Switch Theme:

Games Workshop US Open Series Grand Tournaments  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Polonius wrote:


the fact that you're trying to argue RAW when the same person wrote the rules packet and is running the event indicates that you might not have the best perspective on this.


Or it indicates a massive disconnect when a rules package states one thing, and the writer of that rules package says the exact opposite. Quite possibly the only thing worse than bad rules is bad rules inequitably applied.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 19:25:43


 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Macon, GA

yukishiro1 wrote:
The text is clear that third-party components other than bases are not allowed - GW miniatures only, except for bases and scratchbuilt components. Both bases and scratchbuilt components are components rather than full miniatures; if third-party components are not covered by "GW-only miniatures" because they are not full miniatures, there is no reason to include those other two exclusions, they would also not be needed the way you claim an exclusion for third-party components isn't needed. Your reading depends on the premise that they included two exclusions that were redundant.

If what is written isn't an accurate reflection of GW's intent, they should modify that language to make clear what their intent is.


Let's play a game.

Lets say you're a successful tournament organizer, having run massive events that sell out regularly. You then become the head of a gaming company's in house tournament department. You have to put together a rules packet, which needs to balance allowing creativity (and probably some third party stuff) while also toeing the corporate line (that GW is the only miniatures company that should exist). How do you write that rule, knowing that GW won't allow you to explicitly allow third party components, nor can there be any bright line rule for stating how much of a army, unit, or model can be third party? Also, are 3d prints scratch builds or third party? What if you design it yourself? What if you take a design, modify, and print it yourself?

Take as much time as you'd like, and think about how you could phrase. maybe there's a better way, but the reason the rule isn't clear is because the rule cannot be made clear.

I'll bet you a steak dinner that every picture GW posts from these events will be 100% GW (or quickly taken down), while other people's pictures will show all kinds of third party stuff.

My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 21,000pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Halifax

Since I've soured on 40k lately, it occurred to me that there's something kind of weird about people liking 40k so much they'll play it with non-GW miniatures. I mean, the game is that good?! Obviously this should be read as 'the game is that good for so many people' but it's hard to really grok, you know?

The reverse is true for me: the miniatures are fantastic, and wonderful to collect, model/convert, and paint but I wouldn't play the game with them.

   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Macon, GA

Sterling191 wrote:
 Polonius wrote:


the fact that you're trying to argue RAW when the same person wrote the rules packet and is running the event indicates that you might not have the best perspective on this.


Or it indicates a massive disconnect when a rules package states one thing, and the writer of that rules package says the exact opposite. Quite possibly the only thing worse than bad rules is bad rules inequitably applied.


How is it "inequitably" applied when all the armies have been approved?

If you're saying that the rules packet prevented you, or somebody like you, from going, I'll share a secret: they're probably okay with that. People that get super hung up on the rules tend to be a bummer for TOs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Nurglitch wrote:
Since I've soured on 40k lately, it occurred to me that there's something kind of weird about people liking 40k so much they'll play it with non-GW miniatures. I mean, the game is that good?! Obviously this should be read as 'the game is that good for so many people' but it's hard to really grok, you know?

The reverse is true for me: the miniatures are fantastic, and wonderful to collect, model/convert, and paint but I wouldn't play the game with them.


I think few people really play with other miniatures. Third party components are popular either for weapons or other options that are limited (tau crisis suit guns, for example), or for iconography that GW doesn't make.

There are some people that want to avoid paying GW prices, and seek out recast or 3d prints stuff because it's cheaper.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 19:35:51


My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 21,000pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Polonius wrote:


Lets say you're a successful tournament organizer, having run massive events that sell out regularly. You then become the head of a gaming company's in house tournament department. You have to put together a rules packet, which needs to balance allowing creativity (and probably some third party stuff) while also toeing the corporate line (that GW is the only miniatures company that should exist). How do you write that rule, knowing that GW won't allow you to explicitly allow third party components, nor can there be any bright line rule for stating how much of a army, unit, or model can be third party? Also, are 3d prints scratch builds or third party? What if you design it yourself? What if you take a design, modify, and print it yourself?

