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.

 azreal13 wrote:


Emphasis mine, you see the total hypocrisy in that statement right?

My dear friend, step a couple of millimetres down from your moral high ground. Does buying one army from Dark Sphere equate to not buying from GW stores?

Why does anyone speaking up for GW annoy you so much? Already you've asserted that those who do so are subject to a higher burden of proof. Which is presumably why you make assertions like the one that GW didn't build the market for 40k. There's plenty of scope for alleging GW are bad guys, but it might be better to deploy arguments rather than prejudices.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


Emphasis mine, you see the total hypocrisy in that statement right?

My dear friend, step a couple of millimetres down from your moral high ground. Does buying one army from Dark Sphere equate to not buying from GW stores?

Why does anyone speaking up for GW annoy you so much? Already you've asserted that those who do so are subject to a higher burden of proof. Which is presumably why you make assertions like the one that GW didn't build the market for 40k. There's plenty of scope for alleging GW are bad guys, but it might be better to deploy arguments rather than prejudices.

I made no such assertion, I specifically credited GW with creating Warhammer, in both its forms, as hugely derivative as it can be. The distinction I was making, which you seem to have missed, is that Warhammer is not the market, tabletop wargaming is the market, Warhammer is just one product, however significant in terms of share. I offered evidence that GW started as a distributor of other people's products to demonstrate that the market existed before they did, that they aren't the be all and end all of wargaming, and they certainly didn't create the market.

I am in no way annoyed. I just find people with your viewpoint baffling, why anyone feels the need to speak up for them, when they continue to take action after action which seems so counter intuitive to what a company with ambitions to grow and make money should be doing is so far removed from my understanding that the only way I can reconcile it is that they cannot be in possession of all the information, hence I try and engage with them to try and bring them round to my way of thinking. Human nature really.

I've almost a quarter of a century invested in GW, in one form or another, and I desperately want them to do so much better, and cease acting like moustache twirling villain parodies. Believe me, if they produce a model, or take an action, that I feel worthy of praise, I will praise it, I'm not a hater, I just can't find anything to like just now.

As for only buying one army from a discounter? All that says to me is you're subject to the same reactions to their actions as the rest of us, just for the reasons you've outlined your tolerance is higher!

Mythal wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Mythal wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
people are psychologically addicted to their product for whatever reason and keep buying it no matter how far up they ratchet the prices, I continue to own stock

...

But hey, junkies gotta make sure their supplier stays around...

I'm astonished by two things. First, that the moderating team felt this comment was somehow both relevant and acceptable in the context of the discussion. Second, that anyone would think this post reflects the fashion in which rational human beings communicate with one another. Since both of these surprising statements are apparently true, I honestly see no point in continuing this discussion. In the interests of social harmony, I shall attribute this to some form of variance in accepted national cultural norms.

The sentiment here being that as a stock-holder, a rational human would assume that I would be more apt to feel angst at GW losing any ground in the eternal war of IP ownership than say, a general hobbyist. The reason here being that I, and other shareholders, have a vested, pecuniary interest in the continuance of not only the status quo but of potentially a tighter rein on the market if possible. My sentiment is that I could care less, the results of this case have not affected my share price to any degree and may or may not impact future dividend payments. Additionally, as a hobbyist I could care less as well because it's a game and getting my proverbial knickers in a twist over who makes a product takes a back seat to what I determine of worth for me to own.

Though poorly worded, the post to which you are referring is actually relevant to the discussion and particularly to the post I quoted from Pacific. If the tongue in cheek manner in which I worded the post somehow offended your obviously delicate sensibilities, that can't be helped but it most assuredly does not required an advanced degree to suss out how it was relevant.

If you'd read my post properly, you'd probably understand that the reason I "cherry picked" the offensive portions was that my criticism revolved around said portions - note I said "comment", and not "post". Your observations, as a shareholder in a foreign company, were relevant - which would be why I excised them from my response.

What wasn't relevant was your verbal attack on members of this forum who continue to buy official GW products, calling them "junkies" (note metaphor, not simile). As I said, this strikes me as one of those cultural differences in acceptable social intercourse - presumably, Da Rules only consider something an insult if it doesn't come from someone of your privileged background.

