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.

So I was recently inspired to collect together some friends and begin a Mordheim campaign. Between us we've found one (heavily used) Rulebook and are still searching for the Annual and as much scenery as we can lay our hands on while bickering over who gets which warband (~cough~SKAVEN~cough~). All of this is nice for us but here is where I am hoping y'all can help us out. If you are familiar with a game called Pathfinder, they basically ripped 3.5 DnD through some open-source law that I don't fully understand but get the basic idea. Wizards wasn't supporting the old edition any more so Paizo picked them up and reskinned it as Pathfinder after tweaking it for balance. That said, could something like that be done to republish Mordheim? Has it already been done? Links if it has, and any other helpful links for Mordheim are greatly appreciated!

I long time ago there was CoreHeim; a fan ruleset of mordheim.
But I did not try it...

First of all. What you suggest has nothing to do with open source.

Then to the real answer. Copyright laws don't protect rule mechanisms. So if you want, you can remove all references to GW trademarks and background and redo that. Then you can publish it. You can do same with 40k if you were so inclined. That being said, nothing prevents GW from suing you regardless in aim to bankrupt you personally (regardless whether is lawful or not).

Pathfinder is a product of something called the "Open Gaming License"; the D&D 3.5 rules were open-source because Wizards up and declared them open-source, not because they were abandoned.

As to republishing Mordheim there are a number of fan projects floating about on the Internet; my favourite is called Coreheim.

Thank you for your replies! Also, AnomanderRake, I took a gander at your wordpress and will be keenly following Meridian. Awesome job from the looks of things so far, sir!

Rule sets cannot be copy written? What?

There used to be a site called mordhiemer that had all the rules and stuff.

 brendan wrote:
Rule sets cannot be copy written? What?

The specific text of them can but the mechanics cannot. Mechanics could be patented (although rarely, if ever, are) and special things like dice can be Registered Designs (like the Scatter dice) but those protections don't last all that long (compared to copyright at least).

Essentially copyright protects the specific unique expression of an idea - not the idea itself.

So what one could do is define the rules of the game in a new document and then write a book around them. It could be functionally identical but would be a new work (rather than changing stuff in the original to create a "derivative work" - which would still be owned by the original author). In my research I've hit a tricky question though: statlines. Are they considered part of the mechanics or are they thought of as artistic expression?

Sadly I'm not a lawyer and the UK Intellectual Property Office don't know. No, seriously, I asked them and they haven't a clue. Short of taking it to court I can't see how one would find out the truth.

One last thing - don't use the images from the original document. They're most definitely copyright-encumbered!

OP, go to the Yaktribe Gaming (formerly Yakromunda).

They have all of the Mordhiem (and Necromunda and GorkaMorka) Rulebooks and most of the related WD articles.

You can print it to your hearts content all legal like.

 notprop wrote:
You can print it to your hearts content all legal like.

What makes you think it's legal?

You can use and make unofficial rules for Mordheim, but it's not "open source". It means, you can't make your own game using Mordheim rules (officially).

 Freakazoitt wrote:
It means, you can't make your own game using Mordheim rules (officially).

Of course one can. The wording is subject to copyright, the rules are not.

Open source is something unrelated.

Does it mean, I can just change name of game and factions/character names calling it as another game, not related to Morheim?
I think, I have a plan...

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Does it mean, I can just change name of game and factions/character names calling it as another game, not related to Morheim?
I think, I have a plan...

I've only looked into how UK copyright law works - it might be different (easier or harder) where you are (DakkaDakka says you're in Russia).

At least over here changing the names isn't enough - the rules would need to be rewritten. They don't need to be changed mechanically but one can't just take the existing wording and change the names of things.

 Flamekebab wrote:

 notprop wrote:
You can print it to your hearts content all legal like.

What makes you think it's legal?

Games Workshop released all of the Mordheim rules for free download online as part of their Specialist Games Living Rulebooks before Specialist Games ceased to exist.

 Hordini wrote:
Games Workshop released all of the Mordheim rules for free download online as part of their Specialist Games Living Rulebooks before Specialist Games ceased to exist.

GW releasing it for free for a time is not the same as granting everyone else a license to redistribute it. I'm not just being a pedantic git here, UK law is pretty clear on it:

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988:

16. The acts restricted by copyright in a work.

(1) The owner of the copyright in a work has, in accordance with the following provisions of this Chapter, the exclusive right to do the following acts in the United Kingdom—

• (a) to copy the work (see section 17);


• (b) to issue copies of the work to the public (see section 18);


• [F1 (ba)t o rent or lend the work to the public (see section 18A);]


• (c) to perform, show or play the work in public (see section 19);


• [F2 (d) to communicate the work to the public (see section 20); ]


• (e) to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation to an adaptation (see section 21);and those acts are referred to in this Part as the “acts restricted by the copyright”.