Take as much time as you'd like, and think about how you could phrase. maybe there's a better way, but the reason the rule isn't clear is because the rule cannot be made clear.


If your argument is "the rules prohibit it because GW would never agree to anything else, but in practice they're allowing it, because don't ask don't tell is the compromise everyone can live with" that's one thing, but it's very different from the argument you presented that the rules don't actually prohibit it. They do. If people are submitting for approval armies that violate the rules and getting approval, that doesn't mean the rules allow it, it just means in practice the rules are being waived because it's easiest for everybody to have the rules say one thing and then actual practice be something else.

Which is a situation I can live with, BTW. If Brandt's point is that people shouldn't worry too much about what the rules say and shouldn't spend much energy about what they technically do or do not allow because they'll approve everybody's armies anyway within reason, that's a message I'm happy to hear.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 19:41:07


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Polonius wrote:

How is it "inequitably" applied when all the armies have been approved?


Because either

A) the rules as presented arent the actual rules

or

B) the rules are presented are the actual rules, but are being ignored and something else entirely is being done

Neither is a scenario that ends well.

 Polonius wrote:

If you're saying that the rules packet prevented you, or somebody like you, from going, I'll share a secret: they're probably okay with that. People that get super hung up on the rules tend to be a bummer for TOs.


That's not what I'm saying, and you know it. But thanks for making it abundantly clear you'd rather just gak on people who want a clear ruleset that actually does what it says it does, as opposed to one where players have to divine the intent of a TO and hope for the best.
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Macon, GA

yukishiro1 wrote:


If your argument is "the rules prohibit it because GW would never agree to anything else, but in practice they're allowing it, because don't ask don't tell is the compromise everyone can live with" that's one thing, but it's very different from the argument you presented that the rules don't actually prohibit it. They do. If people are submitting for approval armies that violate the rules and getting approval, that doesn't mean the rules allow it, it just means in practice the rules are being waived because it's easiest for everybody to have the rules say one thing and then actual practice be something else.

Which is a situation I can live with, BTW. If Brandt's point is that people shouldn't worry too much about what the rules say and shouldn't spend much energy about what they technically do or do not allow because they'll approve everybody's armies anyway within reason, that's a message I'm happy to hear.


Well, as I've explained before, if you apply basic predicate logic to the statments in the rules, it states a rule and details exclusions, but does not specify that the list of exclusions is a closed set. Once you start listing exceptions, there are seldom a fix amount of exceptions, because weird stuff happens. The rule is appears to me written just ambiguous enough to allow for some breathing room.

And yes, if the final outcome is that all stakeholders are happy, than that's a win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sterling191 wrote:
 Polonius wrote:

How is it "inequitably" applied when all the armies have been approved?


Because either

A) the rules as presented arent the actual rules

or

B) the rules are presented are the actual rules, but are being ignored and something else entirely is being done

Neither is a scenario that ends well.


Oh man, I feel like I'm telling somebody that the easter bunny is just a guy in a suit, but... I guess you're old enough.

Virtually all rules are ignored when the people enforcing them don't gain anything by enforcing them. Most rules have exceptions that aren't made clear, and an enormous amount of requirements, rules, regulations, policies and standards can be waived, ignored, deferred, or fought.

One of the secrets to success in life is actually figuring out which rules are real, and which aren't. Justice is a slippery thing, and the best you can do is figure out why a rule exists, and how far you can bend it before somebody takes action.

 Polonius wrote:

If you're saying that the rules packet prevented you, or somebody like you, from going, I'll share a secret: they're probably okay with that. People that get super hung up on the rules tend to be a bummer for TOs.


That's not what I'm saying, and you know it. But thanks for making it abundantly clear you'd rather just gak on people who want a clear ruleset that actually does what it says it does, as opposed to one where players have to divine the intent of a TO and hope for the best.


Well, yes, I do love to argue with people critiquing things that are successful for no gain. Like, why the hell do you care? What's gained by you pointing this stuff out? The event sold out, and it'll probably be a great event. So, who cares?

