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.

I noticed this as they are the same bases I am using for my Salamanders:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/wnt/blog.jsp?pid=2500136-gws

I wonder if this is a softening of policy, or just ignorance of the fact that these are 3rd party bases?

It's nothing really I'm sure. Hell, I've seen pictures on their site that included non-GW models. There was some army blog they posted about, where the guy was using Privateer Press models in his army as counts as, and they still posted them up.

Typically, GW overlooks bases entirely. Their concern is mainly with the models themselves.

If you see a non-GW model, it's because it got past them. If they realize it, they're not posting it.

There is no softening.

Eric

I doubt its because they "got past them" feth me, they aren't exactly conspicuous are they!

Clearly they just don't give the third party any credit.. but they obviously notice them and don't mind publishing the photos anyway.

You cant tell me with a straight face nobody looked at the pictures and said "where did he get the cool bases from?"

mattyrm wrote:You cant tell me with a straight face nobody looked at the pictures and said "where did he get the cool bases from?"

The artist could've made them himself... They look relatively 'unique' in that I didn't see multiple with the exact same pattern, not that he couldn't be casting his own. I don't think it's a big deal in this case, althoguh they do make great models with a great paint job look even better.

As always when this kind of thread comes up, aren't those pictures all submitted by players, and not GW employees? If the submitter doesn't tell them that the bases were bought from a 3rd party, instead of being conversions the submitter made, how is GW supposed to know?

Portugal Jones wrote:As always when this kind of thread comes up, aren't those pictures all submitted by players, and not GW employees? If the submitter doesn't tell them that the bases were bought from a 3rd party, instead of being conversions the submitter made, how is GW supposed to know?

Because people who are immersed in this hobby should be able to identify them? Or at least know they are likely not scratchbuilt. Oh wait, they are probably staff who are only immersed in the GW cult and know very little of the wider hobby and other product lines which is why obviously non-GW stuff gets past people who assume it's an original sculpt.

But... how cool would it be if they were just, like "These awesome bases were made by Dark Arts (url here)". What a squandered opportunity to earn a lot of scene cred.

Let's just be happy they haven't decided to ban 3rd party bases in stores or submitted photos.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Because people who are immersed in this hobby should be able to identify them? Or at least know they are likely not scratchbuilt.

Do you know how many little stores there are out there offering resin bases? If anyone out there can identify more than a handful of them on sight, I would be surprised. Particularly when the bases in question are so generic. There's nothing about them that screams 'resin bases'... they look like a few chips of slate stuck to a regular GW base.

The problem is not with GW, it is with the photos someone is submitting. When they submit them and say they own the copyright of the model except for the GW parts, GW has no reason to disagree as they may be the original artists. I make parts for my models and cast them, I own the part and I can recast them. if I give extras of those parts to friends, it is still my part. If someone was to begin photographing or selling my part or claiming it is theirs, then there could be an issue.

What people should be doing is disclosing the companies of all the parts they are using when submitting a photo of a mini they own. People just want their minis on a website, they don't care about an irrelevant IP war people on the internet are in.

People just like to get unreasonably snooty at GW, and to complain about bases, about 60% of bases I see can be easily made with common techniques and materials and people simply buy resin bases so they don't have to make them themselves.

How many broken asphalt bases are just cork and sand glued on a base and cast? How many slate outcroppings are a rock glued to a base and cast? How many Ship Hull is deck plating plasticard with some guitar wire and some bolts glued to a base and cast?

Not a big deal, no one cares, it doesn't mean GW is giving up any rights or acknowledging anything. Just means people submit pictures and claim 'yes, I own everything about this model' and GW doesn't do anything about it. If a Copyright owner of a part was upset, they can ask for it to be removed. Working as intended.

They just didn't notice. To GW anything that's 3rd-party is evil.