a 'Next gen' perspective but wargamers are grumpy and stubborn and like the heft of dice and the musty smell of a rulebook so go figure.

Woah!
Perkustin, that is an awesome idea but you are really getting ahead of the plan,

To continue the idea of generic units, I have written up an overview of five sections that should fit the specification with a sixth section so you can personalise and tailor your army to your liking.

Grunts
These are the most basic unit available to a player; they will hold the line, shoot and perform charges but will not do anything more advanced than that.

Specialists
These are more advanced troops available to a player; they are better than grunts and fill niches in the army but are not capable of holding the line or taking a charge on their own. They need grunts to support them, as much as they support the grunts. Examples of specialists are engineers, demolitions, scouts and special and heavy weapons squads.

Elites
These are the premier troops available to a tabletop general, they can perform actions that would not be attempted with grunts or specialists and have abilities and profiles that make them shine out more than other units. An example of a specialist unit is a paratrooper unit or a stormtrooper squad.

Command
The command section leads the army; they have access to orders to improve the army’s strengths and counter its weaknesses. The number of orders available to a command section is directly proportional to its rank and its rank is directly proportional to the size of the battle. A general is not going to lead a skirmish, and a lieutenant is not going to lead a full scale assault into a major enemy stronghold.

Support
The support element of an army is the most varied area of the army and has units that are much specialised such as artillery and crew, air support, tank squadrons and anti-air batteries.

Perks and Traits
An army can be personalised by buying army traits like siegers, grenadiers and rapid deployment or perks like improved armour, stimulant injectors, improved marksmanship and assault drills.

I love this thread - there is a lot of very valuable and constructive thinking going on. I'm not taking sides for or against GW but I promote all of this kind of thinking outside the game-box, so to speak.

Decades ago my friends and I would make up all the rules for ourselves, making our own mini-based skirmish games.

What is being written about here is exactly how a lot of games got their start. I think there is infinite opportunity to invent new platforms and rules.

The legal problems can be beat by making the rules free and available to anyone, and if it is made flexible enough it can incorporate a wide range of models and help out the minis industry as well.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

jbunny wrote:Has Wizards ever sued a company because said company made a head that was too similar to Wizards?

GW will sue for anything.

Coping Wizards games, and copiing GW's games are two different conversations.

Wizards of the Coast and TSR (if anyone out there is old enough to remember them) sued plenty of people trying to cop the D&D system or even make a similar name. Chaosium once sued TSR for using a deity's faction to which they owned the copyright.

Don't demonize GW without knowing all the facts.

I am not demonizing GW. I actually support GW. But they do have a track record of sueing people who copy their stuff.

And I do agree GW ripped off Starship Troopers for thier bugs and Space Marines.

jbunny wrote:Keep in mind that your idea needs to be original. You can't just take Space Marines, and re-name them something else and it be ok.

Also the rules need to be different enough from GW that you can't say you just copied (and fixed) their rules.

In short you need to come up with a whole new system for the game.

Actually I'm not sure that is strictly true. While there are many things that can be protected through copyrights, patents and trademarks, I believe game mechanics is not one of them. Anyone can create and sell a game that plays exactly the same as 40k and be on reasonably safe legal ground. So long as they don't infringe on any of GWs copywrites (images, text, names, sculpts), Patents (Dice, Blast and Flamer Templates etc..), Or trademarks (Warhammer, Space Marines etc...).

Smacks, how can a new game scatter templates without a scatter dice?
cos that's GW copyright

You could just use a wheel of fortune type thing, or spin the bottle instead of a scatter dice. Or drop 2D6 and draw a line that begins from the centre of the lower number and points towards the centre of the higher number (a double equals a hit) there are hundreds of ways you might make something similar... probably lots of better ways too.

DaemonJellybaby wrote:Smacks, how can a new game scatter templates without a scatter dice?
cos that's GW copyright

Probably one of the ways other wargames do it... Clock directions (Roll a D6, count that roll x2 around a circle like a clock) or some other methods.

jbunny wrote:

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

jbunny wrote:Has Wizards ever sued a company because said company made a head that was too similar to Wizards?

GW will sue for anything.

Coping Wizards games, and copiing GW's games are two different conversations.

Wizards of the Coast and TSR (if anyone out there is old enough to remember them) sued plenty of people trying to cop the D&D system or even make a similar name. Chaosium once sued TSR for using a deity's faction to which they owned the copyright.

Don't demonize GW without knowing all the facts.

I am not demonizing GW. I actually support GW. But they do have a track record of sueing people who copy their stuff.

And I do agree GW ripped off Starship Troopers for thier bugs and Space Marines.

We're talking about the book right? Because the bugs in the book were nothing like the ones in the movies.

The Space Marine part you're likely right on though.

DaemonJellybaby wrote:Smacks, how can a new game scatter templates without a scatter dice?
cos that's GW copyright

d10, its face is an Arrow. One of the many reasons our games use d10s.

Kanluwen wrote:The Space Marine part you're likely right on though.

I think the Mobile Infantry (who specuialize in long-distance jumps and toss nukes like they're going out of style) would find the Space Marine "Chainsword to the face" style of fighting... quaint.

If anything, 40k has as much if not more Dune influence in setting as it's a setting that's reverted to melee so heavily. Dune has more 'reasons' for this, though, as long range combat is generally pointless (or suicidal in the case of a laser weapon*).

* I've always wondered why no one in Dune made combos of shield generators (presumably relatively cheap) and Lasguns (illegal, but we're building explosives here, so who cares?) as explosive devices so they don't have to use those 'Family Atomics.'

About copyright:

Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

At least according to the U.S. federal govt anyway. So you can actually copy all the rules you like and throw the rest away. This is proabably why sue-happy GW doesn't care so much about the rules of the game, it isn't protectable in court.

Kanluwen wrote:

jbunny wrote:

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

jbunny wrote:Has Wizards ever sued a company because said company made a head that was too similar to Wizards?

GW will sue for anything.

Coping Wizards games, and copiing GW's games are two different conversations.

Wizards of the Coast and TSR (if anyone out there is old enough to remember them) sued plenty of people trying to cop the D&D system or even make a similar name. Chaosium once sued TSR for using a deity's faction to which they owned the copyright.

Don't demonize GW without knowing all the facts.

I am not demonizing GW. I actually support GW. But they do have a track record of sueing people who copy their stuff.

And I do agree GW ripped off Starship Troopers for thier bugs and Space Marines.

We're talking about the book right? Because the bugs in the book were nothing like the ones in the movies.

The Space Marine part you're likely right on though.

Actually the bugs are similar, they were just not really mentioned that much. The Skinnies were mentioned more than the bugs.

Balance wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:The Space Marine part you're likely right on though.

I think the Mobile Infantry (who specuialize in long-distance jumps and toss nukes like they're going out of style) would find the Space Marine "Chainsword to the face" style of fighting... quaint.

If anything, 40k has as much if not more Dune influence in setting as it's a setting that's reverted to melee so heavily. Dune has more 'reasons' for this, though, as long range combat is generally pointless (or suicidal in the case of a laser weapon*).

* I've always wondered why no one in Dune made combos of shield generators (presumably relatively cheap) and Lasguns (illegal, but we're building explosives here, so who cares?) as explosive devices so they don't have to use those 'Family Atomics.'

I think it was likely because you'd get looked at the same way if you did it.

Jbunny wrote:Actually the bugs are similar, they were just not really mentioned that much. The Skinnies were mentioned more than the bugs.

If you say so.

I didn't really find the bugs in their descriptions(using actual manufactured guns rather than symbiotic weapons/evolutions as weapons) to be similar to the Tyranid concept at all.

Wolfstan wrote:Doesn't Stargrunt have a universal system that can be used?

Yep it does, but there more games the merrier and lets face it, who didn't want to be involved in designing something like this?

Kanluwen wrote:If you say so.

I didn't really find the bugs in their descriptions(using actual manufactured guns rather than symbiotic weapons/evolutions as weapons) to be similar to the Tyranid concept at all.

It never specifies how they made their weapons, it does say that they look like spiders and are crap in close combat.

George Spiggott wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:If you say so.

I didn't really find the bugs in their descriptions(using actual manufactured guns rather than symbiotic weapons/evolutions as weapons) to be similar to the Tyranid concept at all.

It never specifies how they made their weapons, it does say that they look like spiders and are crap in close combat.

That's pretty different from centaur-ish with lots of close combat specialists...

The best repudiation of GW's business model would be to keep playing your favorite edition - with the models you have and/or with another company's models.

The basic message should be: "Go ahead, release the next edition. Put out another 12 Space Marine codices, and Necrons, and all the rest. Turn the whole line into your crappy new resin stuff; and catch up all the units that there are rules for and no models. Heck - make a whole bunch of new ones... But, I'm done. I have a basement full of your stuff, and there's better and cheaper out there. There's E-bay, and Craig's list, and $3000 3-D printers/scanners (https://www.nextengine.com/). I don't care what you do from this point on. I have all the rules, and codices going back to the dawn of the game. You can pound sand. I need nothing from you."

You could do Posleen War or at least in the universe of it, I'm sure John Ringo would love someone to pick up his IP and run with it as long as they checked back with him first. He doesn't even mind people writing fan-fiction for it, as he published a book of the best fan fiction a while back iirc.

That said, I'm currently working on a Table Top Tactics/Rpg game for the Mass Effect universe. The combat encounters are skirmish level and represented on a grid, with an rpg setup for the non-combat stuff.

I'm also currently working on a 40k sized game for near to mid future tech range. I'll post them once I get all my notes together, they're kind of all over the house.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

There's E-bay, and Craig's list, and $3000 3-D printers/scanners (https://www.nextengine.com/)

That's a scanner not a printer from what the movie said.

*takes out intellectual property textbook*

Being a UK law student this is a 101 in UK Intellectual Property law, and there are lots and LOTS of case law and other things that complicate the matter. (Tbh i cant remember most of it but this still serves my purpose.) And being in the UK, a lot of stuff is relatively standardised between the US and Europe as a means of "protecting people better".

