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.

Lusiphur wrote:
The funny thing is, if you buy one of these packages, the rules don't add anything to the cost of the models.

The Tidewall Counterstrike Cadre limited edition package with exclusive rules is $465 which is the exact cost if you bought the models individually so there is 0 cost associated with the rules PDF.

So if anyone argues that they paid for those rules and you didn't, you can turn around and say you paid the exact same cost as them for the rules!

If someone did not buy this specific bundle, they clearly stole the rules for the formation. It doesn't matter they bought the very bits in that bundle outside of the limited time offer or stole the models just like the rules, they still are not entitled to use the formation.

Also, if said formation wouldn't be so stupidly overpowered, nobody would care and of course limited edition rules are a bad idea. Thanks GW!

 Stephanius wrote:
If someone did not buy this specific bundle, they clearly stole the rules for the formation. It doesn't matter they bought the very bits in that bundle outside of the limited time offer or stole the models just like the rules, they still are not entitled to use the formation.

{citation needed}

The rules are the rules, regardless of where they are printed. And the rules published by GW do not in any way require you to provide proof of ownership before using them. In fact, there's no requirement to own any of the rules. You're free to play from memory if you like, and you're still playing the same game as everyone else. The printed rules just provide a reminder in case you forget or need to look up a complicated interaction.

GW should just sell VPs through the webstore. Like a $10 certificate good for 1 free VP in every game played within 24 hours of the timestamp on the voucher. Sweet!

 deviantduck wrote:
A dude at my local shop actually purchased it, and has the rules laminated and all prettified. He goes apey if anyone else at the store plays skyhammer, even if he's not involved in the game. He goes out of his way to tell them they don't own it and can't use it. It got pretty heated one day. Fantastic entertainment.

So his printed PDF is more legitimate than other people's printed PDFs?

 Stephanius wrote:

If someone did not buy this specific bundle, they clearly stole the rules for the formation. It doesn't matter they bought the very bits in that bundle outside of the limited time offer or stole the models just like the rules, they still are not entitled to use the formation.

Proove it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
If someone did not buy this specific bundle, they clearly stole the rules for the formation. It doesn't matter they bought the very bits in that bundle outside of the limited time offer or stole the models just like the rules, they still are not entitled to use the formation.

{citation needed}

The rules are the rules, regardless of where they are printed. And the rules published by GW do not in any way require you to provide proof of ownership before using them. In fact, there's no requirement to own any of the rules. You're free to play from memory if you like, and you're still playing the same game as everyone else. The printed rules just provide a reminder in case you forget or need to look up a complicated interaction.

True, players do not police each others violations of Games Workshop copyright. A printed or copied page might mean someone didn't buy the rules or might mean someone doesn't want to carry an entire Imperial Armour book for one page. Receipts are not checked

That means people who do steal their rules are most likely able to use them, but wether or not they get away with it doesn't change the copyright infringement or morality of it. Rules are not free. If you disagree, feel free to host a repository and duke it out with GW's legal department.

It would be good for the game if the rules were free, available online (and maintained, while we are dreaming), but the fact is that normal practice is to have your codex, supplement or IA books including FAQs handy to show your opponent that the crazy stuff you just wanted to pull is actually GW's crazy, not your own.

 Stephanius wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
If someone did not buy this specific bundle, they clearly stole the rules for the formation. It doesn't matter they bought the very bits in that bundle outside of the limited time offer or stole the models just like the rules, they still are not entitled to use the formation.

{citation needed}

The rules are the rules, regardless of where they are printed. And the rules published by GW do not in any way require you to provide proof of ownership before using them. In fact, there's no requirement to own any of the rules. You're free to play from memory if you like, and you're still playing the same game as everyone else. The printed rules just provide a reminder in case you forget or need to look up a complicated interaction.

True, players do not police each others violations of Games Workshop copyright. A printed or copied page might mean someone didn't buy the rules or might mean someone doesn't want to carry an entire Imperial Armour book for one page. Receipts are not checked

That means people who do steal their rules are most likely able to use them, but wether or not they get away with it doesn't change the copyright infringement or morality of it. Rules are not free. If you disagree, feel free to host a repository and duke it out with GW's legal department.

It would be good for the game if the rules were free, available online (and maintained, while we are dreaming), but the fact is that normal practice is to have your codex, supplement or IA books including FAQs handy to show your opponent that the crazy stuff you just wanted to pull is actually GW's crazy, not your own.