And, lets ease up on the " players have to divine the intent of a TO" talk. There was an email link, in the packet, for how to submit your army for approval. It's hard to claim you need to be psychic when the rules explain how to make sure you're within the lines.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 20:02:32


My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 21,000pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Polonius wrote:


Oh man, I feel like I'm telling somebody that the easter bunny is just a guy in a suit, but... I guess you're old enough.

Virtually all rules are ignored when the people enforcing them don't gain anything by enforcing them. Most rules have exceptions that aren't made clear, and an enormous amount of requirements, rules, regulations, policies and standards can be waived, ignored, deferred, or fought.

One of the secrets to success in life is actually figuring out which rules are real, and which aren't. Justice is a slippery thing, and the best you can do is figure out why a rule exists, and how far you can bend it before somebody takes action.


I'm really enjoying how we've gone from "the rules package says you can do XYZ" to "the rules package doesn't actually say you can do XYZ, but do whatever the feth you want because nothing matters anyway". That's some dazzling intellectual consistency there.

 Polonius wrote:

Well, yes, I do love to argue with people critiquing things that are successful for no gain. Like, why the hell do you care? What's gained by you pointing this stuff out? The event sold out, and it'll probably be a great event. So, who cares?


Clearly you do, as you appear to feel obligated to defend a situation with escalatingly nonsensical arguments like "just ignore what the event is putting out"


 Polonius wrote:

And, lets ease up on the " players have to divine the intent of a TO" talk. There was an email link, in the packet, for how to submit your army for approval. It's hard to claim you need to be psychic when the rules explain how to make sure you're within the lines.


Sure thing, when the event either begins to enforce the ruleset it claims to be following, or when it updates said ruleset to reflect the approach the organizers are actually pursuing. Why don't you get on that, since you seem to have the inside track on everything going on at these events.
   
Made in us
Ship's Officer





Dallas, TX

GW can make their own rules regarding their tournament, if those bother/prohibit you, you can bypass it.

I can tell you big organized tournaments will not bide by their 0% tolerance on non GW parts, because it is in their right and more importantly their long lasting life as tournaments to be more inclusive to as many gamers as possible.

Concerning why people modify their models: because its personalized, cool to the owner; GW's new mono pose miniatures on models that are popular has something to do with it too; weaponry availability in a kit as well, most kit come with 1 type of special weapon, with bits order no longer available, people turn to 3D printing.
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Macon, GA

Sterling191 wrote:
I'm really enjoying how we've gone from "the rules package says you can do XYZ" to "the rules package doesn't actually say you can do XYZ, but do whatever the feth you want because nothing matters anyway". That's some dazzling intellectual consistency there.


I am not sure you are engaging with my points in good faith.

 Polonius wrote:

Well, yes, I do love to argue with people critiquing things that are successful for no gain. Like, why the hell do you care? What's gained by you pointing this stuff out? The event sold out, and it'll probably be a great event. So, who cares?


Clearly you do, as you appear to feel obligated to defend a situation with escalatingly nonsensical arguments like "just ignore what the event is putting out"


I literally explained my motivation in that paragraph, so that's probably not the rejoinder you expect.

 Polonius wrote:

And, lets ease up on the " players have to divine the intent of a TO" talk. There was an email link, in the packet, for how to submit your army for approval. It's hard to claim you need to be psychic when the rules explain how to make sure you're within the lines.


Sure thing, when the event either begins to enforce the ruleset it claims to be following, or when it updates said ruleset to reflect the approach the organizers are actually pursuing. Why don't you get on that, since you seem to have the inside track on everything going on at these events.


As I stated earlier, it stands to reason that this policy was the compromise between GW not wanting any third party materials at all, and Mike knowing that third party accessories add a lot to the hobby. That doesn't mean they'll ever explicitly allow it, because that's not how GW works.

