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.

While I won't say that I'm surprised at the reaction to BF,but I will say that I'm disappointed. Yes I admit it is a stupid company rule, and I disagree with it, as do many others. I admit I think that this action is very stupid on their part, and if a pattern of stuff like this continues then I will stop supporting BF/FOW. First for the very reaction and fan outrage it created. Second because the ability to use 3rd party models in tournaments helped separated them from GW. Yet nobody is acting adult about this. Instead of you know, writing a few letters to BF, or trying to express your opinion with them in a reasonable manner. Instead many (but not all) of the FOW community of just going on forums (theirs and others) and calling them donkey-caves. Then get even more rude more when the threads (the ones on flames of war website) the close and say that BF is "silence you", even thought the thread had devolved into personal insults. People who were in love in love with BF last week are now calling them donkey-caves, and not acting adult about this. Now at the end of the day is it your opinion and thus your right, yes. Are many (but not all) of you are acting adult about this, yes. Will bitching to random nobodies (myself included ) get the change you want, no.I'm just curious how many of you actually bothered to A: Write a letter to BF and/or B: Tell you FLGS you opinion about this so they can relay it to BF?

Also just a list for clarification

A list of things that BF does that GW doesn't do or wouldn't do

-Allow 3rd party manufactures to exist (I admit WW 2 is public domain, but this point is still true)
-Allow people to use their name/logos/etc. ( For example GW has sued 40k radio for using their likeness, while BF encourages WWPD)
-Allow Army builder/battlescribe to represent their product
-Allow easyarmy.com to exist
-Release stickers for their source book in response to fan criticism (ie Blitzkrieg)
-Come up with free force lists and give them out on their website
-Allow older force lists to still be legal
-Gives away free main rulebooks
-Gave a way free blisters if you got your rulebook spiral bound and emailed them a picture of the receipt and a explication


Also at the end of the day if I get really pissed at their policies and decide to stop buying from them, I could just by 3rd party minis and use them to play casually.

Makarov wrote:-Allow 3rd party manufactures to exist (I admit WW 2 is public domain, but this point is still true)

Why do you keep posting this point? It's meaningless.

Makarov wrote:-Allow people to use their name/logos/etc.
-Allow Army builder to use represent their product
-Allow easyarmy.com to exist
-Release stickers for their source book in response to fan criticism (ie Blitzkrieg)
-Come up with free force lists and give them out on their website
-Allow older force lists to still be legal
-Gives away free main rulebooks
-Gave a way free blisters if you got your rulebook spiral bound and emailed them a picture of the receipt and a explication

Perhaps these things are just good business sense rather than BF being our BFF.

George Spiggott wrote:

Makarov wrote:-Allow 3rd party manufactures to exist (I admit WW 2 is public domain, but this point is still true)

Why do you keep posting this point? It's meaningless.

Makarov wrote:-Allow people to use their name/logos/etc.
-Allow Army builder to use represent their product
-Allow easyarmy.com to exist
-Release stickers for their source book in response to fan criticism (ie Blitzkrieg)
-Come up with free force lists and give them out on their website
-Allow older force lists to still be legal
-Gives away free main rulebooks
-Gave a way free blisters if you got your rulebook spiral bound and emailed them a picture of the receipt and a explication

Perhaps these things are just good business sense rather than BF being our BFF.

That might be true, it might not be. But like you said to me "It's Meaningless" the result is the same.


Because like I have said GW doesn't let 3rd party modelers to exist.

Also I'm just curious have you actually bothered to A: Write a letter to BF without just lambasting them and/or B: Tell you FLGS you opinion about this so they can relay it to BF?

Makarov wrote:Because like I have said GW doesn't let 3rd party modelers to exist.

Again, so what? BF don't start frivolous lawsuits, GW do. Who cares? BF don't let these other companies exist, they simply exist and BF has no bearing on this.

Makarov wrote:Also I'm just curious have you actually bothered to A: Write a letter to BF without just lambasting them and/or B: Tell you FLGS you opinion about this so they can relay it to BF?

I intend to have a very long conversation with my BF stocking FLGS about this especially since I've heard that BF are attempting to get retailers to stop stocking other 15mm WWII ranges in exchange for perks.

Oh dear...

You do know people made WW2 figures before Battlefront came along. Maybe Airfix should sue them as they made WW2 figures in the 1950s...

You cannot own IP on an historical item, it is not your creation, therefore it is not your IP.

Please stop trying to make out that they 'own' WW2.

George Spiggott wrote:

Makarov wrote:Because like I have said GW doesn't let 3rd party modelers to exist.

Again, so what? BF don't start frivolous lawsuits, GW do. Who cares? BF don't let these other companies exist, they simply exist and BF has no bearing on this.