(2) Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner does, or authorises another to do, any of the acts restricted by the copyright.

Think about it this way:
If you write a book and decide to release it on your site (for whatever reason) for free you can. If you then decide to take it down, you can. It's your work. You might choose to sell it later, or sell the distribution rights to someone else, or any number of other things. It's your intellectual property.
If I downloaded a copy when it was free that wouldn't suddenly give me the right to share it with all my friends. You can decide to give it away because it's your work, I don't have that right.

Regardless, in practical terms no one is going to bat an eyelid if you find a copy of the Mordheim rules online but that's not the same as legal.
On the plus side as of October 2014 I'm fairly sure that printing it would count as "format shifting". Assuming one downloaded it from GW when they were offering it then one could legally print those copies. Progress is being made, eeeeever so slowly!

In real terms it'd be very difficult to prove that an identical PDF came from an unauthorised source, of course...

 Flamekebab wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Games Workshop released all of the Mordheim rules for free download online as part of their Specialist Games Living Rulebooks before Specialist Games ceased to exist.

GW releasing it for free for a time is not the same as granting everyone else a license to redistribute it. I'm not just being a pedantic git here, UK law is pretty clear on it:

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988:

16. The acts restricted by copyright in a work.

(1) The owner of the copyright in a work has, in accordance with the following provisions of this Chapter, the exclusive right to do the following acts in the United Kingdom—

• (a) to copy the work (see section 17);


• (b) to issue copies of the work to the public (see section 18);


• [F1 (ba)t o rent or lend the work to the public (see section 18A);]


• (c) to perform, show or play the work in public (see section 19);


• [F2 (d) to communicate the work to the public (see section 20); ]


• (e) to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation to an adaptation (see section 21);and those acts are referred to in this Part as the “acts restricted by the copyright”.

(2) Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner does, or authorises another to do, any of the acts restricted by the copyright.

Think about it this way:
If you write a book and decide to release it on your site (for whatever reason) for free you can. If you then decide to take it down, you can. It's your work. You might choose to sell it later, or sell the distribution rights to someone else, or any number of other things. It's your intellectual property.
If I downloaded a copy when it was free that wouldn't suddenly give me the right to share it with all my friends. You can decide to give it away because it's your work, I don't have that right.

Regardless, in practical terms no one is going to bat an eyelid if you find a copy of the Mordheim rules online but that's not the same as legal.
On the plus side as of October 2014 I'm fairly sure that printing it would count as "format shifting". Assuming one downloaded it from GW when they were offering it then one could legally print those copies. Progress is being made, eeeeever so slowly!

In real terms it'd be very difficult to prove that an identical PDF came from an unauthorised source, of course...

Well, that was my point. If you have a copy that you got from GW while they were hosting the Living Rulebooks, I am pretty sure you can print that copy. I can't remember what the text on the website said (since it's gone now) but I used to peruse the Specialist Games websites pretty regularly and I don't remember them ever having a problem with people getting the living rulebooks printed.

 Hordini wrote:
If you have a copy that you got from GW while they were hosting the Living Rulebooks, I am pretty sure you can print that copy.

Spot on - you can now - whether they were vaguely fine with it or not is no longer important - we now have that right in the UK
Of course if your PDF didn't come from GW then you're stuffed, legally speaking...

The reason I get so picky about this stuff is because it feels like when these topics come up a lot of misinformation gets spread. Lots of well-meaning ideas come out of the woodwork. "I think that's covered under fair use..." or "but I'm not selling it..?" and stuff like that but rarely anything accurate to the situation at hand. Sadly I'm not a lawyer but with this little bit of UK law I've spent quite a while researching it and trying to get right. Annoyingly some bits are a bit too vague but I'm continuing my research. It really shouldn't be this much work to avoid breaking the law!

Anyway, the bottom line is this bit:
Will you get in trouble with GW for grabbing PDFs off the 'net? Not bloody likely. It's not legal but no one cares enough to do anything about it - especially with older stuff.

Reading up on this has been interesting though as the changes mean that I can legally print off a couple of spare copies of Gorkamorka's Da Roolz and use them for an upcoming event.
Here's the relevant amendments that came into effect last October. Point 3 (6) is the bit I'm thinking of:

(6) Copyright in a work is infringed if an individual transfers a personal copy of the work to another person (otherwise than on a private and temporary basis), except where the transfer is authorised by the copyright owner.