I am baffled that people 1) claim a rules packet with some ambiguity is airtight, and that because of that, 2) the TO is somehow failing to enforce their own rule, and 3) refusing to clarify the rule. If the TO and all of the people attending (and again, these are all or quickly will be sold out) have the same basic understanding, and that understanding is different from yours, I think you should seriously consider the possibility that you are not a lone possessor of truth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Big Mac wrote:
GW can make their own rules regarding their tournament, if those bother/prohibit you, you can bypass it.

I can tell you big organized tournaments will not bide by their 0% tolerance on non GW parts, because it is in their right and more importantly their long lasting life as tournaments to be more inclusive to as many gamers as possible.

Concerning why people modify their models: because its personalized, cool to the owner; GW's new mono pose miniatures on models that are popular has something to do with it too; weaponry availability in a kit as well, most kit come with 1 type of special weapon, with bits order no longer available, people turn to 3D printing.


And 3d printing really starts the blur the line between scratchbuilding and third party parts.

I'm sure we could write a page long explanation of exactly what is and is not allowed from third party parts, but ironically the more rules you write, the more possibility for unintended loopholes you create. Making a clear bright line (if it's GW, it's kosher) and allowing for waivers on a case by case basis is arguably fairer than a more explicit written ruleset, particularly when the person making the determination has motivations to both keep GW happy (because he works for them) and run a popular and successful event (because that's his reputation).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 21:27:14


My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 21,000pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

 Polonius wrote:

As I stated earlier, it stands to reason that this policy was the compromise between GW not wanting any third party materials at all, and Mike knowing that third party accessories add a lot to the hobby. That doesn't mean they'll ever explicitly allow it, because that's not how GW works.


Achem:

That being said, if you’re getting creative with conversions then generic parts such as plasticard, wire and brass rod are fine to use, but any cast miniature parts specifically designed for models must be produced by Citadel or Forge World. Note that this refers to the actual miniatures in your collection. These requirements do not apply to the bases of your models.



Please bear in mind that if we do spot cast/printed parts on miniatures at our events, we will ask you to prove wherethey’re from, and may ask for them to be removed if there’s any doubt as to their origins.


And, my personal favorite:


In addition to the above, we will ask for any models with iconography that represents real military units or political movements in existence after 1900, or adult themed content to be removed immediately.


So, quite possibly, even genuine Dark Eldar and Juan Diaz Daemonettes may be grounds for being thrown out.

I'm not seeing a lot of 'compromise' here.


Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!






@MVBrandt
Can you submit armies for approval before buying a ticket? Or get tickets refunded if your army is not approved?


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/19 01:08:57


I have a blog on the Warhammer Tournaments website:

Too much plasma can be cheesy

My painting and modeling blog:

PaddyMick's Chopshop: Converted 40K Vehicles 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




To be fair, those are the rules for Warhammer World, which have always been ridiculous and absurd. The fact that they didn't just copy and paste those rules for these tournaments suggests some level of realization at how unreasonable they are, and presumably an intent to be at least somewhat more reasonable.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/19 02:45:30


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 PaddyMick wrote:
@MVBrandt
Can you submit armies for approval before buying a ticket? Or get tickets refunded if your army is not approved?




Per Eventbrite, refunds are available until 7 days before the event, and you can submit via the email on packet. You'll get a response before the refund date so long as you submit before the packet-listed cutoff.

Be aware there are only a handful of 40k spots left in New Orleans and Sigmar in Orlando. Everything else is sold out.
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!






Thanks, and apologies, I should of made it clear it was a theoretical question for the purposes of this discussion. Seems fair, and if that's the case, no-one can really complain imo.

So here's a question you maybe cannot or will not answer - if Polonius is right - feel free to ignore it! : Have you approved any armies that have used any third-party parts for conversions?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote:
To be fair, those are the rules for Warhammer World, which have always been ridiculous and absurd. The fact that they didn't just copy and paste those rules for these tournaments suggests some level of realization at how unreasonable they are, and presumably an intent to be at least somewhat more reasonable.


