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.

just saw the the gw blog update today and noticed something funny

according to gw the Dire Avengers bases are parts from the Basilica Administratum kit.

but they look more like scibor bases to me. correct me if im wrong,but theres no way that they are from the basilica kit

heres the link

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/blogPost.jsp?aId=14300126a

and a small version of the pic

Won't be the first time this has happened, remember the Baal predator which had gattling gun cannons instead of the normal assault cannons? Those were scratch built but GW said that they were taken from the demolisher kit despite them looking completely different.

Yeah, I noticed that too. They just do it so people don't 'get any ideas' or something

No, they're not from the Basihoweveryouspellit Kit.

yeah I saw that earlier this morning, then I clicked on the link to the Administratum kit. Didnt look the same at all. I figured maybe they were referring to some type of floor pieces that arent visible in the picture or something.

Those are the Temple Bases from Micro Arts studio.

http://www.shop.microartstudio.com/temple-bases-round-40mm-p-135.html?cPath=3_27

I have some of the Temple w/ round bases for my Warmachine Retribution army. They are really nice bases.

So they are. Games Workshop shouldn't be allowed to falsely take credit for MAS's Bases, surely?

Well, the truth is out now. Shame on you, GW.

This is almost as big a screw-up as that GD Winner with the MAS/Max Mini (Can't remember which!) Head...

Nice catch 2112. This is scandalous. Why even mention where the floor pieces came from if you're not going to give credit where it is due? I like you GW, but that is pretty crappy. Some poor hobbyist will buy your kit in hopes of having awesome floor pieces that actually come from a different company. Shame on you.....

If this is true, it is quite a serious civil offence for a company so keen on its intellectual property rights.

Agreed KK, I was going to say GW are always the first to piss and moan when the IP rights are infringed. Think its time they took a big ole spoon of their own medicine on this one.

lol, they do this sort of thing all the time, they had a misprint in WD with a monolith pictued but named it "Space Marine battle force" with product code.

Does anyone bother to proof read anymore?

Hey you think that's a fail? I can't for the life of me find a picture online, but on the box of the new pink horror models, the ones in the close up are the new ones - but the 40k one in the corner is the OLD metal one!

Honestly, pick a box up next time youre in GW and have a look. Ill try to find a box and post a photo later.

liam0404 wrote:Hey you think that's a fail? I can't for the life of me find a picture online, but on the box of the new pink horror models, the ones in the close up are the new ones - but the 40k one in the corner is the OLD metal one!

I've seen some of their regiment boxes where rather than paint up 20 figures they have copy and pasted a small number to fill up the regiment. Way back when they released the pirate zombies (just a mix of empire and zombie sprues) there was a picture of a unit of 20, which is what you got in the bag. Yet you could see the same uniquely converted/posed/painted figures 2 or 3 times within the catalogue photo, meaning they only painted about 6 figures. Seemed a lot of work with photoshop when they could have just painted 20 figures.

And the bases do look the same. That is naughty, you can't use someone else's product and then claim it's actually converted from your own stuff.

Samus_aran115 wrote:Yeah, I noticed that too. They just do it so people don't 'get any ideas' or something

Or there could be an entirely innocent explanation.

You know, like the fact that the entire post yesterday was user submissions.
Which could lead to... "user submissions without the full list of materials incorporated in the photos".

Although, I do wonder who the hell thought they were the Basilica bits.

Yeah, I have those same bases. Not Basilica Administratum, lol. Just remember the First Commandment of Games Workshop: "Thou Shalt Have No Other Miniatures Companies But Me."

Kilkrazy wrote:If this is true, it is quite a serious civil offence for a company so keen on its intellectual property rights.

lol Now I cant unsee it XD

Kanluwen wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:Yeah, I noticed that too. They just do it so people don't 'get any ideas' or something

Or there could be an entirely innocent explanation.

You know, like the fact that the entire post yesterday was user submissions.
Which could lead to... "user submissions without the full list of materials incorporated in the photos".

Although, I do wonder who the hell thought they were the Basilica bits.

This was my first thought too. They might be liars but it also might be whoever sent the pictures and information in.

I don't think it's much difference, the bases are just drybrushed and quite honestly look pretty horrible, so it's quite understandable that some guy at GW mistakes them for something else. I doubt the Web team has hours to spend on vainly cross checking basing material on some pics of models sent in...

Cheers

jutami wrote:I don't think it's much difference, the bases are just drybrushed and quite honestly look pretty horrible, so it's quite understandable that some guy at GW mistakes them for something else. I doubt the Web team has hours to spend on vainly cross checking basing material on some pics of models sent in...

Cheers

well,im not gw and i saw that they were made by msa(actually i wasnt sure if it was msa or from the scibor base range but too lazy to check)
but i knew they were resin bases just by having a quick glance at the pics.

when applying for a job at gw they want you to know as much as possible about the hobby and gw.
and i guess everyone working for gw should at least know what they are selling

jutami wrote:I don't think it's much difference, the bases are just drybrushed and quite honestly look pretty horrible, so it's quite understandable that some guy at GW mistakes them for something else. I doubt the Web team has hours to spend on vainly cross checking basing material on some pics of models sent in...

Cheers

Then why not just ignore the bases instead of claming they are made from GW kits?

No, this is a straight up attempt at stealing someone elses thunder. GW should, considering their track record when it comes to IP, do a LOT better than this.
How did they even think they would get away with this?!?

Non GW. You'd get disqualified at a competition for non GW. Hypocrites.

look what they wrote in the blog:

"On a quick note, I would like to apologise to Micro Art Studio for my post last Friday, where I mistook some bases as being made by us, when in fact they were made by them - apologies to them for the honest mistake, and to anyone we misled. I am going to have my eyes tested tomorrow as penance and I will pay closer attention in the future. Also, if you are sending us pictures, could you please tell us if any of the parts are not made by Games Workshop so that we can avoid similar mistakes in the future."

link:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/blogPost.jsp?aId=14400005a

Pleased to see the retraction. Though how anyone except a brand new hobbyist (GWs target market) could mistake these for bases for parts from the Basilica kit is beyond me...

L. Wrex

Has the original blog been amended? I find no reference to the bases at all.
of course I could be mistaken and actually do need new glasses.
An acknowledgement under the picture perhaps would have been appropriate. Easy mistake but oh! the delicious irony.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Has the original blog been amended? I find no reference to the bases at all.
of course I could be mistaken and actually do need new glasses.
An acknowledgement under the picture perhaps would have been appropriate. Easy mistake but oh! the delicious irony.

no need to worry, the blog was edited

lol, they did the same cut/paste trick with the cult of speed army in the ork codex GW...have you no shame

Gw make mistakes? Never!

no really, its true