Letting someone borrow a rulebook during play sounds pretty private and temporary to me

 Flamekebab wrote:
"I think that's covered under fair use..."

Fair Use is a pretty specific bit of US copyright law; among other requirements you can't be just straight-up posting someone else's stuff, there has to be some original content involved. With that in mind my homemade reconstruction based on the rules would be Fair Use, someone just posting the PDFs wouldn't.

 Flamekebab wrote:
Games Workshop released all of the Mordheim rules for free download online as part of their Specialist Games Living Rulebooks before Specialist Games ceased to exist.

GW releasing it for free for a time is not the same as granting everyone else a license to redistribute it. I'm not just being a pedantic git here, UK law is pretty clear on it:

 Eilif wrote:
Doesn't really matter if it's technically legal or not.

Depends on who or what it's being applied to. Sharing copyright encumbered material might not matter on a personal level but most forums don't allow such things (or the discussion of them) due to their illegality.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Flamekebab wrote:
"I think that's covered under fair use..."

Fair Use is a pretty specific bit of US copyright law; among other requirements you can't be just straight-up posting someone else's stuff, there has to be some original content involved. With that in mind my homemade reconstruction based on the rules would be Fair Use, someone just posting the PDFs wouldn't.

That's what I was getting at - it's been my experience that people don't understand that Fair Use isn't a magic wand to share things without issue.

 Flamekebab wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
Doesn't really matter if it's technically legal or not.

Depends on who or what it's being applied to. Sharing copyright encumbered material might not matter on a personal level but most forums don't allow such things (or the discussion of them) due to their illegality.

Sorry, I wasn't all that clear there

"Who or what" as in a friend at the local gaming space or the organisation that runs said space.
Organisations and the like are a lot more constrained by the technical legality of things. It's why I thought it was pretty cool that if I wanted to I could now legally print out copies of the Gorkamorka rule books and use them wherever (as I legally acquired the files when GW were offering them) as it'd fall under format shifting.

I get the feeling that I'm giving the impression that I'm dead against anyone sharing anything unless it's totally iron-clad legal. Not at all - I just like to understand as best I can what the rules are. In the UK they're a mess and even the Intellectual Property Office isn't able to provide instruction as to how the law applies to any given situation. It's hard to obey the law when no one in authority will actually define it accurately and that aggravates me no end. No wonder there's very little respect for the antiquated and unworkable laws

It's a bit like how I feel awful if I offend someone by accident. If I'm offending someone I want it to be on purpose or not at all!

No offense taken.

Printing Gorka is a slightly grey area because they were once freely available from GW and are now freely (not clandestinely) available from places like Yaktribe. Those places haven't (AFAIK) asked for permission, but GW has made no effort to stop them so no one is going to bat an eye (at this point) if you print them up and show up to play with them at your FLGS.

 Eilif wrote:
Printing Gorka is a slightly grey area because they were once freely available from GW and are now freely (not clandestinely) available from places like Yaktribe.

That wouldn't be a grey area. Under UK law it's straight up not allowed. One could use the circumstances as part of a defence in the event of a court case but that would be a defence against prosecution rather than anything else.

But if the PDF was personally (not by a third party) obtained from GW (like mine are) then one is in the clear, legally.

 Eilif wrote:
...so no one is going to bat an eye (at this point) if you print them up and show up to play with them at your FLGS.

That depends entirely on the store. That's why I thought it was rather novel that I could indeed legally use my PDFs if I was playing Gorkamorka at a GW shop - it'd be all legal in my case!

The Op's not in the UK. Trademarks and copyrights that are not policed by their owners in the USA often loose their protection.

Regardless of the wording of the law, I would encourage the OP to ignore your warning. print the documents and enjoy them. The Specialist games rules that were PDF's currently exist in a sort of gentleman's agreement whereby GW is tacitly agreeing to their distribution by not policing their use on other sites.

If anyone attempted to gain commercially by their distribution or modification, they would still take legal action, but clearly GW is not attempting to prevent their distribution.

What warning? I was just discussing the intricacies of the legal system as it applies to documents released by UK companies. It might seem a bit weird but I genuinely find this stuff interesting!

It's not scare tactics, it's not me trying to discourage anyone from doing anything, and I'm not trying to make a moral judgement about this stuff.
I don't like misinformation being spread. That's all.

Print whatever you want. If you can get access to the hole punch for it I recommend ring-binding this stuff - loose sheets are hard to keep in order!

 Eilif wrote:
Trademarks and copyrights that are not policed by their owners in the USA often loose their protection.

That's just for trademarks - it doesn't apply to copyrighted works (source).