That's interesting, and reminds of something Pacific said in another thread in Tournament Discussions:

Think it's possibly even less of an issue than the 'no non-GW parts or conversions' thing that comes up all the time. In practice, you might be very unlucky and bump into a jobsworth that is having a bad day. In most cases I don't think people care. I've used completely non-GW minis in Warhammer world before on their tables, and a chap I know had his army (which was substantially non-GW bits and self sculpted) actually put on display there after some of the guys working there liked the look of it. Again, I don't think it's an issue, unless you try make it one.


I wonder as well, if the gamers who are likely using 3rd party parts are mostly experienced hobbyist who have been around the block and know the score when it comes to this kind of thing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/19 12:14:09


I have a blog on the Warhammer Tournaments website:

Too much plasma can be cheesy

My painting and modeling blog:

PaddyMick's Chopshop: Converted 40K Vehicles 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Togusa wrote:
 Stevefamine wrote:
Those anti-conversion rules invalidate 80-90% of armies at events.

Throne of Skulls and the GTs after 2010 were all really mediocre events. Zero interest.

Why would you attend this when you could go to Nova/Adepticon?


Because there is a growing group of players who support this kind of play. Since things started to open back up, there are three new players in my local area that will not play games with you, unless you have fully based and painted models, and they have explicitly said the models must be real (I.E GW products, not 3D printed or 3rd party). A few smaller regional pages I'm on are starting to get similar small groups of likeminded people. I talked to one of the locals and she said that it's our duty to support the company, not competitors. She also stated that supporting the company is what keeps the game alive and new releases coming.

Will this kind of thinking ever catch on long term? I don't know, but I can tell you that in a small way, it does seem to be starting. At least around these parts.


I hope not.

I mean as someone who has all... uh... some third party shields for my rivendel warriors (cause they don't come with shields) this isn't really a big deal to me, but this mindset is terrifying. Like it's literally dystopian.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote:
I'm glad to hear you're approving most armies, but if there's a big disconnect between how people are reacting to what's written and how you are actually enforcing the rules, doesn't that suggest that perhaps the wording in the rules pack is problematic and creating the wrong impression? The reactions weren't coming out of the blue, they are in response to what, as written, amounts to a big departure from traditional tournament standards. If the intent was not to actually make such a departure, perhaps future publications could have a line to that effect, so people don't get scared and think the armies they've used at tournaments for many years are suddenly being prohibited.

Also, as written, things like head or pauldron swaps cannot be submitted for approval at all - they are straight-up prohibited by the only GW product (except scratch-made) language. If you are in fact allowing people to submit for approval such armies, and granting such approval, it might be nice to make that clear in future documents as well, to avoid confusion and panic.


I mean, welcome to modern concept of legal enforcement. Make it increasingly difficult to be in compliance with the rules or laws, thus giving an excuse for authorities to, well, do bad things because it's very difficult to be in actual compliance with all laws or policies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Nurglitch wrote:
Since I've soured on 40k lately, it occurred to me that there's something kind of weird about people liking 40k so much they'll play it with non-GW miniatures. I mean, the game is that good?! Obviously this should be read as 'the game is that good for so many people' but it's hard to really grok, you know?

The reverse is true for me: the miniatures are fantastic, and wonderful to collect, model/convert, and paint but I wouldn't play the game with them.



I know a lot of people with space marines that have third party shoulder pads.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/19 12:41:35


 
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Halifax

Nothing dystopian about requiring people attending your business to buy your products. I mean, typically you're not permitted to bring your own food into a restaurant or movie theatre either. Or condiments, I believe, if we can make an analogy to Space Marine shoulder pads.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




No restaurant is going to throw you out for bringing your own mustard if you don't like the brand they offer.

Head and pauldron swaps have traditionally been allowed in the hobby because (1) you buy the original GW stuff anyway, so it's not costing GW anything in lost sales, and (2) GW doesn't make those products, so you couldn't buy them from GW even if you wanted to. Add to that the embrace GW used to give to customizing your armies, and it's a rare hobby veteran who has armies that don't have some third-party bits in them here and there.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/19 18:51:16


 
   
Made in nl
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

 Polonius wrote:

Spoiler:
Sterling191 wrote:
MVBrandt wrote:
It's been interesting reading the feedback on the policies, vs approving nearly every army submitted to the inbox so far. The rules are there to prevent egregious issues; and, since it's a GW official event, not have things like third party proxies.


