Switch Theme:

Dakka & Piracy  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







It has been stated for a while that promoting pirating books, etc, is not permitted on Dakka - though I'll note that it isn't called out in the site rules as being against the rules.

I know I frequently see posts directing people to the likes of Wahapedia or Battlescribe instead of acquiring the rules content legitimately, and if/when I do call out this behaviour, I get called a White Knight for my troubles. Reporting posts which do promote this sort of activity doesn't appear to get any response from the moderating team, which is disappointing.

I've seen this view presented today, which seems to make a valid point:
 Gert wrote:
Because the mods don't enforce the rule against promoting piracy, why should anyone care?


I have a question, at this point.

Question - Could we get a reiteration of what Dakka's policy is regarding content piracy? (And, if it is against the rules, can this be added to the rules page?)

2021-4 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My Pile of Potential - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...

tneva82 wrote:
You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something... 
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





Isn't Wahapedia in some grey area of piracy because "game rules" aren't technically copyrightable, but "game themes" are?

So theoretically you could make a game that mirrors 40k, so long as you change the themes. However, the rules, units, stats, etc could all be copied from 40k (hashtag notlegaladvice).

Because of that, Wahapedia is less like piracy than uploading PDFs of the original books. I think it'd probably still be in trouble because it copies names and whatnot, but it's still more of a grey area than other forms of blatant piracy.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/02 22:58:34


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

I was under the impression that its "grey area" is the whole "lots of people find it useful" even if most would accept that it likely publishes so much information that it is in breach of copyright.

A Blog in Miniature

3D Printing, hobbying and model fun! 
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 Overread wrote:
I was under the impression that its "grey area" is the whole "lots of people find it useful" even if most would accept that it likely publishes so much information that it is in breach of copyright.


Nah, I think it's the idea that game rules and mechanics aren't copyrightable. There's been cases that were dismissed when one company tried to sue another for copying game mechanics while changing themes.

The symbols, names, art, and so on that make up the "theme" of the game is what's copyrightable, not the rules themselves. So definitely uploading a scan of an actual codex would be copyright infringement, but copying the text minus any fluff is maaaybe okay? (#notlegaladvice)

But Wahapedia definitely copies too much IMO to use that excuse, but I think that's where people come up with the idea that it's a grey area.

But I dunno, I personally don't use Wahapedia, I don't even play 40k any more so I also don't use the codices These days I stick to games that don't require hundreds of dollars of rules that get replaced damned near constantly




   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Overread wrote:
I was under the impression that its "grey area" is the whole "lots of people find it useful" even if most would accept that it likely publishes so much information that it is in breach of copyright.


Nah, I think it's the idea that game rules and mechanics aren't copyrightable.



This. Despite what all the armchair lawyers modding FB groups and white knighting for GW would lead you to believe, the info posted by Waha is not covered under US copyright law. Things may work differently in the UK.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

The specific wording of game rules is covered by copyright. The actual mechanics explained in that wording are not. So yes, at least so far as I understand it, it would be technically legal to publish a game using the exact same mechanics as 40K so long as you reworded everything. Wahapedia doesn't appear to do that - from a bit of a nose around, it's just a copy-paste of GW's books, and therefore its use should most certainly not be encouraged.

Battlescribe (and Army Builder before it) sits in more of a grey area. While it lets you build armies without a codex, it doesn't give you the full rules to play the game, and GW has traditionally not had a problem with it and both Army Builder and Battlescribe rosters have long been an accepted option for many tournaments.

So the TLDR version, at least from my take, would be - Battlescribe good, Wahapedia bad.

But we haven't discussed Wahapedia amongst the mod team as far as I can recall - it sort of slipped under the radar. I'll bring it up on the mod board for discussion.

 
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 insaniak wrote:
The specific wording of game rules is covered by copyright. The actual mechanics explained in that wording are not.
Are you sure on that? I did a google to refresh my memory before I made my post and couldn't find anything that said specific wordings were covered by copyright, only that "themes" were covered by copyright and rules themselves weren't. But if you have a reliable source you can reference, I'm happy to change my opinion.

I think the problem with Wahapedia would more so be that they copy "themes" in addition to rules, like, they clearly copy across terminology that would be trademarked, not just the rules.


   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
The specific wording of game rules is covered by copyright. The actual mechanics explained in that wording are not.
Are you sure on that? I did a google to refresh my memory before I made my post and couldn't find anything that said specific wordings were covered by copyright, only that "themes" were covered by copyright and rules themselves weren't. But if you have a reliable source you can reference, I'm happy to change my opinion.

I think the problem with Wahapedia would more so be that they copy "themes" in addition to rules, like, they clearly copy across terminology that would be trademarked, not just the rules.




I also haven't seen anywhere that says the actual wording of the rules is covered by copyright
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
The specific wording of game rules is covered by copyright. The actual mechanics explained in that wording are not.
Are you sure on that? I did a google to refresh my memory before I made my post and couldn't find anything that said specific wordings were covered by copyright, only that "themes" were covered by copyright and rules themselves weren't. But if you have a reliable source you can reference, I'm happy to change my opinion.


Copyright doesn't cover ideas. That's what patents are for. Copyright covers the expression of the idea. If you write something the copyright on it belongs to you.

So the written expression of the rule is covered by copyright. Specific terms within those rules could potentially be Trademarked (but aren't currently, so far as I'm aware), in which case they would be protected from being used by other authors in a similar context. The mechanic behind the rule would need to be patented in order to be protected.

 
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 insaniak wrote:
So the written expression of the rule is covered by copyright.


My understanding is that a raw statement of a rule would not be copyright the same way a raw statement of fact is not copyright.

So me writing "Roll a D6 to see if the attacking model hurts the defending model. Add the attacker's strength and subtract the defender's, if the result is greater than 3 the attack is a success"... that would not be protected by copyright because it's just the raw statement of a rule. If I then added some embellishment or examples or something, then it would become a unique expression rather than just a statement of a rule.

The same way saying "Joe Biden is president of the USA" is a statement that someone can copy/paste freely, but a newspaper article about how Joe Biden is president is protected by copyright.

Least that's my understanding.

Of course GW's rules are generally so poorly written that I typically wouldn't say they're a raw statement of the rule, they're usually some ambiguous mess written in 3 paragraphs when 2 sentenced would have sufficed.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/03 04:42:37


 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

Within US copyright law, the best analogy for it as far as I know is that rules can't be copyrighted. Games can. The whole rulebook for Codex: Adeptus Astartes enjoys copyright, as well as expressive elements of those rules. Things like artistic visual elements. The actual words are almost never protected except where they are expressive, like a piece of lore that mentions names, places, dates.

 insaniak wrote:
So the written expression of the rule is covered by copyright. Specific terms within those rules could potentially be Trademarked (but aren't currently, so far as I'm aware), in which case they would be protected from being used by other authors in a similar context. The mechanic behind the rule would need to be patented in order to be protected.


My understanding is that it's looser than that. For example, look at the rules for the 5th Edition DnD Barbarian (this is posted all over the internet).

Danger Sense

You have advantage on Dexterity saving throws against effects that you can see, such as traps and spells. To gain this benefit, you can't be blinded, deafened, or incapacitated.


Now insert a piece of flavor text in front of it.

Danger Sense

At 2nd level, you gain an uncanny sense of when things nearby aren't as they should be, giving you an edge when you dodge away from danger. You have advantage on Dexterity saving throws against effects that you can see, such as traps and spells. To gain this benefit, you can't be blinded, deafened, or incapacitated.


This is probably more trademark protected than copyright, but this 'rule' is more than just a rule. It contains references to another game mechanic specific to the game being played as well as expressive elements in the form of 'flavor.' There is protection for this rule to an extent because it's more than just a rule. Compare to the datasheet of a Space Marine Tactical squad on the other hand. The specific 'datasheet.' It has artistic elements, is arranged in a specific way, and expresses a specific collection of rules and mechanics that define how to play a squad of Space Marines. More often than not though these would probably be more protected by trademark than by copyright, as no one owns words and suing someone for copying your words is notoriously difficult even when they're verbatim (ask anyone plagerized by Stephen Ambrose).

Whether or not a company sues or issues C&D letters is much more complex than copyright/trademark alone. Wizards has generally allowed its published rules to be perpetuated across the internet and has instead sought to protect its core, campaign, setting, and lore books. There are numerous webapps and libraries that compile the game's rules. If Wizards wanted to stop that, they probably could. They don't because they've probably made an assessment that letting people trade in the rules is acceptable for their business. Certainly, it hasn't hurt book sales too much as far as I know.

But really this isn't really for Dakka to decide (copyright that is). I assume the mod team will make the choice that they think best protects the website, not debate the fine details of copyright law.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/05/04 19:35:23


   
Made in pl
Wicked Warp Spider





Any wording is expression of an idea. What is not copyrightable is the math level of the game - how things interact with each other at the most abstract level. So you can write a Not-really-40k rulebook that will have three step damage resolution on d6, but naming it "to hit, to wound, to save" is getting you closer to copyright infringement. But... you have to get really, really close to 40k to actually infringe copyright, as copyrightable works of art can be very close to each other.

But in the specific case of Wahapedia, there is no basis to build a case, that Wahapedia describes a game that uses the same mechanic as 40k, but is a different game. It has 40,000 name all over the place, and the ONLY "grey area" it is based on, is the total lack of respect for western copyright in Russia, now officially sanctioned by Russian law.
   
Made in gb
Junior Officer with Laspistol





The Shire(s)

What about OOP rules? Technically they are still covered under copyright, but in practice GW is no longer profiting from them. In this case, pirated material means hobby money is not being spent on second-hand books, and is actually more likely to be spent on GW proper. It is much less likely that GW would take issue with 3rd edition 40k rules being shared, for example.

I think it is worth clarifying anyway.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 Haighus wrote:
What about OOP rules? Technically they are still covered under copyright, but in practice GW is no longer profiting from them. In this case, pirated material means hobby money is not being spent on second-hand books, and is actually more likely to be spent on GW proper. It is much less likely that GW would take issue with 3rd edition 40k rules being shared, for example.

I think it is worth clarifying anyway.

Sharing out of print material online is still copyright infringement, unless it's old enough for the copyright to have expired.

 
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 insaniak wrote:
 Haighus wrote:
What about OOP rules? Technically they are still covered under copyright, but in practice GW is no longer profiting from them. In this case, pirated material means hobby money is not being spent on second-hand books, and is actually more likely to be spent on GW proper. It is much less likely that GW would take issue with 3rd edition 40k rules being shared, for example.

I think it is worth clarifying anyway.

Sharing out of print material online is still copyright infringement, unless it's old enough for the copyright to have expired.


It is still copyright infringement, though I have noticed GW seemed to have stopped pursuing people sharing PDFs of some of the old stuff.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
 Haighus wrote:
What about OOP rules? Technically they are still covered under copyright, but in practice GW is no longer profiting from them. In this case, pirated material means hobby money is not being spent on second-hand books, and is actually more likely to be spent on GW proper. It is much less likely that GW would take issue with 3rd edition 40k rules being shared, for example.

I think it is worth clarifying anyway.

Sharing out of print material online is still copyright infringement, unless it's old enough for the copyright to have expired.


It is still copyright infringement, though I have noticed GW seemed to have stopped pursuing people sharing PDFs of some of the old stuff.

Unlike with trademarks, I'm fairly sure you're not at risk of losing your copyright if you don't enforce it - but that doesn't mean infringements aren't taking place.

Insert "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer here...

2021-4 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My Pile of Potential - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...

tneva82 wrote:
You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something... 
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 Dysartes wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
 Haighus wrote:
What about OOP rules? Technically they are still covered under copyright, but in practice GW is no longer profiting from them. In this case, pirated material means hobby money is not being spent on second-hand books, and is actually more likely to be spent on GW proper. It is much less likely that GW would take issue with 3rd edition 40k rules being shared, for example.

I think it is worth clarifying anyway.

Sharing out of print material online is still copyright infringement, unless it's old enough for the copyright to have expired.


It is still copyright infringement, though I have noticed GW seemed to have stopped pursuing people sharing PDFs of some of the old stuff.

Unlike with trademarks, I'm fairly sure you're not at risk of losing your copyright if you don't enforce it - but that doesn't mean infringements aren't taking place.

Insert "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer here...


Yeah, as I said, it's still infringement, but from a practical and moral perspective if even GW are no longer bothering to send take downs for old army books.....



   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

A lot of companies in the age of the internet have found excessively litigation hurts them more than it helps them (Nintendo famously runs afoul of it every couple of years when they randomly start shutting down youtube channels about their games). GW and Harmony Gold were kind of outliers in an age of increasingly lenient schemes of property management.

MInd, the copyright holder is still the copyright holder. A lot of them are just kind of accepting the internet's realities and are finding their comfort zones inside it. What piracy they can or don't want to live with.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/05/07 13:09:05


   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 LordofHats wrote:
A lot of companies in the age of the internet have found excessively litigation hurts them more than it helps them....


Most hosting sites will just take things down if they get a copyright claim rather than waiting for it to go to litigation. The hosting sites generally don't want to go through litigation over something uploaded by some random person.

So if GW aren't taking down those assets when they get uploaded, I can only assume it either got too hard for them or they don't care all that much about them any more. Noting that I'm specifically talking about older OOP books only, I'm imagine they still care somewhat about the current books that they sell.

   
Made in us
Terrifying Doombull




AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
 Haighus wrote:
What about OOP rules? Technically they are still covered under copyright, but in practice GW is no longer profiting from them. In this case, pirated material means hobby money is not being spent on second-hand books, and is actually more likely to be spent on GW proper. It is much less likely that GW would take issue with 3rd edition 40k rules being shared, for example.

I think it is worth clarifying anyway.

Sharing out of print material online is still copyright infringement, unless it's old enough for the copyright to have expired.


It is still copyright infringement, though I have noticed GW seemed to have stopped pursuing people sharing PDFs of some of the old stuff.

Unlike with trademarks, I'm fairly sure you're not at risk of losing your copyright if you don't enforce it - but that doesn't mean infringements aren't taking place.

Insert "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer here...


Yeah, as I said, it's still infringement, but from a practical and moral perspective if even GW are no longer bothering to send take downs for old army books.....


Well, from a purely moral perspective, it isn't any different at all.
The only thing that's changed (if true) is GW (or whoever) is less likely to seek punishment, prevention or compensation for the offense, because it isn't worth their time/money to pursue it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/08 04:02:41


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





Voss wrote:
Well, from a purely moral perspective, it isn't any different at all.
I disagree, because once they're no longer selling the book the link between piracy and lost revenue goes from tenuous to non-existent, and if they're not pursuing take downs on copyright infringement of OOP products it shows at least some indication that GW themselves no longer care.

   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Voss wrote:
Well, from a purely moral perspective, it isn't any different at all.
I disagree, because once they're no longer selling the book the link between piracy and lost revenue goes from tenuous to non-existent,...

Not really. The claim can be made that if you're pirating the old material, you're quite possibly doing that instead of buying the new stuff.

There's also the idea that, as the IP owner, they should have the right to say what material is and isn't for sale. If the owner of something doesn't want to sell it to you, that doesn't make it ok to use illegal means to get it anyway. The 'moral' option in that case (IMO) is to respect the owner's rights on whether or not to sell the thing they own... or to use a different legal option to obtain it.

 
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 insaniak wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Voss wrote:
Well, from a purely moral perspective, it isn't any different at all.
I disagree, because once they're no longer selling the book the link between piracy and lost revenue goes from tenuous to non-existent,...

Not really. The claim can be made that if you're pirating the old material, you're quite possibly doing that instead of buying the new stuff.


Ok, I'll cede "from tenuous to non-existent" and downgrade to "from tenuous to really really tenuous"

I'd argue that the instances of that are insignificantly small.

There's also the idea that, as the IP owner, they should have the right to say what material is and isn't for sale. If the owner of something doesn't want to sell it to you, that doesn't make it ok to use illegal means to get it anyway. The 'moral' option in that case (IMO) is to respect the owner's rights on whether or not to sell the thing they own... or to use a different legal option to obtain it.


I think this is where it becomes debatable.

What you said is one side, that the creator has the moral right to control the material, perhaps for some fixed amount of time or perhaps ad infinitum.

The other extreme (and I'm not saying I fully agree with this sentiment) is that once something is released, it is released, and the natural state of affairs is that it becomes free use for the betterment of mankind and the creator can make what they make from its release rather than continuing to control it thereafter. In this view, copyright law imposes an unnatural barrier to that freedom in order to benefit creators to ensure they can make money from it for some period of time, but once they stop attempting to make money from said material it simply becomes a barrier to the natural state of affairs.

In one instance, the creator is the arbiter of all they create, in the other the creator accepts that to release something is to cede control of it.

My opinion tends to lie somewhere in the middle, where copyright law as it exists today may have had the intention of encouraging the creation of works I think it's become a tool primarily of wealthy corporations to exert an influence beyond what is good and actual creators typically earn less than their dues.

In this specific case, that GW aren't even pursuing take downs of OOP copyright materials makes me feel that regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, GW themselves have ceded control of those works. Maybe if they plan on releasing another version of WHFB or Warmaster or BFG or whatever they'll start exerting themselves again to get older publications removed from sharing sites.