Ah... you're saying it's "normal practice" to have your own rules with you so that you can show your opponent. This isn't a requirement, though. It's a convention. It has long since been considered polite to have your rules with you so that you can show your opponent how your models work. Some independent stores have gone so far as to make this a requirement. Games Workshop tends to go back and forth and also tends to vary from store to store. When I was a GW Store Manager, our direction was to make a 'store copy' available for each army's codex or army book. We were interested in selling models more than rule books. People were welcome to come in and use the store copy if they needed to reference how a rule works. Some stores still work this way while others require you to have an original, purchased copy in your possession before playing a game.

The rules make no actual mention that you have to have the original rule sources with you. The rules simply describe how to play the game. Presumably, you show up to play already knowing how to play. At best, the rules act as a reference for individual unit stats or special rules text. Printing out your own reference sheets is just good organization. You'll never need to reference 99% of the content in your rule books when you play a game. Why not just print out the 1% you're likely to need?

@Kriswall
I agree with your statements regarding game rules and common practice.

My point was - tongue in cheek - that people want the OP limited edition formation so bad, that they are willing to pirate the rules and ignore the moral implications of stooping that low to gain a questionable advantage in our beloved toy soldier game.

Yes, pay to win is stupid. Steal to win isn't any better.

 Stephanius wrote:
@Kriswall
I agree with your statements regarding game rules and common practice.

My point was - tongue in cheek - that people want the OP limited edition formation so bad, that they are willing to pirate the rules and ignore the moral implications of stooping that low to gain a questionable advantage in our beloved toy soldier game.

Yes, pay to win is stupid. Steal to win isn't any better.

Honestly, I'm not so sure the moral implications are that black and white. Games Workshop isn't actually selling these rules. If my buddy bought it when it was available, and I ask him to print me out a copy, how much money have I stolen from Games Workshop? Obviously, GW owns the copyright to the rules in question. Making a copy obviously harms their POTENTIAL to make money off this work. However, they aren't currently trying to make money off this work, so it's hard to quantify how much of an impact copying is having. Under the current strategy of not selling the rules, no copying and widespread copying both result in the same amount of income to Games Workshop... zero dollars.

In other words, I think there is a large segment of the population who wouldn't consider making a copy of an out of print rules source to be stooping low at all. Many of these people would probably be perfectly willing to spend the 2-5 USD the Formation rules would cost, were they to be made available. Apple's online music store is a testament to this idea. Pretty much all of the music they sell is available online for free somewhere. People choose to spend 1-2 USD for a song because it's legal and the value proposition is reasonable. If GW were to make these one off Formation and Datasheets available in a similar fashion, I think they'd find that many of the 'pirates' are more than willing to pay... they just haven't been given the opportunity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I think you'd also want to explore the moral implications of knowingly using rules that not everyone has access to and that are widely considered to be very powerful. This doesn't seem like a very sporting thing to do. In fact, it strikes me as bully behavior. I would think the moral thing to do would be to only use rules everyone has access to.

GrafWattenburg wrote:
Personally I would be fine with a printed pdf or scan as long as it's easily readable.

What tournaments do is up to them, and if you are in doubt, contact the T.O. and ask.

I know some tournaments have started demanding the player bring original rules after instances of pirated .pdf codexes being altered to have the wrong stats in them.

Wow, some people are donkey-caves... We've had people stacking their maelstrom cards, but not that...

 goblinzz wrote:
Wow, some people are donkey-caves... We've had people stacking their maelstrom cards, but not that...

Really? Watch them shuffle and ask to cut the deck. That's on you if you're not doing those two things.

 deviantduck wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:
Wow, some people are donkey-caves... We've had people stacking their maelstrom cards, but not that...

Really? Watch them shuffle and ask to cut the deck. That's on you if you're not doing those two things.

Yeah... this is common practice everywhere I've ever been. I will typically shuffle my own deck and then ask my opponent if he wants to cut the deck. Some people do, some don't.

 Stephanius wrote:
@Kriswall
I agree with your statements regarding game rules and common practice.

My point was - tongue in cheek - that people want the OP limited edition formation so bad, that they are willing to pirate the rules and ignore the moral implications of stooping that low to gain a questionable advantage in our beloved toy soldier game.

Yes, pay to win is stupid. Steal to win isn't any better.