Good to know that either

A) Hobbyists with converted armies aren't coming to your events

or

B) You're not enforcing your stated rules package.

Both are really great signs.


What makes somebody become a reply guy? Like, do you wake up every morning and say, "I'm gonna try to windmill dunk on blue checks?" Or do you just see somebody successful and productive and just have an uncontrollable urge to troll them? I'm serious, I need to know!

Because, anybody with a lick of sense knows what these rules are here to prevent: painfully obvious recasts and 3d prints that look like garbage and make GW zero money. GW can't possibly care if you buy a box of dudes, and then spend MORE money on third party shoulder pads or guns or whatever. And tournaments want good looking armies.
well, I was unclear, given the wording, and the IP madness that has put an a in front of elf ...

   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

 Nurglitch wrote:
Nothing dystopian about requiring people attending your business to buy your products. .


Sorry, but if you have headswaps, you did buy their product. You know, fifteen years later, and people are still white knighting for games workshop like abused spouses, no matter what insane bs they pull this time. Do you know why they allow hand sculpted bits but not cast bits? So they can steal the design, call it their own intellectual property and not even give you credit. If it's some other persons design, they might end up getting sued by another company that can take them to court and not get crushed like you would if you tried to sue them over it.


Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in us
Pewling Menial





Superior, Wisconsin

I think the most likely reasoning for some of the implied harshness of the ruling has nothing to do with whether they want you to only play GW product or not, but wholly with how they're going to be using the event to advertise themselves further. To use someone else's products in your own marketing material is a nightmare of having to find, accredit and get permission to use said images, and that's just on the basic principle of legality. We all know GW is gonna be showing a ton of pics from this, and legal probably blatantly told them to keep it all their product or its just someone getting an idea and a lawyer away from being even more expensive.

There is no Overkill, only "Open Fire," and "I need to Reload."
When someone tries to kill you, just kill them right back. 
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

 AegisFate wrote:
I think the most likely reasoning for some of the implied harshness of the ruling has nothing to do with whether they want you to only play GW product or not, but wholly with how they're going to be using the event to advertise themselves further.


I'm gonna say probably not, since they're allowing stuff you, personally, made. Under the law they'd still have to accredit you, even if they're playing the 'derivative works' angle. Further, and I think that I pointed this out earlier, GW has never had a problem using someone else's IP in their promotional materials before. To a degree that makes me suspect that the Blood Ravens are members of the advertising department.


Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Nurglitch wrote:
Nothing dystopian about requiring people attending your business to buy your products. I mean, typically you're not permitted to bring your own food into a restaurant or movie theatre either. Or condiments, I believe, if we can make an analogy to Space Marine shoulder pads.


Tis quite dystopian though if someone sees you eating food and says "You aren't eating at chain X, where's your brand loyalty?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AegisFate wrote:
I think the most likely reasoning for some of the implied harshness of the ruling has nothing to do with whether they want you to only play GW product or not, but wholly with how they're going to be using the event to advertise themselves further. To use someone else's products in your own marketing material is a nightmare of having to find, accredit and get permission to use said images, and that's just on the basic principle of legality. We all know GW is gonna be showing a ton of pics from this, and legal probably blatantly told them to keep it all their product or its just someone getting an idea and a lawyer away from being even more expensive.


They're also not going to enforce it strictly. Unless a staff member just doesn't like you, then it's a great excuse to have you ejected.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/20 11:32:20


 
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Halifax

yukishiro1 wrote:
No restaurant is going to throw you out for bringing your own mustard if you don't like the brand they offer.

Head and pauldron swaps have traditionally been allowed in the hobby because (1) you buy the original GW stuff anyway, so it's not costing GW anything in lost sales, and (2) GW doesn't make those products, so you couldn't buy them from GW even if you wanted to. Add to that the embrace GW used to give to customizing your armies, and it's a rare hobby veteran who has armies that don't have some third-party bits in them here and there.