I wouldnt say copyright is the biggest worry, copyright protects expressions of ideas, NOT the ideas themselves.

3. Literary, dramatic and musical works.
3A. Databases
4. Artistic works.
5A. Sound recordings.
5B. Films.
5. Sound recordings and films.
6. Broadcasts.
6A. Safeguards in case of certain satellite broadcasts.
7. Cable programmes.
8. Published editions.

So basically out of those you need to be concerned with Literary works, and artistic works.

Literary being pretty much anything that you could identify word wise with the original game, for example "scatter dice", "Whirlwind Tank" etc..., as well as any published works like unique names of characters, unique weapon names, but need to be careful that even common place words with enough attachment to a unique idea could also be protected.
Artistic works could include all forms of the models, buildings etc, but this could also apply to the design of blast templates and such, which could give REAL difficulties when you're trying to find a way to make a new way of determining the radius of a set size explosion... Also could cover things like the designs of dice, including the special scatter dice etc.

Patents don't count here for the most part because the process of making them rests with the moulders, and they probably hold the patents for their moulding process, so custom designs shouldn't be a problem.

Design protection also could be problematic because one could argue that many different things including everything down the specific designs on individual dice, ruler designs and other things can be protected.

(I haven't mentioned trademarks because I think we all know using the GW trademark symbol is a rather bad idea for starters.)

Long story short, the actual methods of playing a game cannot be protected (roll a dice, move or shoot a model etc), but the designs, models and unique features of it are. best bet is to design everything from new and stay the hell away from GW designs, names and the like. (Unique names being a bit easier to deal with.)

Ideas for things such as the idea of "scatter dice" are fine to copy, but you cannot call them scatter dice or use dice that look like them. If you designed your own new dice faces and called them "danger close rolls", you'd probably be a lot safer. Or you could design a new method for assigning where shots land instead of using the GW method. (For example a circle of a predetermined size with a grid inside it, when you want to see how shots spread, then you roll several D6 and add the total up and count along the grid that number, for however many shots in a row. Or simply a "twister" style spinner which you spin simply to give the direction the shot moves and roll a dice for distance.)

Things like movement orders, line of fire shooting and the like are generally acceptable to copy because its commonplace stuff that exists in lots of different games. I would suggest that if you want to take other ideas for inspiration, look to other games, such as WW2 armies, fantasy, RPGs and as many different sources. If there are ideas that are common to all or most of them its a safe bet if you copy it with a different name and maybe a different method (definately with different designs) you should be ok.

Just to stay with a template idea, if you were to use big circular templates with a hole in the middle called "blast templates", GW would probably take a whack. If, however, you were to come up with a circular template, different size to GW, maybe put a carry handle on it instead of a hole, make it non see-through instead of clear and call it an "explosive damage radius portrait", you are far more likely to be left alone.

Finally, all of these protections have a lifespan, some a LOT more than others. (Copyright in the UK is 70 years plus life of author. Design protection at most 15 years.) Seeing as GW has been trading for 30 years there WILL be things that were protected and are now not.

Disclaimer: I am NOT qualified to give legal advice so all this advice i'm giving now is purely in a personal capacity as a law student and does not purport to be professional legal advice and as such I recommend that if you want accurate legal advice on your situation then you need to seek independent legal advice from a qualified legal practicioner.

If anybody finds me wrong on any points please say, and if anyone can contribute to this please do. I do hope that this is useful info for people

TQ.

(PS this is not me GW bashing, I support them fully and this is simply letting people know how not to attract the attention of solicitors letters also I hope to god I havent just gotten everything i've posted wrong haha)

Cheers Jelly.

A couple further points i have come up with:

Are a dedicated line of miniatures really necessary? There is probably a higher turnover in printed rules, supplements and counters/play-aids. Also it would lower the start up (both for company and hobbyists) costs considerably, and noobies can just buy a load of space marines off ebay and get playing while still enjoying a hobby aspect.

The long term game plan of course would be a full miniature line but for a start up i would recommend putting that side of things on the back burner.

Rules stuff...
I was just reading a couple of other rulesets (to give GW some credit the 40k rulebook is written alot clearer (haha who'd 'ave funk it?) and smoother than most) and there are always too many stats. I like the idea of them all overlapping, maybe having 4 basic ones and overlapping them to get how good you are at HtH or how well you shoot etc.

Another thing, i think HtH is something of a necessity, it is simply very dramatic and evocative. I know in the realm of thermioptic camo and man portable sub-light mass drivers it don't make sense, but hey, a dude swinging an energy sword just looks badass!

Actually HtH does make sense, it still happens, though a lot less, and was a frequent occurrence in WW1. If you read All's Quiet on the Western Front, the author, a German Vet, says that it became the practice to simply assault with nothing but hand grenades and a sharpened hand spade. So assaults would definitely be in, the thing is that you shouldn't make it easy for an army to simply waltz across a board and attack an entrenched position without having a HUGE numerical or toughness advantage on their side.

Yeah no *Not* blood angels in the Dakka wargame!