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.

Excuse me if this is a stupid question, but I'm really inexperienced regarding copyright and intellectual property laws and want to be sure. I would like to try and kitbash a AoS Bastillodon body with the howda of the Stegadon and a human crew as WH40k Centaur Carrier stand in. Obviously I won't need >50% of both kits parts. I know that there are a variety of sites selling separate bits of official, non recasted GW models and I assume I could puzzle together everything I need for my project for much less than the 96€ both kits would cost me. But I want to "keep it clean" so does anybody know GWs position/the law regarding the buy and use of single parts?

It's perfectly legal, no need to waste your money.

There's nothing illegal about selling GW bits - indeed it happens all the time. GW did change their legal agreement so that retailers who buy stock direct from GW cannot then legally break those kits up; however that's purely the shop being unable to buy GW stock at a discount and then break it up. Nothing stops them buying kits at full retail from GW (or buying kits from other legal sources).

The only time it would be an issue would be if a store was recasting the parts themselves.




The only gamer issue to be aware of is that GW stores and events (not all events are sponsored by GW) will require you to use only GW parts. However there is some wriggling room here. For example one head here or there are unlikely to get contested. OF course it varies from store to store - some managers are very lax and others are far stricter about it.


That siad for what you want you shouldn't have any problems what so ever.

Look up the definition of first sale. Gw have made their money.. Why would they care what happens after that?

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Look up the definition of first sale. Gw have made their money.. Why would they care what happens after that?

You'd think that, but GW will actually pull direct sale if they get wind that a shop is breaking up their kits to sell the bits.

Not that it's illegal or anything, of course. But GW does seem to care what happens after they make their money.

Just ask them.

catbarf wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Look up the definition of first sale. Gw have made their money.. Why would they care what happens after that?

You'd think that, but GW will actually pull direct sale if they get wind that a shop is breaking up their kits to sell the bits.

Not that it's illegal or anything, of course. But GW does seem to care what happens after they make their money.

Its not illegal but may be in violation of their contract. Plus, bits sellers can theoretically have a direct negative impact on sales. For example.

When building my Deathwatch units, ie, 25 models, I used pieces from about 30 different space marine kits. Ranging from Tactical, to Veterans, to Deathwatch vets, terminators, grey knights, blood angels,space wolves, dark angels, BT, Orks, Mk4 armour, T-Sons, and more. I think they are my most expensive army by far costing well over £10 per model, and I bought all parts from a bits reseller. If I had bought each kit for each part, GW would have easily made ovee £200 from me. As it stands they made £15 for the SW upgrade kit. I would have also probably started at least 1 DA, BA, SW or BT army or expanded my existing SM or GKs. I didnt.

For my Ork army, I have more than enough leftover parts to expand my 2x 20 Mob Boyz to 30 Boyz if I buy 19 sets of legs and torsos, as I already have heads and arms. That's £20 to a bits reseller instead of £40 to GW for 2 new kits, plus no more useless leftover bits.

I buy GW bits all the time from ebay bit sellers. Totally legal, and totally moral. If you dont need all those extra bits that come in a typical GW kit, you shouldn't be made to pay for them.

My friend has a catalogue from back when Games Workshop itself sold bits, and it makes me drool, then want to cry that GW no longer does this at it is a much cooler way to build an army than to rely on the gear that either is or is not in any particular sprue box.

Devastators and Havocs would be the perfect example. If you want a squad with 4 lascannons, you shouldn't need to buy multiple boxes to gather the parts, and then end up with bits you never wanted and dont need (but it is cool and useful to pile up bits that come in handy later, I admit).

Anyways, the business model kinda seems like cable TV. You pay for 100 channels when you only want 3.

I would prefer a smorgasbord model, so since that is not available, I use ebay.

Murphy1979 wrote:


Devastators and Havocs would be the perfect example. If you want a squad with 4 lascannons, you shouldn't need to buy multiple boxes to gather the parts, and then end up with bits you never wanted and dont need (but it is cool and useful to pile up bits that come in handy later, I admit).

No offence, but why? GW aren't telling you that you have to have four of the same heavy weapon to field the unit, or that you have to be WYSIWYG, that's ultimately just your personal preference. Having four lascannons would almost certainly be more effective, but I'm not sure I see what that has to do with GW's responsibilities, or why you "shouldn't need to".

It's pretty simple logic.

If I want HBO and The Weather Channel, I shouldn't have to pay for 100 other channels just to get the two that I want.

Likewise, if I want 4 Devastatora with Lascannons, I shouldn't have to pay for 10 other weapons to get the four that I want.

GW knows that bit-by-bit is a cool way to build an army. They used to provide exactly that service.

Murphy1979 wrote:
It's pretty simple logic.

If I want HBO and The Weather Channel, I shouldn't have to pay for 100 other channels just to get the two that I want.

Likewise, if I want 4 Devastatora with Lascannons, I shouldn't have to pay for 10 other weapons to get the four that I want.

GW knows that bit-by-bit is a cool way to build an army. They used to provide exactly that service.

The logic may be simple, but the analogy doesn't work.

You haven't explained why GW should be obligated to provide four of each weapon in the box, just because you happen to want four of a kind. As I said, GW neither prevents you from fielding a mix of weapons, nor do they insist in the rules that you can't simply state that all the Havocs are lascannons, regardless of what weapon is modelled.

 harlokin wrote:

Murphy1979 wrote:
It's pretty simple logic.

If I want HBO and The Weather Channel, I shouldn't have to pay for 100 other channels just to get the two that I want.

Likewise, if I want 4 Devastatora with Lascannons, I shouldn't have to pay for 10 other weapons to get the four that I want.

GW knows that bit-by-bit is a cool way to build an army. They used to provide exactly that service.

The logic may be simple, but the analogy doesn't work.

You haven't explained why GW should be obligated to provide four of each weapon in the box, just because you happen to want four of a kind. As I said, GW neither prevents you from fielding a mix of weapons, nor do they insist in the rules that you can't simply state that all the Havocs are lascannons, regardless of what weapon is modelled.

Previous additions had WYSIWYG down as a rule, and while no longer enforced by GW themselves, GW's growing support for third-party tournaments and enforcement of WYSIWYG there means they know of that that rule is still for the majority in effect. While not legally obligated to supply you with all weapon options, GW also know that only supplying a small number of the total options will encourage players to buy two or more kits in order to get the maximum effectiveness out of their units, for example, four rotor cannon Havocs. Its somewhat unethical business practice to use these sneaky tactics to encourage extra sales. It would be like, for example, a video game releasing a new powerful upgrade (say, for example, 2x Health bonus) but cost £4.99. Then they make it stackable so that players who pay £4.99 three times get double, quadruple, octuple health, vs those players who only paid once, or not at all. It creates a pay to win system, in some regards, where the guy who pays the most for his units gets the best units where those who are only willing to buy one box must settle for a sub-optimal unit.

Another example might be only given one set of options for a unit that can all take them. For example, same it was the Primaris Aggressors with only 1 set of Flamestorm gauntlets in the box, despite the entire unit being able to take the upgrade, forcing players to buy 3 boxes in order to field 3 Flamestorm aggressors (and then 6 boltstorm).

What Deadshot said.

Plus it's not an argument, it's just a preference. There are certaonly advantages to getting boxes. You get extra bits you can use later.

But I would simply prefer to order the bits I want.

And we have some house rules: 100% WYSIWIG down to bolt pistols and grenades...if it's not on your model, he doesnt have it. And all models must be painted better than base coat to table.

I wholeheartedly endorse both house rules.

Murphy1979 wrote:
What Deadshot said.

Plus it's not an argument, it's just a preference. There are certaonly advantages to getting boxes. You get extra bits you can use later.

But I would simply prefer to order the bits I want.

And we have some house rules: 100% WYSIWIG down to bolt pistols and grenades...if it's not on your model, he doesnt have it. And all models must be painted better than base coat to table.

I wholeheartedly endorse both house rules.

Bit of a different argument, but against that side of things. I personally don't put grenades and holstered pistols on all my marines. It looks cluttered and messy on some models, especially characters. Plus, units are balanced based on default wargear. SM are balanced on the basis they will get 2 Bolter and 1 Pistol shot at 12" or Overwatch. Downcosting them would be messy, and unbalanced. Also, the current "tabletop" standard or battleready standard would have been parade-ready standard 10 years ago, and the current parade ready will be barely tabletop in 10 years as talents and techniques develop. An arbitrary measure of painting skill is unnecessary gatekeeping in a hobby that needs it not. But that's highly offtopic here so if you want to discuss further PM me.