An analogy (perhaps flawed in too many ways to be useful) is stealing something from someone's home verses taking something from the trash pile outside their house.


But yeah, clearly the law that exists is as it exists and this is more discussing "should you feel bad for doing X?" and "should the laws maybe be different?".

Personally I've never bought into the idea that 1 download = 1 lost sale, or even 1000 downloads = 1 lost sale. If people have the desire to buy something and the means to buy something, I think they'll do so, and it's only when they don't that they really start looking towards piratical means. When that's extrapolated to OOP materials that the creator doesn't seem to have any interest in releasing again, my level of caring about piracy drops to barely measurable values.
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

In the immortal words of Gabe Newell, piracy is a service problem.

EDIT: This underlying mentality may well have been part of Wizard's motivation to recently acquire the company behind DnD Beyond. The website has seriously taken off but as a separate entity it was always a bit awkward, especially with many fans asking for physical books to start coming with digital redemption codes applicable to the many online tools and systems they've taken to using. I'd put good money that Wizards plans to more closely integrate DnD Beyond into their release model, adapting themselves more closely to how their customers are operating on the internet.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/05/09 04:57:10


   
Made in gb
Junior Officer with Laspistol





The Shire(s)

 insaniak wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Voss wrote:
Well, from a purely moral perspective, it isn't any different at all.
I disagree, because once they're no longer selling the book the link between piracy and lost revenue goes from tenuous to non-existent,...

Not really. The claim can be made that if you're pirating the old material, you're quite possibly doing that instead of buying the new stuff.

This... has got to be vanishingly rare.

Most people have a limited hobby budget.

People like MDG have spent a lot of time and money buying second-hand 2nd edition 40k rulebooks and army books. Not a penny of that goes to GW, the copyright holder- they have already made as much as they ever will from the release of those books.

If those books were obtained for free, there is a much higher chance that budget will be spent on current GW models to use with those books.

The number of people who don't buy a current GW book to pirate an ancient GW book and then don't spend that money on GW anyway OR who would have been willing to buy the current book if no old pirated books were available... sounds pretty niche

 ChargerIIC wrote:
If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







 insaniak wrote:
I'll bring it up on the mod board for discussion.

Morning insaniak - just wondering if there was any update on outcomes from the mod discussion on this topic?

2021-4 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My Pile of Potential - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...

tneva82 wrote:
You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something... 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






I think the grey area results because due to the labyrinth of codex, supplements, campaign books, chapter approved, and digital updates, many of which are out of stock or out of print. There's no official guide for this stuff, to the point where a player can actually have trouble knowing what the full rules for their army even are, let alone tracking down all of the individual elements. It is a grey area because people who make good faith efforts to buy the content still need Waha as a reference to play the game in a practical manner.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in gb
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps





Probably unrelated but I assume we are allowed to give away codex codes? I see people do it on Reddit, never done it myself because I don't ever have them but I did buy recent CK box with book included.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think the grey area results because due to the labyrinth of codex, supplements, campaign books, chapter approved, and digital updates, many of which are out of stock or out of print. There's no official guide for this stuff, to the point where a player can actually have trouble knowing what the full rules for their army even are, let alone tracking down all of the individual elements. It is a grey area because people who make good faith efforts to buy the content still need Waha as a reference to play the game in a practical manner.

No official guide for what's legal in 40k... other than the Content Validity Update document, which I believe is currently up-to-date (well, at least until the next WD releases, anyway)?

2021-4 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My Pile of Potential - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...

tneva82 wrote:
You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something... 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 Dysartes wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think the grey area results because due to the labyrinth of codex, supplements, campaign books, chapter approved, and digital updates, many of which are out of stock or out of print. There's no official guide for this stuff, to the point where a player can actually have trouble knowing what the full rules for their army even are, let alone tracking down all of the individual elements. It is a grey area because people who make good faith efforts to buy the content still need Waha as a reference to play the game in a practical manner.

No official guide for what's legal in 40k... other than the Content Validity Update document, which I believe is currently up-to-date (well, at least until the next WD releases, anyway)?
Ah, I was unclear. I meant in the sense of 'I play X army, which publications do I need?' Obviously one can cross-reference the validity document with which publications contain rules, but I wouldn't say that qualifies as a guide.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
 
Forum Index » Nuts & Bolts
Go to: