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.

Oops! Not sure if I want to break them off and do them proper or leave them backwards, looks kinda cool!

Looks fine to me! I build my landraiders backwards deliberately.

Looks like they fit that way... I'd keep 'em!

Looks cool. Starbuck and Apollo would be proud

It would look much cooler it if it was a real and honest copy of the kit instead of a recast.

What an unnessecary and rude comment.

Bought it off eBay and even if it is a recast, it's got the same detail and look as one cast by Forgeworld.

I bet some of the painted FW models you've seen that you may have thought looked cool were actuallly recasts. They are everywhere. Why don't you take your uptight opinion elsewhere? =)

Because it´s promoting illegal behaviour?

Noctem wrote:What an unnessecary and rude comment.

Bought it off eBay and even if it is a recast, it's got the same detail and look as one cast by Forgeworld.

I bet some of the painted FW models you've seen that you may have thought looked cool were actuallly recasts. They are everywhere. Why don't you take your uptight opinion elsewhere? =)

Probably not the best response towards a Forge World expert

There is a noticeable difference between a recast and the real deal, alongside it being illegal behaviour; that doesn't mean you are to blame for this though, provided you weren't aware that this was a recast you were buying.

tommse wrote:Because it´s promoting illegal behaviour?

Let's not villainise people here before they have a chance to explain themselves.

Well, that's a good why to take a thread off topic.

It looks good to me aswell.

If the wings are bugging you, you can use a pick or sharp knife and get in that small gap to help remove some of the glue then it should come off fine.

Also my advise is to ignore people who complain about buying off eBay. They all supported chapter house stealin I.p. You pay for the model so buy what you want with your money. Let them pay the 40% forgeworld mark up, he'll they all refuse to buy from GW stores because expense and then browse eBay for deals. No dif.

Looks fine this way, but if you leave it, file off the hinges of the wing flaps.

OgreChubbs wrote:
Also my advise is to ignore people who complain about buying off eBay. They all supported chapter house stealin I.p. You pay for the model so buy what you want with your money. Let them pay the 40% forgeworld mark up, he'll they all refuse to buy from GW stores because expense and then browse eBay for deals. No dif.

Who supported Chapter House stealing GW's IP? From what I gathered from some quick research, the majority of what GW took them to court for was dismissed, and the stuff that was liable for copyright infringement was removed.

Even so, this should never ever justify buying recasts of existing models when you are aware that they are recasts. Just because it is cheaper does not mean that it is right.

And buying genuine items off eBay or similar sites that offer a discount is not illegal behaviour, since it's still the original product that GW distributed.

G.A

It also doesn't hurt to make it clear to anyone seeing this thread that any FW models for sale that are that colour are obvious and blatant recasts.

(For those that don't know, FW models are all grey except for the scenery tiles which are black. Any cream, beige, etc. FW models are 100% recast.)

 General Annoyance wrote:
Even so, this should never ever justify buying recasts of existing models when you are aware that they are recasts. Just because it is cheaper does not mean that it is right.

Doesn't mean it's wrong, either. Crossing the street at a red light in the middle of the night with no cars around for miles is also against the law.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Doesn't mean it's wrong, either. Crossing the street at a red light in the middle of the night with no cars around for miles is also against the law.

It most certainly is wrong as recasting of current models is directly harming GW; to use your analogy, you cross that street knowing that nobody is going to get harmed by you doing so (this would translate into making a recast of a model or component that is no longer being made solely for your own use). In the case of our OP (assuming he wasn't aware that this was a recasted model) it's more like trying to cross the street on a very foggy day - you reckon that the light on the other side is green based on what little you can see and hear, but when you cross, you realise it was actually a red light, and thus you realise you were putting yourself and others in danger.

 General Annoyance wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Doesn't mean it's wrong, either. Crossing the street at a red light in the middle of the night with no cars around for miles is also against the law.

It most certainly is wrong as recasting of current models is directly harming GW; to use your analogy, you cross that street knowing that nobody is going to get harmed by you doing so (this would translate into making a recast of a model or component that is no longer being made solely for your own use). In the case of our OP (assuming he wasn't aware that this was a recasted model) it's more like trying to cross the street on a very foggy day - you reckon that the light on the other side is green based on what little you can see and hear, but when you cross, you realise it was actually a red light, and thus you realise you were putting yourself and others in danger.