Perhaps amusingly I have several armies that don't have third-party bits in them (SMx2, CSM, Tyranids, AM, Orks). But as Polonius points out, it's a matter of discretion.

@stratigo: Nope, it's not dystopian. That's just how these things work. And you know what? Likewise the rules exist so that the organizers can boot you out at their discretion.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
Nothing dystopian about requiring people attending your business to buy your products. .


Sorry, but if you have headswaps, you did buy their product. You know, fifteen years later, and people are still white knighting for games workshop like abused spouses, no matter what insane bs they pull this time. Do you know why they allow hand sculpted bits but not cast bits? So they can steal the design, call it their own intellectual property and not even give you credit. If it's some other persons design, they might end up getting sued by another company that can take them to court and not get crushed like you would if you tried to sue them over it.

White-knighting? I don't play in GW tournaments anymore. I haven't played since the summer of 2019. I'm just pointing out that it's their house and their rules. The game isn't my thing anymore, and I could gripe about it until the cows come home, but if you don't want to play by their rules in their house go do something else. I mean, they change the rules so that your army isn't valid anymore, due to rules or modelling or something? Take a hint and go do something you might actually enjoy.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/20 19:11:52


   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

 Nurglitch wrote:

White-knighting? I don't play in GW tournaments anymore. I haven't played since the summer of 2019. I'm just pointing out that it's their house and their rules. The game isn't my thing anymore, and I could gripe about it until the cows come home, but if you don't want to play by their rules in their house go do something else.


I haven't played in one since a decade before you last did then.

 Nurglitch wrote:

I mean, they change the rules so that your army isn't valid anymore, due to rules or modelling or something?


Do you seriously think that I'd have as much beef with them as I do if it were something that silly? I mean, seriously, between GW threatening me with legal action, and the entire BFG debacle, I don't think it unfair at all for my to see this as a return to form for them. It's ironic, but they made the old Flash Gits animation relevant again.






Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Halifax

@BaronIveagh

Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly: GW copied your work and then legally intimidated you over that work? Is that correct?

   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

 Nurglitch wrote:
@BaronIveagh

Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly: GW copied your work and then legally intimidated you over that work? Is that correct?


Oh, no, it was far weirder than that, though there was aspects of that too, since they further claimed all the fan made material we hosted as their IP.

I used to run Dark Reign, back when 40k role play was a thing. When GW started basically mass mailing Cease & Desist orders (chapterhouse being the most famous victim of that spree, and one of the few to bother to fight it), we got one for the terrible offense of endorsing and recommending GW and FFGs products, and were ordered to cease and deist that immediately.

I don't think they thought that through very well.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/21 14:41:33



Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Halifax

It seems to be working out for them.

   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

 Nurglitch wrote:
It seems to be working out for them.


Really? Because Black Industries, FFG, and Ulisses Spiele's RPGs are *all* now over at cubicle7 and apparently no new materials are being produced. Their entire RPG line is, effectively, defunct. So, how well did it work again?


Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Halifax

Again, really well because they're making money hand over fist.

Something going on over in Twitter board gaming is the notion of curating your followers, where 'curating' means checking your followers and making sure they're not trolls or politically incorrect. Seems weird eh, blocking people who're interested in your product? The weird thing is that once you get rid of these people, suddenly the space becomes much more welcoming for people that don't want to put up with trolls in their hobbies. It's counter-intuitive, but very much like how GW is pushing out all the third-parties, what they're doing is making things more welcoming for people who just want GW stuff.

You don't have to like it, and if you don't feel welcome I think there would be a ton of manufacturers and content-providers out there that would love to have you as a fanatic.

That said, yeah, it's really hard to let go. I haven't managed to yet as I still enjoy the painting, modelling, and novel-reading even if the game, lore, and fandom isn't my thing anymore.

   
 
Forum Index » Tournament Discussions
Go to: