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.

WW2 was a popular genre in 1/72 and in 6mm decades before Flames of War was thought of.

Battlefront's clever idea was to make a game similar to 40K, which helped 40K players to move into it, and to make their own models in 15mm. This was a new scale for WW2 at the time. People used to use 1/72 scale and 20mm models for WW2.

This 15mm scale established the BF models as the "official" ones but, as noted above, it's impossible to prevent competing companies from making 15mm models.

@ Infinite Array

To answer your question from the other thread...

I agree entirely that it is not common in historical gaming, but as I pointed out the traditional model was not for the rules to be tied in tightly with the manufacturer. This is changing, for instance it makes no sense that Force on Force have an official figure range, other than to direct new players towards those figures.

In the case of Warlord I was thinking about the Bolt Action range and the new set of Preistley/Cavatore rules they are bringing out.

Makarov wrote:
GW is currently suing army builder.

No they aren't. GW have asked that all GW related files be removed from a AB data file hosting site, they have been and all the files were simply moved to a different site. AB itself hasn't been contacted by GW and since the GW specific data files are all made by private individuals (not Lone Wolf) that just happen to be used with Amry Builder software there really isn't anything that GW could realistically do to AB anyway.

As the Chapterhouse Studios lawsuit has turned out to be not quite as easy (to say the least) as GW originally hoped they are not likely to be so quick to use the lawyer card in the future.

'Pete, John Mathews and I have been discussing the issue these past few hours and realise that making a rushed decision today will not benefit anyone. We have consensus from all three of us, the BF board, that we will change our stance on this issue but will not be able to finalise exactly what that means today as it is already 4.30pm here and 12.30am on the east coast.

We will convene again first thing in the morning to put in writing our formal reply and will post it on the website. We do appreciate the constructive feedback and have definitely listened to what is being said. We have proved in the past many times that we can accept feedback and change our plans as only a fool does not listen to their supporters so thank you and enjoy the rest of the weekend. I am off to get an aspirin and a cup of tea.' JP at BF, Credit where credit is due, they have taken note and are acting...but what action?

If Flames Of War is not creating our own IP I dont know what is

Well, that second part is true; he definitely doesn't know what "creating your own IP" is.

Unless FoW has its own unique fictional characters that they created, then maybe it qualifies, but I'm pretty sure it does not.

RatBot wrote:

Unless FoW has its own unique fictional characters that they created, then maybe it qualifies, but I'm pretty sure it does not.

It does, at least one of its 'warriors' are fictional (the 6pdr gunner). Not that makes any difference at all though

Given their elastic attitude to historical accuracy, maybe they are going to claim that what they are actually producing is a 'Slightly-Off Weird War 2' game?

'In OUR IP, the British never invented any ammunition to penetrate german armour, and every single kampfgruppe was made up entirely of Panthers. Thus we claim copyright on our wrongness.'

I've got no argument with a rules writer also making models that are the "official" models for his rules.

If the genre is an historical one, only n00bs would be taken in.

I think that's what Battle Front are relying on.

ancientsociety wrote:

makarov wrote:
-Allow older force lists to still be legal
And makes their newer ones better.
In other games most of the older lists are rendered illegal once a newer one comes out.

Older lists are only "legal" in the sense that you can still use them in casual games when opposed by a similar "old list" or with opponent's consent. They are not tournament legal.

I'd like to point out that I was playing 15mm WW2 YEARS before BF existed, anybody remember Crossfire, Squad Leader etc.

As to the point about free PDF lists on they're site, have you noticed that they disappear just before a book comes out?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Two new things from Mr. Foot in mouth up on the site:

Wow obviously trying to actually respond to this and have even five mins to think about any kind of response is just not possible.

I have 43 more abuse emails and have just read that some people who know some people are accusing sales staff of doing bad things, we are negotiating deals heard from somebody else who knows somebody and a great deal of english correction going on.

I have now locked seven threads so that I can respond and not just keep watching more and more people be rude to each other over an issue that is ours to resolve. In the modern world web animosity is a killer disease and has made people brave and rude when in person they would not have the courage to even speak up.

I will post a repsonse on a new thread later today.

So its "Say that to my face!" time now?

And this:

Pete, John Mathews and I have been discussing the issue these past few hours and realise that making a rushed decision today will not benefit anyone. We have consensus from all three of us, the BF board, that we will change our stance on this issue but will not be able to finalise exactly what that means today as it is already 4.30pm here and 12.30am on the east coast.

We will convene again first thing in the morning to put in writing our formal reply and will post it on the website. We do appreciate the constructive feedback and have definitely listened to what is being said. We have proved in the past many times that we can accept feedback and change our plans as only a fool does not listen to their supporters so thank you and enjoy the rest of the weekend. I am off to get an aspirin and a cup of tea

So a climb down of some sorts incoming, I'm going to bet its not a complete climbdown though..................