But you are not taking into account all factors

1: would the person buying the model have bought it from FW anyway? Such as I would never buy another FW model so it does not matter if there is a million or no recasts FW still will never get my money I hate them.

2: Reselling a army is the same as buying recast" You are not buying them from GW the money that was given to them for that army was used by the original owner, all other funds just increase the new owners pockets not GW. If you are on a high horse you should probably send GW a portion of all money that you give someone for rebuying their product. The recaster bought the model now is reselling it for money less then he paid same as army on discount. Also buying the models second hand of the internet insures you do not buy the models from GW insuring they lose a sale.

3: There is no proff that recasts harm the profit margin of any company" since they do sell their good to the two country's that are known for recasts.

You hate FW and say that they will never get your money, and yet you still buy a model designed by FW.
Yes, recasts hurt companies' profits. They send money to countries like China instead of FW. FW uses that money to create new content, and support their current content. Recasters are parasites.

OgreChubbs wrote:
1: would the person buying the model have bought it from FW anyway? Such as I would never buy another FW model so it does not matter if there is a million or no recasts FW still will never get my money I hate them.

That doesn't mean you can go away and buy a copy of the product elsewhere; such a viewpoint is the reason we have people who don't see any moral bankruptcy in recasting models.

2: Reselling a army is the same as buying recast" You are not buying them from GW the money that was given to them for that army was used by the original owner, all other funds just increase the new owners pockets not GW. If you are on a high horse you should probably send GW a portion of all money that you give someone for rebuying their product. The recaster bought the model now is reselling it for money less then he paid same as army on discount. Also buying the models second hand of the internet insures you do not buy the models from GW insuring they lose a sale.

Ha! You cannot be serious with this one. Business doesn't work like this - are all second hand car dealerships illegal traders now?

Selling a second hand army is not copyright infringement. Buying models to recast them to make profit off someone else's intellectual property most certainly is. I can't believe you need that explained.

3: There is no proff that recasts harm the profit margin of any company" since they do sell their good to the two country's that are known for recasts.

It doesn't matter where it's being sold - it still cuts GW out of potential sales from the IP that they own, not some git with a bottle of silicon and no moral standards.

Keeping in mind, of course, that Dakka Dakka in NO WAY supports the theft of anyone's IP, in any way.

In short - be sure to NOT illustrate ways to do this.

 General Annoyance wrote:

Ha! You cannot be serious with this one. Business doesn't work like this - are all second hand car dealerships illegal traders now?

No, but you can't deny that they cut into the profits of car manufacturers. So that's a poor argument to base a system of morality on.

But the original owner of the recast did indeed need to buy the model "like the person who was the original owner of the model you bought it from at a discount"

So you term of whats wrong is if the owner of the current model that sells it to you, still has a copy or not? Does this also extend to pieces of the original model? Such as If I buy a box of space wolves keep only the bolters and sell the rest?

So to break it down

Both buy the model from FW
One resell it for less then they bought it for
One walks away with money and is done the other spends more money, hundreds of dollars to make another for himself for his own use
The second owner keeps the one he made for personal use and sells the original, which makes it legit? There is no laws of making copy's of a product you bought for personal use.

Seems your moral compass is a bit mist-rude to a personal opinion based on on found facts.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
No, but you can't deny that they cut into the profits of car manufacturers. So that's a poor argument to base a system of morality on.

Actually you can, since A. The dealership is not making any additional units to sell to potential customers, and B. Most second hand cars will be inferior to what the manufacturer made either due to the condition they're in or simply because the manufacturer can keep up with the market by making cars that potential customers are looking for, which can make that second hand car a logically worse deal.

Whatever way, selling cars second hand is not an illegal practice. If such companies were making cars using the original manufacturer's schematics and specifications, then that's copyright infringement.

Okay, you seem to have serious issues with the concept of argument-counterargument so let's leave it at that.

OgreChubbs wrote:
But the original owner of the recast did indeed need to buy the model "like the person who was the original owner of the model you bought it from at a discount"

They could have stolen it for all you know. Either way, it doesn't matter - buying something does not validate copying it.