The fact that I can actually buy PSC company models. Last time I check GW doesn't allow that. Yes BF has no IP over ww2 so they can't sue. But that doesn't remove the fact that you can't buy 3rd party.

Makarov wrote:Also I'm just curious have you actually bothered to A: Write a letter to BF without just lambasting them and/or B: Tell you FLGS you opinion about this so they can relay it to BF?

I intend to have a very long conversation with my BF stocking FLGS about this especially since I've heard that BF are attempting to get retailers to stop stocking other 15mm WWII ranges in exchange for perks.Source/link?

But you still haven't bothered to write a letter to BF, and express your opinion



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Big P wrote:Oh dear...

You do know people made WW2 figures before Battlefront came along. Maybe Airfix should sue them as they made WW2 figures in the 1950s...

You cannot own IP on an historical item, it is not your creation, therefore it is not your IP.

Please stop trying to make out that they 'own' WW2.

I never said that they owned it. They don't since it is all public domain. I said very clearly at the top in relation to GW, and seeing as how in GW doesn't allow 3rd party manufacturer to exist. Also, what about all the other points? .I'm just curious have actually bothered to A: Write a letter to BF and/or B: Tell your FLGS you opinion about this so they can relay it to BF?

But you are not comparing like for like.

GW created their background.

BF didnt.

Thus comparison is flawed from the outset.

Why would I write a letter?

I dont play FOW or visit a shop.

Big P wrote:But you are not comparing like for like.

GW created their background.

BF didnt.

Thus comparison is flawed from the outset.

Why would I write a letter?

I dont play FOW or visit a shop.

Look we are impasse ok, I am not going to convert you nor you me.
and even forgetting that point what about all the other 8 points I made?

Also why do you care if you don't play?

Makarov wrote:The fact that I can actually buy PSC company models. Last time I check GW doesn't allow that. Yes BF has no IP over ww2 so they can't sue. But that doesn't remove the fact that you can't buy 3rd party.

Please explain how BF "lets" PSC do this. Please explain how BF has any control what so ever over what other companies make.

Makarov wrote:Source/link?

No I don't have a confirmed source link yet, bar a few people on the internet. I may know more when I've spoke to my FLGS.

George Spiggott wrote:

Makarov wrote:The fact that I can actually buy PSC company models. Last time I check GW doesn't allow that. Yes BF has no IP over ww2 so they can't sue. But that doesn't remove the fact that you can't buy 3rd party.

Please explain how BF "lets" PSC do this. Please explain how BF has any control what so ever over what other companies make.

Makarov wrote:Source/link?

No I don't have a confirmed source link yet, bar a few people on the internet. I may know more when I've spoke to my FLGS.

Look we are impasse ok, I am not going to convert you nor you me on that point, fine. What about the other 8 points? Also if that does turn out to be true, then yes BF does need to be "dealt with".
But, even then like I've been saying A: Write a constrictive letter to BF and/or B: Tell you FLGS you opinion about this so they can relay it to BF( and be constrictive about this too)?

Makarov wrote:Look we are impasse ok, I am not going to convert you nor you me on that point, fine. What about the other 8 points?

We're not at an impasse you're just wrong. I've already addressed the other eight points. They're all good business sense, not BF being our BFF.

George Spiggott wrote:

Makarov wrote:Look we are impasse ok, I am not going to convert you nor you me on that point, fine. What about the other 8 points?

We're not at an impasse you're just wrong. I've already addressed the other eight points. They're all good business sense, not BF being our BFF.

As toward the it being good business, does that change anything about those points? They still offer them they still do them. So they are doing it for profit, who cares. It is still a great thing.

Also, no one needs to write a letter to Battlefront - they have an official forum and a 40+ page discussion on this already. It's definitely gotten BF's attention, as they've asked the forum members to keep things a bit more civil (which it has been, for the most part) as they sit down over the weekend and discuss what's happened.

Battlefront did not expect the amount of backlash this announcement got them.

Also, because I was at work when I saw this and didn't get a chance to say anything earlier: my eyes almost bugged out of my head when I saw the suggestion that BF sue PSC. Which was then followed by enough laughter to get my coworkers' attention.

Makarov wrote:

Big P wrote:But you are not comparing like for like.

GW created their background.

BF didnt.

Thus comparison is flawed from the outset.

Why would I write a letter?

I dont play FOW or visit a shop.

Look we are impasse ok, I am not going to convert you nor you me.
and even forgetting that point what about all the other 8 points I made?

Also why do you care if you don't play?

I do play, just not FOW.

I dislike it being made out that somehow BF 'own' WW2 when clearly they do not.

