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 was in the process of creating my own tabletop rules - If I wanted to use a system like 40k's BS/WS (of course with different names, but same idea) do you think they'd sue the hell out of me?

 ntdars wrote:
I was in the process of creating my own tabletop rules - If I wanted to use a system like 40k's BS/WS (of course with different names, but same idea) do you think they'd sue the hell out of me?

No.

 greyknight12 wrote:

 ntdars wrote:
I was in the process of creating my own tabletop rules - If I wanted to use a system like 40k's BS/WS (of course with different names, but same idea) do you think they'd sue the hell out of me?

No.

Thanks for the quick reply, how do you figure?

Why would you copy such crappy rules? A d6 based pass/fail system leaves much to be desired.

 ntdars wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:

 ntdars wrote:
I was in the process of creating my own tabletop rules - If I wanted to use a system like 40k's BS/WS (of course with different names, but same idea) do you think they'd sue the hell out of me?

No.

Thanks for the quick reply, how do you figure?

You mean a D6 based system where you assign a model a value and compare the value(s) to a chart to determine pass/fail? That's hardly unique to GW.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Why would you copy such crappy rules? A d6 based pass/fail system leaves much to be desired.

I think if done right, they're pretty good. I'm just messing around some rules to create a system I enjoy.

TheCustomLime wrote:

 ntdars wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:

 ntdars wrote:
I was in the process of creating my own tabletop rules - If I wanted to use a system like 40k's BS/WS (of course with different names, but same idea) do you think they'd sue the hell out of me?

No.

Thanks for the quick reply, how do you figure?

You mean a D6 based system where you assign a model a value and compare the value(s) to a chart to determine pass/fail? That's hardly unique to GW.

That's good to know. Thanks dude.

This is talking about board games, but still applies:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/493249/mythbusting-game-design-and-copyright-trademarks-a

Basically, it's totally legal to copy game mechanics. Just don't copy art or exact wording of text.

This is probably best in the Game Design forum.

Actually, I agree, so I will move it there.

with that in mind, best to cover your rear and call them "Melee Skill" and "ranged skill" or something

Infinity uses "Ballistic Skill" as well so it can't be all GW's.

Check out their game mechanics. A much wider range and a great idea about face-to-face rolling that allows the players to interact much more instead of you eating a sandwich and watching your army die on their turn.

I dunno.
You could be eating a sandwich or sausage or whatever during that "downtime" or it can be used for book keeping, table organisation, narrating, clearing models, thinking about your next moves, looking up rules or something.
Both systems have their merits.

I don't really play games that I have to find something else to do during them.

No, but I bet they think they do.

As long as you don't copy the exact wording it should be fine.

As mentioned in earlier posts, basic ideas can't be copyrighted or patented.

The concept of combat abilities or scores for shooting and melee is very old and easily predates GW and is used in many different games.

There would be no problem in your using the same idea.

I were you I would not implement the idea the same way as GW because their implementations in 40K are pretty poor.

Just to echo the other posters, why emulate what is already there? The concept of a rating that is checked for missile fire is hardly unique or innovative; but, as a designer, you need to carefully consider what it adds to your game. Consider some variations such as a contested roll. Also consider that their is more to effective direct fire than just a "hit" and having a subsequent role to determine damage then kind of brings into question whether the fire was even effective, so what did that initial role really represent?
The whole roll to hit, roll to damage is a relic of D&D and needs careful consideration before being bootstrapped into a new system.