 Deadshot wrote:


Previous additions had WYSIWYG down as a rule, and while no longer enforced by GW themselves, GW's growing support for third-party tournaments and enforcement of WYSIWYG there means they know of that that rule is still for the majority in effect. While not legally obligated to supply you with all weapon options, GW also know that only supplying a small number of the total options will encourage players to buy two or more kits in order to get the maximum effectiveness out of their units, for example, four rotor cannon Havocs. Its somewhat unethical business practice to use these sneaky tactics to encourage extra sales. It would be like, for example, a video game releasing a new powerful upgrade (say, for example, 2x Health bonus) but cost £4.99. Then they make it stackable so that players who pay £4.99 three times get double, quadruple, octuple health, vs those players who only paid once, or not at all. It creates a pay to win system, in some regards, where the guy who pays the most for his units gets the best units where those who are only willing to buy one box must settle for a sub-optimal unit.

Another example might be only given one set of options for a unit that can all take them. For example, same it was the Primaris Aggressors with only 1 set of Flamestorm gauntlets in the box, despite the entire unit being able to take the upgrade, forcing players to buy 3 boxes in order to field 3 Flamestorm aggressors (and then 6 boltstorm).

True, you make some good points.

No need to PM, they are not even my rules, I just agree with them. We do give leeway for standard things like grenades and bolt pistols, what I said was an overstatement. But we certainly dont let a missile launcher stand in for a lascannon. The game gets too confusing.

But I do myself go 100$ WYSIWIG to include standard gear like bolt pistols and grenades, as do most of.my gaming buddies. I hear what your saying about model clutter, but it can be done tastefully and subtly, and many if not most HQ models come WYSIWIG anyways.

As far as painting goes, we are nowhere closed to being snobs. I myself am no great painter. We just want the models to be painted at least more than one color, with no quality requirements at all.

Anyways these are just our particular house rules and preferences, and not meant to be fodder for argumentation.

I agree that gee dubs should do a bits service, but then I think if it would be profitable, they would, so it can't be.

Hopefully we can calm down with the battered wife and hostility stuff.

Think of it this way harlin. Let's say your going to buy some nails for a roofing project. You only need roofing nails. You go to the hardware store, and all they are selling is those combo packs that have roofing nails, but also common nails, wire nails, finishing nails, big nails, small nails etc.

But all you wanted was roofing nails. You'd be a little aggrieved that you had to buy 5 other kinds of nails just to get your roofing nails.

I think that's a better analogy than the Cable TV one I used earlier.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I agree that gee dubs should do a bits service, but then I think if it would be profitable, they would, so it can't be.

It's probably just not AS profitable as selling boxed kits. And they are a public company, I believe, so have an obligation to maximize profit.

It is a better analogy, and I basically agree with you, I'm just not sure what the middle ground reasonable solution is.

I could certainly see GW, if forced into a corner, removing customisation altogether rather than going into the bits business themselves.

From my experience with Drukhari, GW removed the option of equipping an Archon with a Blaster on the basis that the bit didn't come with the model. Meanwhile they continued to allow it to be equipped with a Blast Pistol, which similarly doesn't come with the kit....

 harlokin wrote:
It is a better analogy, and I basically agree with you, I'm just not sure what the middle ground reasonable solution is.

I could certainly see GW, if forced into a corner, removing customisation altogether rather than going into the bits business themselves.

From my experience with Drukhari, GW removed the option of equipping an Archon with a Blaster on the basis that the bit didn't come with the model. Meanwhile they continued to allow it to be equipped with a Blast Pistol, which similarly doesn't come with the kit....

I dont know what a business solution would be for GW, nor care much, but this is the status quo as far as my habits.

I am currently building a small Black Legion force, and I wanted 3 Havoc squads available for Heavy Support. I only want lascannons and missile launchers, so I went to ebay and bought some old school Chaos Space Marines, then went to Bits of War and got 6 cool underslung lascannons and 6 cool underslung missile launchers.

It wasnt even exactly cheap, but it was way cheaper than buying 3 or more boxes of Havocs I would have needed to get 6 lascannons and 6 missile launchers on the board...3 boxes is $150!!

The way I see it, GW is actually forcing me to go to third party bits producers/vendors. I cant in good conscious waste upwards of $100 on a project like my Black Legion Havoc squads.

(sorry if any references are dated, I dont play 8th)

 harlokin wrote:
It is a better analogy, and I basically agree with you, I'm just not sure what the middle ground reasonable solution is.

I could certainly see GW, if forced into a corner, removing customisation altogether rather than going into the bits business themselves.

From my experience with Drukhari, GW removed the option of equipping an Archon with a Blaster on the basis that the bit didn't come with the model. Meanwhile they continued to allow it to be equipped with a Blast Pistol, which similarly doesn't come with the kit....

There is unfortunately no middle ground. GW are a model company producing models to be models. The games that people play with them are, in all way shapes and forms, a convenient marketing tool for GW, as it provides incentive to customers to buy more models. The fact that it can be used to play games encourages players to find the most powerful combinations and strategies available. That is the nature of games - the aim is to win. GW have made small steps towards balancing this by lowering customisation, both in terms of weapon options and in terms of no longer promoting conversions and "Your Dudes." The gaming is their main marketing strategy and they have to preserve it. The way to do that is to cater to gaming, and reducing the variables, such as wargear and model profiles (physical form, not statline), helps with this. For example, the new Primaris Kayvaan Shrike model is posed a good 2 inches off the ground on a piece of rubble. While it looks cooler to have him on the ground, his rules, points costs and stats are balanced around this. If you were to model him on the floor, while cooler, it would make him inherently unbalanced gamewise.

Similarly, if you have 5 different options for a given model, say an Archon, it makes him harder to balance as there are now 5 to 25 potential combinations, which must all be fairly equal, to address. Reducing him to 2 options means there are 2-4, or maybe just 2 (say, Sword and Pistol or Sword and Whip).




THe issue with going into the bitz business, as Murphy1979 says, they have an obligation to their stockholders to maximise profits, and if they choose something that would negatively impact their profits in favour of supporting gamers, their investors and stockholders may easily, readily and definitely will withdraw their stock, which costs people's jobs and quality of product. While it would be great for us if GW sold bits individually, this would mean they would need a set of sprues set aside especially for doing so. Even then, as with other bits sellers, there would also be a surplus of certain things, such as arms and heads, and greater demand for legs, weapons and unique parts. A seller I use, Bits and Kits, almost always has surplus of SM shoulder pads and front torso sections, but legs sell out insanely quickly. Hive Tyrant torsos and hip joints are never in stock because everyone who's everyone buys that part so they can make a second Tyrant out of their GW box.

What that means is that instead of, say, selling a full Hive Tyrant kit for £35.00, GW will keep a set of sprues aside for bits selling. If they can sell all the bits, that works out, but they won't. The customer base for those bits are people who own one kit, and want to put the spare legs, weapons, head and tail to use with a second torso. Meaning GW now have 1 spare set of heads and weapons they won't sell, meaning wasted production costs, wasted packaging and shipping costs, while Customer A now has 2 Tyrants, having paid £35 + £8 for another torso, while Customer B has two Tyrants, having paid £35 for one Tyrant and £35 for a second Tyrant.

If GW want to do a bits service like they used to signed me up!
Theres planty things id buy for conversions. But if they don't want to deliver that service they can feth off on where I buy my bits from lol.

The only issue I would see form a legal standpoint is if you were planning on using copyrighted images/emblems (like the quila, specific orc iconography faction logogs etc.) and sell bits/minatres with those same emblems/design as that would be directly ripping off GW copyrighted art.

Murphy1979 wrote:
Hopefully we can calm down with the battered wife and hostility stuff.

Think of it this way harlin. Let's say your going to buy some nails for a roofing project. You only need roofing nails. You go to the hardware store, and all they are selling is those combo packs that have roofing nails, but also common nails, wire nails, finishing nails, big nails, small nails etc.

But all you wanted was roofing nails. You'd be a little aggrieved that you had to buy 5 other kinds of nails just to get your roofing nails.

I think that's a better analogy than the Cable TV one I used earlier.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I agree that gee dubs should do a bits service, but then I think if it would be profitable, they would, so it can't be.

It's probably just not AS profitable as selling boxed kits. And they are a public company, I believe, so have an obligation to maximize profit.

There is no legal requirement that a company maximise profits, both in the UK and US law.

Not a legal obligation, perhaps, but an obligation nonetheless.

Shareholders want money

Under Section 172 of the UK’s 2006 Companies Act, company directors merely have a legal duty to promote the success of their company.

Specifically, directors are required:

“to have regard to the likely consequences of any decision in the long term;

the interests of the company’s employees;

the need to foster the company’s business relationships with suppliers, customers and others;

the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment;

the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct; and

the need to act fairly as between members of the company.”

Nothing about maximising profits, or even shareholders. I gues you could say they fit in the 'others' bit, but its a stretch.

I'm saying this because I often hear it touted as some kind of excuse for GW/FWs atrocious pricing policies, but its false. This is of course the UKs legislation. I'm not 100% on US law, but I believe its similar. it seems to have been an extremely cunning tactic from company executives and CEOs through recent history to inject this notion into the corporate zeitgeist in order to use less savoury practices in the name of driving profits for their own benefit.