Kinda sticks in my throat after 30 years playing WW2 wargames...

infinite_array wrote:Also, no one needs to write a letter to Battlefront - they have an official forum and a 40+ page discussion on this already. It's definitely gotten BF's attention, as they've asked the forum members to keep things a bit more civil (which it has been, for the most part) as they sit down over the weekend and discuss what's happened.

Battlefront did not expect the amount of backlash this announcement got them.

Also, because I was at work when I saw this and didn't get a chance to say anything earlier: my eyes almost bugged out of my head when I saw the suggestion that BF sue PSC. Which was then followed by enough laughter to get my coworkers' attention.

I get the feeling that BF is just going to issue a retraction to their BF only ruling.

Where did you see the sue thing?

Makarov wrote:
I get the feeling that BF is just going to issue a retraction to their BF only ruling.

That's not just a trivial thing to do, you know.

Where did you see the sue thing?

Ahem:

Makarov wrote:I am kind of with BF on this. Though I do have some reservations. While the current change doesn't bother me that much, and BF is a LONG way from being GW (for example Easyarmy.com is allowed to exist, not suing PSC, etc.)I still be buy/enjoying their products, but I will be keeping my eyes open.

You really should remember what you wrote Makarov!

infinite_array wrote:

Makarov wrote:
I get the feeling that BF is just going to issue a retraction to their BF only ruling.

That's not just a trivial thing to do, you know.

Where did you see the sue thing?

Ahem:

Makarov wrote:I am kind of with BF on this. Though I do have some reservations. While the current change doesn't bother me that much, and BF is a LONG way from being GW (for example Easyarmy.com is allowed to exist, not suing PSC, etc.)I still be buy/enjoying their products, but I will be keeping my eyes open.

FOR feths SAKE
I never said that they should sue them. I said that they don't,and that many other companies would


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Big P wrote:You really should remember what you wrote Makarov!

And you should learn to read. I have said several times that they don't own ww2 that they can't since it is public domain. I wasn't never fething saying that they should. Just that they don't. I have said this several times over.

But what, pray tell would they sue them for?

Come on, enlighten us.

Big P wrote:But what, pray tell would they sue them for?

Come on, enlighten us.

I've said that they can't sue in the post right above. I've also said that never said that they should sue. I said that other companies such as GW have sued for it.

Your logic makes no sense.

You say they havent sued PSC and make out that this makes them unlike GW but you now say they cant sue so thus there is no comparison with GW.

Makarov wrote:

Big P wrote:But what, pray tell would they sue them for?

Come on, enlighten us.

I've said that they fething can't sue right above. I said that other companies such as GW have sued for it.

You only said they couldn't sue after it was pointed out how laughably stupid that idea was.

Ok fine I'm wrong.

Good show old man.

infinite_array wrote:

Makarov wrote:

Big P wrote:But what, pray tell would they sue them for?

Come on, enlighten us.

I've said that they fething can't sue right above. I said that other companies such as GW have sued for it.

You only said they couldn't sue after it was pointed out how laughably stupid that idea was.

"-Allow 3rd party manufactures to exist (I admit WW 2 is public domain, but this point is still true)"

Is what I posted, I never said that they should sue. I just said that they don't.

You originally said "though I would argue the point".

They dont sue because thay cant.

GW sue because they can.

Thus there is no comparison. Simple.

Makarov wrote: I just said that they don't.

Which doesn't matter.

The fact that they haven't sued PSC, and Forged in Battle, and Old Glory, and Peter Pig, and aaaaallll the other people who make 15mm WWII figures is irrelevant because they cannot sue them.

At all. Never.

In fact, I could make a ruleset, and then come out with a supplement called 'Herr Peiper's Jolly Good Stroll Through The Ardennes', featuring Herr Peiper, Audie Murphy, and a bunch of other Germans and Americans, and prance around with it all I wanted, and BF could do nothing.

Once again. Fine, I'm wrong. But, with that being said I never said that they should sue anyone.

I can't see why people are surprised at this decision. It is the logical outcome for all 'system games' that enter the tournament scene - Mantic have announced a similar thing.

Either you are a rules company - in which case you dont care what figures the players use - or you are a figures manufacturer - in which case you do.

Either way I fail to see why GW have been dragged into the discussion and used as the bogeyman, unless the soul purpose of playing FoW is as a protest against GW.

How long before Warlord try the same thing?

Its not so much that they want people to favour their product, Its the way that they say it that really does a wee in your cheerios. A lot of the posts about this tend towards this. And the U-turns. And the fact they've not done half their models, thus rendering lists unusable by banning other company 'proxies'. And the fact that half the stuff they produce is ugly toss.