Watch me stoop.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
@Kriswall
I agree with your statements regarding game rules and common practice.

My point was - tongue in cheek - that people want the OP limited edition formation so bad, that they are willing to pirate the rules and ignore the moral implications of stooping that low to gain a questionable advantage in our beloved toy soldier game.

Yes, pay to win is stupid. Steal to win isn't any better.

Honestly, I'm not so sure the moral implications are that black and white. Games Workshop isn't actually selling these rules. If my buddy bought it when it was available, and I ask him to print me out a copy, how much money have I stolen from Games Workshop? Obviously, GW owns the copyright to the rules in question. Making a copy obviously harms their POTENTIAL to make money off this work. However, they aren't currently trying to make money off this work, so it's hard to quantify how much of an impact copying is having. Under the current strategy of not selling the rules, no copying and widespread copying both result in the same amount of income to Games Workshop... zero dollars.

In other words, I think there is a large segment of the population who wouldn't consider making a copy of an out of print rules source to be stooping low at all. Many of these people would probably be perfectly willing to spend the 2-5 USD the Formation rules would cost, were they to be made available. Apple's online music store is a testament to this idea. Pretty much all of the music they sell is available online for free somewhere. People choose to spend 1-2 USD for a song because it's legal and the value proposition is reasonable. If GW were to make these one off Formation and Datasheets available in a similar fashion, I think they'd find that many of the 'pirates' are more than willing to pay... they just haven't been given the opportunity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I think you'd also want to explore the moral implications of knowingly using rules that not everyone has access to and that are widely considered to be very powerful. This doesn't seem like a very sporting thing to do. In fact, it strikes me as bully behavior. I would think the moral thing to do would be to only use rules everyone has access to.

I understand your rationalisations, but those same excuses are not holding up when the RIAA or MPAA come knocking. It is irrelevant if the stuff you pirate is hurting the owner in any way or if it is even being currently sold or sold on your country. None of these circumstances make piracy not copyright infringement. Each GW publication has a copyright notice. They don't give us licence to copy and distribute.

Anyway, the hero with the laminated copy defending his cheese to be his and his alone is useful in my eyes because he might reduce the use of this silly cheese in his local meta. I wasn't hailing him for pay to win, but for reducing the amount of bad cheese.

 Stephanius wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
@Kriswall
I agree with your statements regarding game rules and common practice.

My point was - tongue in cheek - that people want the OP limited edition formation so bad, that they are willing to pirate the rules and ignore the moral implications of stooping that low to gain a questionable advantage in our beloved toy soldier game.

Yes, pay to win is stupid. Steal to win isn't any better.

Honestly, I'm not so sure the moral implications are that black and white. Games Workshop isn't actually selling these rules. If my buddy bought it when it was available, and I ask him to print me out a copy, how much money have I stolen from Games Workshop? Obviously, GW owns the copyright to the rules in question. Making a copy obviously harms their POTENTIAL to make money off this work. However, they aren't currently trying to make money off this work, so it's hard to quantify how much of an impact copying is having. Under the current strategy of not selling the rules, no copying and widespread copying both result in the same amount of income to Games Workshop... zero dollars.

In other words, I think there is a large segment of the population who wouldn't consider making a copy of an out of print rules source to be stooping low at all. Many of these people would probably be perfectly willing to spend the 2-5 USD the Formation rules would cost, were they to be made available. Apple's online music store is a testament to this idea. Pretty much all of the music they sell is available online for free somewhere. People choose to spend 1-2 USD for a song because it's legal and the value proposition is reasonable. If GW were to make these one off Formation and Datasheets available in a similar fashion, I think they'd find that many of the 'pirates' are more than willing to pay... they just haven't been given the opportunity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I think you'd also want to explore the moral implications of knowingly using rules that not everyone has access to and that are widely considered to be very powerful. This doesn't seem like a very sporting thing to do. In fact, it strikes me as bully behavior. I would think the moral thing to do would be to only use rules everyone has access to.

I understand your rationalisations, but those same excuses are not holding up when the RIAA or MPAA come knocking. It is irrelevant if the stuff you pirate is hurting the owner in any way or if it is even being currently sold or sold on your country. None of these circumstances make piracy not copyright infringement. Each GW publication has a copyright notice. They don't give us licence to copy and distribute.

Anyway, the hero with the laminated copy defending his cheese to be his and his alone is useful in my eyes because he might reduce the use of this silly cheese in his local meta. I wasn't hailing him for pay to win, but for reducing the amount of bad cheese.

Yeah, I wasn't talking legality. I was talking morals. I thought you were too. The RIAA and MPAA aren't usually held up as shining examples of moral fortitude. From a morality standpoint, whether or not an owner is hurt by piracy is absolutely relevant. I've taken enough ethics classes to know that these sorts of things are never black and white.

Actually, it is very relevant to the RIAA and MPAA as well as they will need to show damages in court. Difficult to claim lost sales for something you refuse to sell...

You don't have to show actual,damages. Copyright infringement carries statutory damages.

Lack of a copyright notice is not relevant , it's still under copyright of the author. However lack of a notice can restrict how far back damages can be claimed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You don't have to show actual,damages. Copyright infringement carries statutory damages.

Lack of a copyright notice is not relevant , it's still under copyright of the author. However lack of a notice can restrict how far back damages can be claimed.

Are you talking with UK's legistlation in mind or in general? Inspite our laws being heavily influenced by the parties who'd most benefit from the change, the Finnish legistlation is quite forgiving in cases like this. Copying for own use is ok, although it has to be from a legal copy. But who can show the proof of that anyway?

 Stephanius wrote:
I understand your rationalisations, but those same excuses are not holding up when the RIAA or MPAA come knocking. It is irrelevant if the stuff you pirate is hurting the owner in any way or if it is even being currently sold or sold on your country. None of these circumstances make piracy not copyright infringement. Each GW publication has a copyright notice. They don't give us licence to copy and distribute.

Anyway, the hero with the laminated copy defending his cheese to be his and his alone is useful in my eyes because he might reduce the use of this silly cheese in his local meta. I wasn't hailing him for pay to win, but for reducing the amount of bad cheese.

As long as you're not sharing it with others and using it for personal use only, it's gonna fall under the fair use clause. And no, the Skyhammer does not have a copyright notice.

And "being able to buy it legally" doesn't have anything to do with the laws, granted. But it's pretty much the only thing relevant to - let me quote you here - "moral obligations". If you're not gonna sell it to me and it's as simple as downloading a PDF without ANY legal ramifications - I'll just do that. In the end GW will profit from it by people playing the game and possibly buying the miniatures for a Skyhammer AF, so I'm not even hurting them in the future.

I, for one, will probably be using this type of "bad cheese" in the cup, so you might want to bring some Interceptor

nekooni wrote:

As long as you're not sharing it with others and using it for personal use only, it's gonna fall under the fair use clause. And no, the Skyhammer does not have a copyright notice.

And "being able to buy it legally" doesn't have anything to do with the laws, granted. But it's pretty much the only thing relevant to - let me quote you here - "moral obligations". If you're not gonna sell it to me and it's as simple as downloading a PDF without ANY legal ramifications - I'll just do that. In the end GW will profit from it by people playing the game and possibly buying the miniatures for a Skyhammer AF, so I'm not even hurting them in the future.

I, for one, will probably be using this type of "bad cheese" in the cup, so you might want to bring some Interceptor

In the US, copyright notice is not required. A note waving copyright must be in place on the document (or similar legal documentation) in order for anything besides fair or student use. Oddly enough, this includes photographs taken by a professional photographer, whether in studio or not.

There is a time limit associated with such documents, for example, most classical music can be printed, copied, or played by anyone due to its age, but Warhammer is not even close enough to be in that realm of possibilities, much less any of the Formations.

Charistoph wrote:

nekooni wrote:

As long as you're not sharing it with others and using it for personal use only, it's gonna fall under the fair use clause. And no, the Skyhammer does not have a copyright notice.

And "being able to buy it legally" doesn't have anything to do with the laws, granted. But it's pretty much the only thing relevant to - let me quote you here - "moral obligations". If you're not gonna sell it to me and it's as simple as downloading a PDF without ANY legal ramifications - I'll just do that. In the end GW will profit from it by people playing the game and possibly buying the miniatures for a Skyhammer AF, so I'm not even hurting them in the future.

I, for one, will probably be using this type of "bad cheese" in the cup, so you might want to bring some Interceptor

In the US, copyright notice is not required. A note waving copyright must be in place on the document (or similar legal documentation) in order for anything besides fair or student use. Oddly enough, this includes photographs taken by a professional photographer, whether in studio or not.

There is a time limit associated with such documents, for example, most classical music can be printed, copied, or played by anyone due to its age, but Warhammer is not even close enough to be in that realm of possibilities, much less any of the Formations.

That's very informative and nice of you, but I was simply stating the fact that there is no copyright notice on the dataslate in question - since Stephanius claimed otherwise. You could've commented on the entire remaining post, though.

Naw wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You don't have to show actual,damages. Copyright infringement carries statutory damages.

Lack of a copyright notice is not relevant , it's still under copyright of the author. However lack of a notice can restrict how far back damages can be claimed.

Are you talking with UK's legistlation in mind or in general? Inspite our laws being heavily influenced by the parties who'd most benefit from the change, the Finnish legistlation is quite forgiving in cases like this. Copying for own use is ok, although it has to be from a legal copy. But who can show the proof of that anyway?

U.K. And US laws mostly.

If it hit to court they would assert your copy was not from a legal copy, and you would have to prove otherwise.

 Kriswall wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:
Wow, some people are donkey-caves... We've had people stacking their maelstrom cards, but not that...

Really? Watch them shuffle and ask to cut the deck. That's on you if you're not doing those two things.

Yeah... this is common practice everywhere I've ever been. I will typically shuffle my own deck and then ask my opponent if he wants to cut the deck. Some people do, some don't.

Sorry, perhaps the wrong term, maybe 'salting' instead. Pulling out certain cards, and adding others which are beneficial. So there's still 36 cards, but the deck is built to favour them.

Back to the original question.

If your opponent is okay with it, "Yes!"

If your opponent doesn't want to play against it, "No!"

There are all sorts of reasons people don't want to play against Skyhammer. It's brutal against certain armies, but it's pretty meh against others. If someone is insisting that you have original rules or whatever, the hypocrisy is that they probably won't do the same if you wanted to play a terrible formation, for instance, from Shield of Baal and you didn't bring the hardcover. At the end of the day, they just don't want to play against something they don't think they can win against.

But why play a formation that your opponent isn't going to have fun against? So just ask them if it's cool or not, which you should do in any game anyhow. It's like showing up against the guy with Dark Vengeance + Expansion with 3 imperial knights, and saying, "hey, it's legal."

 goblinzz wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:
Wow, some people are donkey-caves... We've had people stacking their maelstrom cards, but not that...

Really? Watch them shuffle and ask to cut the deck. That's on you if you're not doing those two things.

Yeah... this is common practice everywhere I've ever been. I will typically shuffle my own deck and then ask my opponent if he wants to cut the deck. Some people do, some don't.

Sorry, perhaps the wrong term, maybe 'salting' instead. Pulling out certain cards, and adding others which are beneficial. So there's still 36 cards, but the deck is built to favour them.

Ah. Yes. I caught a guy doing this at the store I managed once with a different game, but a similar situation. He received a ban and had to slowly re-earn the trust of the community. I think it was a real learning experience for him. He ended up being one of my "hobby champions" who would run events for me... turns out he was REALLY good at spotting other cheaters. I guess he knew all the tricks.

Naw wrote:
Copying for own use is ok, although it has to be from a legal copy. But who can show the proof of that anyway?

The person who has the copy, when they present the original that they posses that was used to create the copy.

Various countries in Europe don't require this - you can copy a friends original. So you'd have to get your friend to show theirs was original.

 insaniak wrote:

Naw wrote:
Copying for own use is ok, although it has to be from a legal copy. But who can show the proof of that anyway?

The person who has the copy, when they present the original that they posses that was used to create the copy.

I wrote from the perspective of the Finnish law. The fair use clause is not strict and the burden of proof is not my problem.

The law allows me to e.g. borrow the document of which I make a copy.

So it can't be made your problem, if you were brought to civil court?

In English law I as claimant would assert you did not make the copy from an original, you have to get prove on the balance of probabilities that you did. While you could do that by asserting you did (a witness statement being evidence) it then requires the court to determine your veracity as a witness.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So it can't be made your problem, if you were brought to civil court?

In English law I as claimant would assert you did not make the copy from an original, you have to get prove on the balance of probabilities that you did. While you could do that by asserting you did (a witness statement being evidence) it then requires the court to determine your veracity as a witness.

Is there actually a difference between "making a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of the original" and "making a copy of the original"? If yes, why?

And what happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?