Hordini wrote:

ancientsociety wrote:

makarov wrote:
-Allow older force lists to still be legal
And makes their newer ones better.
In other games most of the older lists are rendered illegal once a newer one comes out.

Older lists are only "legal" in the sense that you can still use them in casual games when opposed by a similar "old list" or with opponent's consent. They are not tournament legal.

This is false. All of the lists in the older books are completely tournament legal. As has been said, they might not be very effective due to points adjustments in the newer books (although that often depends on the list), they are all still completely valid for tournaments and do not require your opponent's consent.

Not from what I've been told by local tourny organizers. I've never run a FOW tourny myself though, so I'm more than willing to concede the point.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Given their elastic attitude to historical accuracy, maybe they are going to claim that what they are actually producing is a 'Slightly-Off Weird War 2' game?

'In OUR IP, the British never invented any ammunition to penetrate german armour, and every single kampfgruppe was made up entirely of Panthers. Thus we claim copyright on our wrongness.'

Well, it seems that they are coming out with an Operation Sea Lion book, so, though it is based on historical plans, they could say that any "history" they write about the fictional invasion is their own IP.

Nah all been done before, dozens of what if books out there on that subject.

Aldramelech wrote:Nah all been done before, dozens of what if books out there on that subject.

I mean they could try to claim IP over the specific events and characters in their "what if" book.

Operation Sea Lion book?

So no German landing craft, Rhine barges sinking in the English Channel and the Luftwaffe shot to bits while the Royal Navy sinks everything... Not too mention the lack of Fallschirmjager due to losses in men and aircraft.

Oh and if they do get ashore, dont forget the flame projectors and mustard gas...

Oh and throw in a complete lack of German amphibious landing experience and doctrine... Look at the disaster in Norway.

There was a reason the Germans cancelled it... Cos it would never work. They knew that from the start.

I may buy that book just to have a good giggle at it.

Big P wrote:Operation Sea Lion book?

So no German landing craft, Rhine barges sinking in the English Channel and the Luftwaffe shot to bits while the Royal Navy sinks everything... Not too mention the lack of Fallschirmjager due to losses in men and aircraft.

Oh and if they do get ashore, dont forget the flame projectors and mustard gas...

Oh and throw in a complete lack of German amphibious landing experience and doctrine... Look at the disaster in Norway.

There was a reason the Germans cancelled it... Cos it would never work. They knew that from the start.

I may buy that book just to have a good giggle at it.

I think that this book comes from the success of the WWPD Operation Sea Lion Campaign. They will probably play around with past historic events to make it seems a little more plausible, like having the Battle of Britain have gone in Germany's favor in this alternate history or something.

I see what your saying but I don't see how they would be able to claim IP when there are dozens of fictional books and what if semi history books on the subject, they would have to go seriously out of step with history to achieve that..........Wait this is BF, WTF was I thinking?

Needs a bit more than losing BoB mate...


There is a thing called the English Channel in the way, patrolled by a Navy that would happily sacrifice itself to defend GB.

And to that a complete lack of German amphibious doctrine and its not playing around with past historical events, its utterly changing them to a degree that it is utterly implassible.

the you have the weather and sea currents to call into effect! Not too mention german logistics!

All the Sandhurst wargames of Sealion ended in German disaster. it just couldnt work during the 1940 window of opportunity.

Big P wrote:Operation Sea Lion book?

So no German landing craft, Rhine barges sinking in the English Channel and the Luftwaffe shot to bits while the Royal Navy sinks everything... Not too mention the lack of Fallschirmjager due to losses in men and aircraft.

Oh and if they do get ashore, dont forget the flame projectors and mustard gas...

Oh and throw in a complete lack of German amphibious landing experience and doctrine... Look at the disaster in Norway.

There was a reason the Germans cancelled it... Cos it would never work. They knew that from the start.

I may buy that book just to have a good giggle at it.

Perhaps it will be set in the narrow period of time immediately following Dunkirk when the British were depleted of ammo, were seriously short of anti tank guns, and had not set about building fortifications.

And the Germans had no means of crossing the channel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aldramelech wrote:I see what your saying but I don't see how they would be able to claim IP when there are dozens of fictional books and what if semi history books on the subject, they would have to go seriously out of step with history to achieve that..........Wait this is BF, WTF was I thinking?

There's always Bedknobs and Broomsticks...

General Seric wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Given their elastic attitude to historical accuracy, maybe they are going to claim that what they are actually producing is a 'Slightly-Off Weird War 2' game?

'In OUR IP, the British never invented any ammunition to penetrate german armour, and every single kampfgruppe was made up entirely of Panthers. Thus we claim copyright on our wrongness.'

Well, it seems that they are coming out with an Operation Sea Lion book, so, though it is based on historical plans, they could say that any "history" they write about the fictional invasion is their own IP.

It would be a derivative work.

Just saw this on their site

Our bother,
Who art in New Zealand,
Hallowed be thy game.
Thy fan boys come,
Thy will be done,
On forum as it is in Devon.
Give us this day our daily read
And forgive us our trolling,
As we forgive those who troll against us.
And lead us not into others' figures,
But deliver us to sanctioned lists.
For thine is the website, the power and the decision
For ever and ever.
Amen

Aldramelech wrote:Just saw this on their site

Our bother,
Who art in New Zealand,
Hallowed be thy game.
Thy fan boys come,
Thy will be done,
On forum as it is in Devon.
Give us this day our daily read
And forgive us our trolling,
As we forgive those who troll against us.
And lead us not into others' figures,
But deliver us to sanctioned lists.
For thine is the website, the power and the decision
For ever and ever.
Amen

To Quote Dara O'Briain: "Wait a minute. The Protestants are still going?"

Aldramelech wrote:I'd like to point out that I was playing 15mm WW2 YEARS before BF existed, anybody remember Crossfire, Squad Leader etc.

As to the point about free PDF lists on they're site, have you noticed that they disappear just before a book comes out?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Two new things from Mr. Foot in mouth up on the site:

Wow obviously trying to actually respond to this and have even five mins to think about any kind of response is just not possible.

I have 43 more abuse emails and have just read that some people who know some people are accusing sales staff of doing bad things, we are negotiating deals heard from somebody else who knows somebody and a great deal of english correction going on.

I have now locked seven threads so that I can respond and not just keep watching more and more people be rude to each other over an issue that is ours to resolve. In the modern world web animosity is a killer disease and has made people brave and rude when in person they would not have the courage to even speak up.

I will post a repsonse on a new thread later today.

So its "Say that to my face!" time now?

And this:

Pete, John Mathews and I have been discussing the issue these past few hours and realise that making a rushed decision today will not benefit anyone. We have consensus from all three of us, the BF board, that we will change our stance on this issue but will not be able to finalise exactly what that means today as it is already 4.30pm here and 12.30am on the east coast.

We will convene again first thing in the morning to put in writing our formal reply and will post it on the website. We do appreciate the constructive feedback and have definitely listened to what is being said. We have proved in the past many times that we can accept feedback and change our plans as only a fool does not listen to their supporters so thank you and enjoy the rest of the weekend. I am off to get an aspirin and a cup of tea

So a climb down of some sorts incoming, I'm going to bet its not a complete climbdown though..................

Just got this email from BF

"Battlefront Official Events Update

In all the years we have been in business we have had an open and honest policy about listening to our gamers and genuinely taking their views on board to the extent of sometimes changing our plans. We apologise for the confusion and angst our announcement has caused as it was never our intention. We did not see this change as a big problem as we were simply formalising something we already thought was existing practise, albeit informally.

In the interests of compromise and fairness to everybody’s opinion we will change the word “all” to “majority” (meaning over half) in the tournament rules for the 2013 season. Although we were not clear enough about this last week we did not consider die cast planes, scratch built models or objectives (assuming they are the right size), terrain or models we do not currently make to be covered by this. As is always the case, if you are unsure simply get in touch with your tournament organiser and clarify the situation but we are going to revert to the best option in all cases, common sense.

The new season rules take effect from the masters in December this year and only apply to the officially run Battlefront tournaments listed on our site. Independent tournaments are free to choose their own system, as they always have been.

One of the feedback ideas that did come back from our weekend conversations that we really liked was to also further reward people who came along with 100% Battlefront armies. This is an idea that we will definitely work on for the future.

We are committed to supporting and growing the Flames Of War hobby and want to invest more in the future, in events, the website and programs like the Rangers all of which we are happy to spend money on to provide this to you for free.

We want to thank our moderators for doing such a sterling job this weekend especially given they had no warning at all. We appreciate all the civil comments whether for or against. We feel that our compromise shows that we believed all views have merit. We hope this once again proves that we do listen."

~ Pete, John & John-Paul.

Compromise = good deal.

The fact that they can listen to their community and respond in kind = great!

Their reactions during the debacle, and the fact that this came up at all = an overshadowing problem that's only broken the trust formed between BF/FoW customers and BF.

This compromise is reasonable, but this whole thing was a huge PR blunder for them.

That response is most reasonable, it's just unfortunate that so much nastiness had to come out of the whole event. It's better than GW's 'Hear no criticism, see no critisisim, speak not of criticism' approach at any rate.

The whole thing is just a joke.

There just protecting their financial assets.

Poppabear wrote:The whole thing is just a joke.

There just protecting their financial assets.

Really? From who?

As to the half an army thing I'd love to see how they work that out

So, is that half your army overall, half your army discounting things that BF don't make, or half your army including the buildings and hedges etc on the table you play on?

Wow, I did not notice that they referred to terrain as well. Now, that's really dumb - even GW does not care what You place on the table.