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.

First game with competitive player:
I suggest he play a more "balanced" list than a "net list".
"You do not tell me what to do, this is all by the rules!"
I play him and he does win.

Second game with competitive player:
I say I am prepared for a more competitive game to "his liking" (he appeared less happier about a game realizing no easy victim this time).
I utterly table him with much wining about "that is cheating!" (no, it was not), "you can't do that!" (yes you can according to rules), "that is not fair" (a little more fair than last game), "you paid to win!" (been playing 40k for some 20 years now).

I HATE it when people cannot, will not, take what they dish out and feel it is perfectly fair as long as they are doing it.

 TheKbob wrote:
One thing I hate is playing a list that I "toned down" and still get "That list is OP broken!" Yea, you should my actual tournament list then... :/

This is the very thing that drives me nuts.
I like to have a variety of units for flexibility and simply to try out and they look better as a variety.
Then THOSE people who want to "cave face" and are looking for those lists.
So I have to carry TWO lists with me and I feel like a cheat just for that.
I would take a close game to tabling my opponent any day (or being tabled for being "nice").

This whole thing had been an interesting development.

GW would write about units they may not have models for.

GW would depend on completed models to be used as a means to prevent copying their IP.

By not releasing the models with the codex it would create a demand for the model.

CHS would "ninja" GW and make a model.

Now GW runs the risk of running into IP infringement because someone else made the model first.

CHS had the poor manners to now put GW in an uncomfortable position and have to rethink how they do codex releases. It really is a cool legal problem; you describe a model and it's function in rules but the real legal item is the physical model.

Now we are faced with a core codex and a series of supplements. All priced properly to cover their legal costs from this whole debacle.

<edit> So to stay on topic, a "ridiculous thing" would be blaming CHS for making use of a glaring opportunity that GW forgot was their primary means of defending their IP. Just answering the call of supply and demand.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Now GW runs the risk of running into IP infringement because someone else made the model first.

That's always been the assumption of internet non-lawyers and isn't true. Unless GW wanted to directly copy CHS' model of course.

"Always been the assumption", "isn't true" there is always further to a complicated case, do not assume huge ignorance on my part just yet.
I may have to add what you said to ridiculous things I heard people say.

IF someone would want to claim an IP infringement, a good start is pointing to your product being out first then the relevant details of the infringement.
Review of the CHS ruling shows many of the considerations.

Full list of transcripts here:
http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.docket.html
373 gets into the meat of what could be presented in trial or not up to 377.
Review 403-on for the various settling or aftermath of the case.
They are up to 489 documents all leading up to now still beating out the details of the judgment/"settlement" and the gazillion amendments being proposed.

If you look at the details and reasons for their appeal of the judgment, just having some common dimensions or features like the hotly contested shoulder-pads cast doubt and they point to them as prior works before CHS put out theirs.