So you term of whats wrong is if the owner of the current model that sells it to you, still has a copy or not? Does this also extend to pieces of the original model? Such as If I buy a box of space wolves keep only the bolters and sell the rest?

Selling something second hand is not copyright infringement. Remaking that thing and then selling the copy to someone is.

So to break it down

Both buy the model from FW
One resell it for less then they bought it for
One walks away with money and is done the other spends more money, hundreds of dollars to make another for himself for his own use
The second owner keeps the one he made for personal use and sells the original, which makes it legit? There is no laws of making copy's of a product you bought for personal use.

I'm pretty sure there are laws saying that this is still copyright infringement; however, from a personal standpoint, I believe that making a recast of a model or component that is no longer made by that company, for personal use only, should be okay. The catch to this is that most people don't have the restraint to only cater to themselves once they realise they can make a quick buck from it, and that the problem here is clearly that someone is selling a recast on to the OP.

Seems your moral compass is a bit mist-rude to a personal opinion based on on found facts.

I actually don't know what this is meant to mean; mist-rude?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Okay, you seem to have serious issues with the concept of argument-counterargument so let's leave it at that.

How? Surely if you argue a point, I'm allowed to argue back?

Or you simply don't have a counter to the counter and are frustrated about it. Not my problem if that's the case.

 General Annoyance wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
But the original owner of the recast did indeed need to buy the model "like the person who was the original owner of the model you bought it from at a discount"

They could have stolen it for all you know. Either way, it doesn't matter - buying something does not validate copying it.

So you term of whats wrong is if the owner of the current model that sells it to you, still has a copy or not? Does this also extend to pieces of the original model? Such as If I buy a box of space wolves keep only the bolters and sell the rest?

Selling something second hand is not copyright infringement. Remaking that thing and then selling the copy to someone is.

So to break it down

Both buy the model from FW
One resell it for less then they bought it for
One walks away with money and is done the other spends more money, hundreds of dollars to make another for himself for his own use
The second owner keeps the one he made for personal use and sells the original, which makes it legit? There is no laws of making copy's of a product you bought for personal use.

I'm pretty sure there are laws saying that this is still copyright infringement; however, from a personal standpoint, I believe that making a recast of a model or component that is no longer made by that company, for personal use only, should be okay. The catch to this is that most people don't have the restraint to only cater to themselves once they realise they can make a quick buck from it, and that the problem here is clearly that someone is selling a recast on to the OP.

Seems your moral compass is a bit mist-rude to a personal opinion based on on found facts.

I actually don't know what this is meant to mean; mist-rude?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Okay, you seem to have serious issues with the concept of argument-counterargument so let's leave it at that.

How? Surely if you argue a point, I'm allowed to argue back?

Or you simply don't have a counter to the counter and are frustrated about it. Not my problem if that's the case.

I ment mistrude but it keeps saying it is not a real word and trying to "fix it" for me -_-.

But let us agree to disagree on this and move on. For you the line in the sand is if it is no longer being made it is ok to make copys and get Paid for the item. Where as in doing that to something that is still being made is not ok. But then you run into how long should IP last for? Can I copy some art and sell it because the artist is dead? Or is it a all or nothing world? Can I retape Michael Jacksons works and call them my own since they are no longer being made? Or is their more rough guide lines?


Also about his you do not have a counter argument point

I believe he is suggesting you do not have a counter point and are basing your arguments on your point of view rather then facts or in his opinion facts that validate a counter argument.

I.e. You are not a human you are a fish. Counter point I am indeed a human I meet all the criteria.
You are not a human you are a fish. Invalid counter point I am a human because I feel likes it.

OgreChubbs wrote:
I ment mistrude but it keeps saying it is not a real word and trying to "fix it" for me -_-.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up for me.

But let us agree to disagree on this and move on. For you the line in the sand is if it is no longer being made it is ok to make copys and get Paid for the item. Where as in doing that to something that is still being made is not ok

No, that is not what I said - you should never sell a recast to anybody (or even give them away) whether they are in production or not. Personal use is the grey area here; currently that is also copyright infringement, but I believe that there is the potential to argue that this behaviour is harmless when it involves components that cannot easily be bought or sourced.

But then you run into how long should IP last for? Can I copy some art and sell it because the artist is dead? Or is it a all or nothing world? Can I retape Michael Jacksons works and call them my own since they are no longer being made? Or is their more rough guide lines?

Was the song written and performed by Michael Jackson? If the answer is yes, and he still owns the royalties, then no you cannot. Obviously the royalties go to his family now, but royalties can last indefinitely.

Also about his you do not have a counter argument point

I believe he is suggesting you do not have a counter point and are basing your arguments on your point of view rather then facts or in his opinion facts that validate a counter argument.

This is called an argument - when someone puts forward their opinion/standpoint, backed up by facts when necessary to keep your argument a valid one. If he has a problem with that, then I'm afraid he doesn't understand how a discussion is meant to be undertaken.

And what facts do I need exactly? This is the law, in almost every country across the globe. Why are facts needed to make that clear that this is an illegal practice, as well as being morally bankrupt?

Facts needed would be

1: Proof there is harm to the person or company that supplied the original product
2: Proof that the person who sold the product was unaware it was recast
3: That the person buying it indeed knew it was a fake
4: That at any time the item was called "FW blah blah blah"
5 That this is indeed a recast "measurements size shape exct"
6: That this IP of this general shape plane was indeed stolen.
7: That the person selling it was the person who commit a crime if one was indeed made.
8: That they knew it was stolen ip or item "since you cant sell stole items with knowledge"
Thats all I got off the top of my head.

 General Annoyance wrote:


How? Surely if you argue a point, I'm allowed to argue back?

Or you simply don't have a counter to the counter and are frustrated about it. Not my problem if that's the case.

The issue is that you keep making "counters" that don't actually address the point, so they're not counters, they're new arguments. But you seem to believe a new, unrelated argument disproves the previous point. Bye now.

OgreChubbs wrote:
Facts needed would be

1: Proof there is harm to the person or company that supplied the original product

It's not about proof in this regard - whether GW loses one sale or a million, it's still an illegal practice. Besides, evidence for this harming GW's sales would be the simple fact that there is a demand for it, and that people buy these willingly.

2: Proof that the person who sold the product was unaware it was recast
3: That the person buying it indeed knew it was a fake

We don't know that, hence why I said earlier:

 General Annoyance wrote:
Let's not villainise people here before they have a chance to explain themselves.

4: That at any time the item was called "FW blah blah blah"

https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-GB/Xiphon-Pattern-Interceptor

5 That this is indeed a recast "measurements size shape exct"
6: That this IP of this general shape plane was indeed stolen.

https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-GB/Xiphon-Pattern-Interceptor
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Xiphon_Interceptor

Peregrine also was the one who claimed this was a recast; I don't own any FW kits so I don't know. Ask him how he knows if you want facts for that.

7: That the person selling it was the person who commit a crime if one was indeed made.
8: That they knew it was stolen ip or item "since you cant sell stole items with knowledge"
Thats all I got off the top of my head.

A crime was made, we just don't know who - there should still be some degree of responsibility levelled at the seller for not investigating the item before it was sold, whether they cast it or not.

And you also can't take a step back and go "well I didn't know that". Would be pretty easy to escape the law if that's all it takes to disregard a case.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
The issue is that you keep making "counters" that don't actually address the point, so they're not counters, they're new arguments. But you seem to believe a new, unrelated argument disproves the previous point. Bye now.

The point I'm trying to address is that this behaviour should not be condoned in any manner, nor can it be defended. I have no idea why you reacted the way you did to my last counter argument - the only explanation would be you don't know what else to add, or don't have a way to breakdown mine to make me see how I'm incorrect in the matter at hand.

To reiterate, I believe there is a grey area in recasting for personal use, that I'm sure has been discussed at length before. There is no such grey area for a recast of this nature, if that is what it is.

Also trying to drop an argument you started does not make you out to be the victor. By all means PM me if you'd prefer to discuss the topic there rather than here; personally I'd like to ditch this too, since we're very much off topic now.

This is the P&M forum.

This is, ostensibly, a thread about someone's Xiphon Interceptor?

Perhaps the other topics should go in their own thread, somewhere else, now?