I understand the point that you are trying to make but I feel compelled to warn you, since you obviously have not seen the term used before, that I am not alone nor the first person to refer to hobby products as "plastic crack". Much like my own usage, this term is generally used in a tongue and cheek manner. Being a hobbyist and WHFB and 40K player/collector myself, I suppose I'm being rude with myself since I too am an addict when it comes to this particular drug of choice; I just love the smell of plastic and resin in the morning, it smells like victory. In the interest of furthering understanding, I would also like to inform you that this board is in now way a formal environment; one need only take a step over to the "Off Topic" area of the board and realize this fact. Additionally, the long-time residents of Dakka tend to be a somewhat bawdy bunch and short of outright direct name-calling (my ad hominem generalization of our entire community as "addicts" not targeting a specific individual and thus not a personal attack as you would like to characterize it) things tend to be fairly loose around here, within reason. I second Hivefleet Oblivion's comment that a bit thicker skin may be warranted when visiting internet sites. Instead of taking this further off-topic and feeling that we at least understand each others' points of view, if you feel compelled to discuss this further, might I suggest private messaging me otherwise I think we've taken this about as far as it can go.

@Steelmage,
Yes, I am aware of the nuances of the terms that I used. You'll note that my first and second posts used the same terms. I did not intend to indicate that I have no care as to outcomes of the case or final verdict; it would be ridiculous as a stock-holder to say that I don't care at all what happens to the company in which I have invested my hard-earned dollars. That said, I feel compelled to note/clarify that I feel that 3rd party bits manufacturers are good for GW and us as hobbyists in that healthy competition generally spurs growth. I certainly like the increased pacing of codex releases and all units in the books being represented by a kit on release. I don't know that the CHS case resulted in this new policy but as someone who has a good deal of disposable income but little time to kit-bash or create my own models, I appreciate it.

 agnosto wrote:

I think an appeal would be a double edged sword in that CHS could wind up losing some ground it gained as well; I think Weeble or Czakk spoke to that danger to some extent in the other thread.

I do not believe it was me.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

nonetheless, I think the suggestions that CHS could sue GW for infringing "their" trademark for Tervigon shows that people's dislike of GW causes them to go into uncomfortable intellectual contortions, to line them up invariably, exclusively as the bad guys.

It is not an intellectual contortion, it is how the law works. In a legal case, it is only the law that matters, and the point of even bringing up that point of law is simply to emphasize the nature of unregistered trademarks. If you don't register your trademark, you do not have a presumption of validity, and you must show prior use in commerce. That is an essential element of the claim on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof entire.

Perhaps that is why there are people on the intarwebz who feel that CHS was acting reasonably and respectfully in comparison to a company that claimed to own "piles of skulls" and said that "Specializing in custom bits and sculpts for Warhammer 40,000 and Fantasy" was trademark infringement. I mean, what do you think of those claims?

weeble1000 wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

I think an appeal would be a double edged sword in that CHS could wind up losing some ground it gained as well; I think Weeble or Czakk spoke to that danger to some extent in the other thread.

I do not believe it was me. Jury verdicts are, by and large, difficult to overturn. The reason is that we, as in we as a society, are extremely reluctant to look within the "black box" of jury deliberations. The fact finders apply the law as they are instructed to the facts as they find them. Since you do not know exactly how the fact finders weighed evidence, the veracity of witnesses, etc. etc. and you will never, ever, ever really know that, it is hard to say that the fact finder made an error in weighing the evidence.

Consequently, as a practical matter, one must have an argument that no reasonable jury could have found other than X. Say, for example, you sue me because my goat ate your lettuce. I do not own a goat and have never owned a goat. At trial, you present no evidence to establish that I have ever owned a goat. Sure, you have reams of evidence that a goat did eat your lettuce, and maybe even that the goat came from my yard, but there was not a stitch of evidence tying me to ownership of, and therefore responsibility for any damage caused by, a goat.

The jury comes back saying that I am liable for the destruction of your lettuce. On appeal, I would argue that there was no way for the jury to come to that conclusion because the plaintiff presented no evidence that would establish an essential element of the claim, i.e. that I in fact did own the offending goat.

I might appeal the decision based on the jury determining that a goat at the lettuce, but that would be much more difficult. Certainly, there was evidence presented about goat tracks, chewed lettuce, and so forth. It may be that I had a very strong argument that it was a sheep or a deer that ate the lettuce. maybe I have the best hoof print experts in the world who said that those hoof prints were not made by a goat. But at the end of the day, we have no idea why the jury, weighing that evidence, found that a goat had in fact eaten the lettuce. And if the verdict form did not even break out that question in particular, we actually have no way to know if the jury found that it was a goat that ate the lettuce.

Now, there you might have an appeal point if you thought that the verdict form was erroneous, or the Court's instruction on the law was erroneous. That is another way to appeal: reversible error. Perhaps the Court found affirmatively, on summary judgment, that it was in fact a goat that ate the lettuce. If I believe that decision was erroneous, I can appeal arguing that the Court erred in finding that a goat had eaten the lettuce.

Now, were I to win an appeal based on 'no-reasonable-jury-could-find-other-than-X', the appellate court would simply overturn the verdict. Were I to win an appeal based on an erroneous finding by the Court that a goat had eaten the lettuce, the appellate court would probably remand the case for a new trial in which the jury is not instructed as to what sort of animal ate the lettuce.

Thanks for the detailed explanation in a format that I can understand; I have no experience with IP law but worked as a paralegal for a law firm that handled tort cases (years and years ago). Never helped out with appeals either so this is going to be really new territory as the appeal moves forward. I recall you noting several things that could be a basis for appeal; does it reflect badly upon a judge when cases he works are appealed?

 agnosto wrote:
does it reflect badly upon a judge when cases he works are appealed?

Generally yes. Most judges, especially Federal judges, do not like being reversed on appeal. Some just don't care. Here is what happens when a judge gets reversed:

1: It is professionally embarrassing. it is like someone telling you that you did your job wrong, all spelled out in black and white in the public record for the world to see. Judge so-and-so found X based on Y. We find that that decision do be wrong because of A, B, and C, and here is some case law. Judge so-and-so was mistaken in doing X...etc. etc.

2: More importantly, the more reversals you have, the stronger reputation you get for doing things incorrectly. As a result, your decisions get looked at with greater scrutiny, and you risk even more reversals. It can build into a really bad situation.

3: Reversal can me remand, meaning you have to go through the whole process again, which wastes your time, clogs up your docket, and it wastes taxpayer money.

weeble1000 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

nonetheless, I think the suggestions that CHS could sue GW for infringing "their" trademark for Tervigon shows that people's dislike of GW causes them to go into uncomfortable intellectual contortions, to line them up invariably, exclusively as the bad guys.

It is not an intellectual contortion, it is how the law works. In a legal case, it is only the law that matters, and the point of even bringing up that point of law is simply to emphasize the nature of unregistered trademarks. If you don't register your trademark, you do not have a presumption of validity, and you must show prior use in commerce. That is an essential element of the claim on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof entire.

Priority of use is extremely important when it comes to trademarks...

That you do not like the idea has no bearing on what the law is, and you missed the most important part: Chapterhouse Studios never filed such a counterclaim. Perhaps CHS agrees with you that it would have been unfair to do so. ...

You've already made that point re trademarks, and as I mentioned, it's well-founded, and nowhere have I suggested I "dislike" the law. Rather, that seems to be the province of people who are unhappy CHS lost on several counts.

Secondly, the point about GW not producing the Tervigon, as I've acknowledged, undermines their case for a trademark on it. But that wouldn't help CHS sue them for infringement, for producing a model based on GW's own copyright artwork. This ludicrous point has been made previously on this thread, by someone claiming they could sue GHS because they've already produced a Mycetic Spore. There is an intriguing legal argument here, of course, as to whether Prior Use automatcially outweighs every other criterion - but in any case, it seems like the court decided with GW on the Tervigon Trademark, as well as the Tervigon Copyright, from my understanding and, as you suggest, CHS aren't contesting this.

Perhaps that is why there are people on the intarwebz who feel that CHS was acting reasonably and respectfully in comparison to a company that claimed to own "piles of skulls" and said that "Specializing in custom bits and sculpts for Warhammer 40,000 and Fantasy" was trademark infringement. I mean, what do you think of those claims?

I agree with the people on the interwebz that claiming to own copyright on "piles of skulls" is ludicrous. Shocking as it might seem, it's rational to claim that some of GW's actions are reasonable, and some plainly unreasonable. Real life is not exclusively binary.

 azreal13 wrote:


I am in no way annoyed. I just find people with your viewpoint baffling, why anyone feels the need to speak up for them...

As for only buying one army from a discounter? All that says to me is you're subject to the same reactions to their actions as the rest of us, just for the reasons you've outlined your tolerance is higher!

Either my tolerance is higher, or else I simply don't believe all the advertising that attempts to personify businesses, that tell me they're "my friend" or that "they care". Nor do I see them as villains, mustachio-twirling or otherwise. they're commercial organisations, and many of GW's faults, of short-termism in particualr, are intrinsic to the nature of publicly quoted UK businesses.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Secondly, the point about GW not producing the Tervigon, as I've acknowledged, undermines their case for a trademark on it. But that wouldn't help CHS sue them for infringement, for producing a model based on GW's own copyright artwork. This ludicrous point has been made previously on this thread, by someone claiming they could sue GHS because they've already produced a Mycetic Spore. There is an intriguing legal argument here, of course, as to whether Prior Use automatcially outweighs every other criterion - but in any case, it seems like the court decided with GW on the Tervigon Trademark, as well as the Tervigon Copyright, from my understanding and, as you suggest, CHS aren't contesting this.

Yes, is would. It would be very much helpful, and indeed required, in order for CHS to make a claim of trademark infringement. You are conflating copyright and trademark.

The Mycetic Spore Pod issue is, in the context you describe, one of copyright. GW's codex artwork predates the CHS work. The jury found the CHS work to not infringe the codex artwork. Were GW to produce a model that was a copy of the CHS model, GW would be infringing CHS's legitimate copyright in the Mycetic Spore Pod product.

Put simply, the CHS mycetic spore looks different from, and is not a copy of, the GW artwork (according to the jury verdict). Were GW to later come out with a mycetic spore model that is a copy of the CHS model, it would be a copy of what makes the CHS model a unique work of art, thus infringing on the CHS copyright.

In terms of trademark, CHS marked its product as Mycetic Spore Pod, and the jury found that to infringe a GW trademark.

When you write "every other criterion" you seem to be conflating questions of copyright and trademark. Prior use is a threshold issue, which means you have to establish that in order to even get in the door of the trademark infringement house. No prior use, no infringement, period. End of story. Done. Go home. If GW had not established prior use of the Tervigon mark, it would mean that CHS's has priority of use, fair or not. It would simply be a fact. And that fact would do two things:

A) Prevent GW from asserting a "Tervigon" word mark against CHS

B) Allow CHS to cross that particular threshold

The entire point of this whole example was merely to illustrate that priority of use is a threshold issue in trademark law. No priority of use, no infringement. Priority of use, maybe infringement.

weeble1000 wrote:

That you do not like the idea has no bearing on what the law is, and you missed the most important part: Chapterhouse Studios never filed such a counterclaim. Perhaps CHS agrees with you that it would have been unfair to do so. Hell, I don't know. But what I do know is that Chapterhouse Studios has stated that it made a concerted effort to respect the rights of Games Workshop. In fact, Chapterhouse's mark was something like "Tervigon Conversion Kit for Games Workshop Carnifex." Chapterhouse did not sell a "Tervigon." Games Workshop now sells a "Tervigon/Tyranofex." Chapterhouse Studios did not sell such a standalone product, did not mark its product in that manner, and filed no claim of trademark infringement against Games Workshop.

Perhaps that is why there are people on the intarwebz who feel that CHS was acting reasonably and respectfully in comparison to a company that claimed to own "piles of skulls" and said that "Specializing in custom bits and sculpts for Warhammer 40,000 and Fantasy" was trademark infringement. I mean, what do you think of those claims?

We'll try this again with less adult language.

Didn't Chapterhouse, initially, sell things using the actual names?

I know for certain that they were about ready to sell a "Doom of Malantai" that never came to fruition due to the suit. I also believe (and I don't recall exactly, because it's been a while and I didn't take screen shots) that they were also selling "Fleshtearers Shoulder Pads," etc. I also believe that, initially, nothing was labelled with the tag line "Compatible bits" or "compatible kits;" I'm fairly certain they were, but again I don't have any screen shots to back up that claim. I know a considerable amout of content on the website changed when they went from the old format to the present format.

It's that reason that I don't personally believe CHS was ever acting reasonably or respectfully in their business endeavors, though I do absolutely agree that GWs claims were basically them tossing the whole fridge at the wall to see what would stick, and were thusly far overreaching.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

Either my tolerance is higher, or else I simply don't believe all the advertising that attempts to personify businesses, that tell me they're "my friend" or that "they care". Nor do I see them as villains, mustachio-twirling or otherwise. they're commercial organisations, and many of GW's faults, of short-termism in particualr, are intrinsic to the nature of publicly quoted UK businesses.

Glad to hear I'm not the only one that feels this way. The way things go here, you'd think GW was Champ Kind, taking your mother out to a nice steak dinner and never calling her again.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

Either my tolerance is higher, or else I simply don't believe all the advertising that attempts to personify businesses, that tell me they're "my friend" or that "they care". Nor do I see them as villains, mustachio-twirling or otherwise. they're commercial organisations, and many of GW's faults, of short-termism in particualr, are intrinsic to the nature of publicly quoted UK businesses.

What, so we are supposed to just bend over and take it because 'everybody else does it?'

That's a pretty asinine argument.

Aside from that, I would really like to hear some specific examples of this alleged short-termism by PLCs, because this really isn't something I've ever really heard of before. Companies implementing short term strategies alongside their longer term goals, sure, that just makes sense, but GW almost seem to be run exclusively for short term gain, which has worked so far, but really is a strategy built on sand.

You won't find many more confirmed capitalists than me, but what really grates on me (as a former senior manager in a multi million pound turnover company and company director) is how poorly GW capitalise on their position, both in terms physical and financial.

They could have blown CHS out of the water simply by out muscling them, releasing a range to counter theirs which would have been better quality, wider ranging and more available (and cheaper too, if they wanted) Who knows, that might have even turned them a profit. But no, spunk millions on a lawsuit.

They could have just turned a blind eye to the Spots episode, been the bigger person and hardly any of us would have heard of it, but no, they had to be the bully, and now their name is tainted with people who hadn't even heard of Warhammer before that.

They could run an organised play scheme, to try and be inclusive to as many hobbyists as possible, getting them into stores and in all likelihood generate cash off spontaneous sales, but no, they reduce the gaming space in stores (and don't even get me started on their stores, which are a flawed concept from the ground up) and focus on 'introducing beginners' while simultaneously and habitually raising the barrier to entry through pricing, making that task much harder than ever.

I could go on, but rest assured, my frustrations are based on far more than some misguided sense of being done over by a company I thought was my fwiend, or my inability to buy more toy soldiers than I currently can afford.

 azreal13 wrote:

Aside from that, I would really like to hear some specific examples of this alleged short-termism by PLCs, because this really isn't something I've ever really heard of before.

Northern Rock just called - they wanted to know if you'd be interested in a butt-load of sub-prime debt. It's going so cheap it's a steal - you can't lose! Definitely won't contribute to the economic collapse of the nation, no sirree.

*Grumbles something about the fact it would never have happened if they'd remained a Building Society... *

In seriousness, though, GW could stand to think on the consequences of its rampant short-termism. I mean, I'd like the actual hobby to still be around in ten years, not just some sort of watered-down, pseudo-open-source, substandard echo of it sustained by a consortium of amateurs. And that's what'll be left if GW, on a corporate level, doesn't evolve and adapt.

Blood Bowl actually has benefited from its abandonment by GW to a consortium of amateurs.

The rules are tip-top, and there are several alternatives available if you want some variation. There are plenty of figures on the market.

The game is in much better health now, after GW cast it loose a couple of years ago. Of course GW themselves aren't making any money from it, which proves your point.

I well, really, and truly hate Bloodbowl.

However... most of my gaming group very much like the game*....

And, yes, being kicked free has helped the game. (They also like Dreadball, which I liked better than Bloodbowl - while still not liking it very much....)

And now Mordheim is undergoing similar rebirth as Coreheim... whether it will be as successful... I can but hope.

I will never understand why they abandoned Mordheim - it was a perfect gateway drug to Warhammer....

***

About half of the miniatures used by my Bloodbowl friends are GW... and they are not the best looking minis of the bunch.

The Auld Grump

* Sadly, this includes my girlfriend - who is working on a female dwarf team using these little ladies....



Sooner or later she will likely convince me to make a team....

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

And, yes, being kicked free has helped the game.

It has helped that game - but that doesn't mean it would help WHFB or 40k. Personally, the idea of The Internet deciding what the rules should be is bad enough (necessary and existing tweaks by TOs notwithstanding), but The Internet designing the fluff is enough to keep a BL fan awake at night in cold sweats.

weeble1000 wrote:
It would be very much helpful, and indeed required, in order for CHS to make a claim of trademark infringement. You are conflating copyright and trademark.

We are talking specifically about the assertion, made on this thread by several people, that CHS or others could sue GW for producing their own design Mycetic Spore. For example:

weeble1000 wrote:

GW never used Tervigon to mark a product for trade, ergo, CHS used a CHS trademark, which has since been infringed by GW. [

My point is that this will not happen, and simply illustrates the irrational GW hate. Yes, CHS might have prior use of that particular model, but while that might be a threshold criterion, it is not the only criterion.

If Marvel had not produced their own toy Spiderman, and I chose to do so without registering it, I would not be able to sue them for trademark infringement when they finally did so. I would not be able to trademark my Spiderman for much the same reason as CHS will not be able to register their Tervigon as trademarked. Arguing that I should be able to do so is morally unfair, and illustrates the contortions to which people resort in order to characterise GW as villains.

Again, to avoid misrepresentation, I certainly don't think all of the claims by GW were reasonable. I'm merely pointing out that some of the attacks on them here are unreasonable.

Finally, I bought the Tervigon conversion, and at the time it was clearly labelled as such. It wasn't called " alien brood mother kit suitable for Tervigon model." It was called something like a " Tyranid Tervigon conversion kit." The left hand menu listed the category as "Tyranids", as opposed to Paulson, whose category read "aliens". I was surprised at the time. If CHS had been less aggressive, then we would still have codices for which we could convert models. We won't now, armies will be more predictable, and that's a shame. Not a crime, nor an outrage, just a shame.

 azreal13 wrote:

What, so we are supposed to just bend over and take it because 'everybody else does it?'

That's a pretty asinine argument.

So... suggesting that PLCs are known for short term planning, and that we shouldn't characterise companies as mustachio-twirling villains is "asinine"? It sounds like you're taklng your characterisations from a derivative, hackneyed sci-fi novel which GW probably ripped off back in the 1970s.

I"m stopping after this because the arguments are so well-known, so oft-repeated here, that it's ludicrous, especially if you work in a major company.

In a PLC, the major criterion of whether a CEO survives is the share price. If the share price drops, big institutional shareholders apply pressure and s/he is out. I worked for a major creative PLC for nine years, and had budget arguments every December ready for publication in April. You have to make budget, even if to do so you throw the baby out with the bathwater. Otherwise: profits miss forecast, the share price plummets, and the CEO Is out. If an individual manager of a certain section won't make budget, the CEO will ensure s/he is out. This is exactly why short-termism rules in British PLCs, and why their long-term investment and planning is universally acknowledged to be inferior to that of, for instance, German companies which tend to be privately or family owned. If you are not aware of this situation you must simply have been hiding under a rock for the last 30 years.

This has been pointed out to you many times. No, it doesn't excuse all of GW's behaviour, but it is the wider context in which they exist.

I've suggested before you are personalising this too much, by characterising a company with many different employees, some good, some bad, as cartoon villains. Your attempts to deny this, sadly, just confirm that suggestion. You get offended by opposing arguments, call people "asinine" or guilty of "total hypocrisy". It's what you're doing with GW, too - taking things personally.

It seems to be a hallmark of dakka, for some reason - over on One-Ring, for example, they have much more reason to complain about GW (or New Line) price-gouging, but they seem to focus on modelling and playing, with complaint as a sideline, rather than vice versa.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:


My point is that this will not happen....

Wait and watch. I have the C&D already written.

Steelmage99 wrote:

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:


My point is that this will not happen....

Wait and watch. I have the C&D already written.

Put me down for a tenner towards your legal costs, just for the entertainment

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Finally, I bought the Tervigon conversion, and at the time it was clearly labelled as such. It wasn't called " alien brood mother kit suitable for Tervigon model." It was called something like a " Tyranid Tervigon conversion kit." The left hand menu listed the category as "Tyranids", as opposed to Paulson, whose category read "aliens". I was surprised at the time. If CHS had been less aggressive, then we would still have codices for which we could convert models. We won't now, armies will be more predictable, and that's a shame. Not a crime, nor an outrage, just a shame.

It's really not CHS's fault that GW may or may not have an unreasonable and unwise response to the decision of the lawsuit.

There was never and still is not any reason why GW cannot release models for all the options they choose to have in a codex. For the last few years, they've had the schizophrenic (as in dual-personality) approach that they wanted to provide options in the codices for the customer to make conversions but not provide any materials for those conversions to be done. If they don't want third party manufacturers doing it, then they can make and manufacture those parts themself. If the opt not to do that, and instead reduce options available, that's on GW, not CHS. The existance of successful bits companies like CHS demonstrates there is a market available for such products; GW ignoring that market is their own questionable business decision.

Saldiven wrote:

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Finally, I bought the Tervigon conversion, and at the time it was clearly labelled as such. It wasn't called " alien brood mother kit suitable for Tervigon model." It was called something like a " Tyranid Tervigon conversion kit." The left hand menu listed the category as "Tyranids", as opposed to Paulson, whose category read "aliens". I was surprised at the time. If CHS had been less aggressive, then we would still have codices for which we could convert models. We won't now, armies will be more predictable, and that's a shame. Not a crime, nor an outrage, just a shame.

It's really not CHS's fault that GW may or may not have an unreasonable and unwise response to the decision of the lawsuit.

There was never and still is not any reason why GW cannot release models for all the options they choose to have in a codex. For the last few years, they've had the schizophrenic (as in dual-personality) approach that they wanted to provide options in the codices for the customer to make conversions but not provide any materials for those conversions to be done. If they don't want third party manufacturers doing it, then they can make and manufacture those parts themself. If the opt not to do that, and instead reduce options available, that's on GW, not CHS. The existance of successful bits companies like CHS demonstrates there is a market available for such products; GW ignoring that market is their own questionable business decision.

Then there's also a goodly number of us who don't have the time, inclination or skill to convert models and never did; 3rd party manufacturers are a nice stop-gap for that. I can speak for myself and several other people I know in that I am a working professional which usually is a strong indicator that I have a fair amount of disposable income but little time; I'd rather spend what time I do have playing the game not planning out which bits I need to create a model wholesale from a bit of flavor text and a box of bits. GW's overreaction to anyone making money off of "their" IP is what is shameful. If you're not going to make a model for it, don't cry when someone else does, in my opinion. I realize there are a great number of people out there that enjoy the modelling aspects of the game more than the game itself but I'm not one of them. I'm an indifferent painter and was proud of myself for throwing an ogre head on a dreadknight because I abhor the baby-carrier look; I just tell people the pilot spent too much time in the warp. There should be a happy middle-ground but GW's current policy precludes the existence of any other company (there can be only one!).

I sometimes think that several departments of GW are actively trying not to communicate....

One department is going 'Gamers want options!' - and that portion is right. (I am going to think of them as the Game Design Department ....)

Another department is going 'Sales are stagnant, we need to chop some people and the Bitz section takes too many people to accomplish the job!' - and they are... right... for a given and kind of arse headed quantity of 'right'. Call them the Bean Counters.

And the third portion is going 'Those people are selling bits! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!' - and they are... ... ... crazy as the Red Queen, but in a position to tell the legal department to go in, guns blazing. Call them the Whack-a-Doodle IP Department.

The Legal Department - who were stuck trying to do the near impossible in defending unregistered and sometimes nonexistent IP.... let us just call them the Legal Department and have done. I really hope that the folks working legal for GW told them that it was a bad idea to take CHS to court on this, and that they put it in writing....

Then there is whoever came up with the idea that advertising was a bad idea and infinite ongoing price increases was a good idea... oh, and hey! Finecast will make us more money! I have no name that I would feel comfortable using in a public forum for this department....

It is likely that some of those departments are talking to others, but that those others just are not listening....

The Auld Grump

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

What, so we are supposed to just bend over and take it because 'everybody else does it?'

That's a pretty asinine argument.

So... suggesting that PLCs are known for short term planning, and that we shouldn't characterise companies as mustachio-twirling villains is "asinine"? It sounds like you're taklng your characterisations from a derivative, hackneyed sci-fi novel which GW probably ripped off back in the 1970s.

No, tolerating poor decisions by a company that has a huge influence on a hobby many people have years of time and large sums of money in because "that's what PLCs do" is the asinine argument, but you carry on railing against a throw away comment I made if it makes it easier for you.

I"m stopping after this because the arguments are so well-known, so oft-repeated here, that it's ludicrous, especially if you work in a major company.

In a PLC, the major criterion of whether a CEO survives is the share price. If the share price drops, big institutional shareholders apply pressure and s/he is out. I worked for a major creative PLC for nine years, and had budget arguments every December ready for publication in April. You have to make budget, even if to do so you throw the baby out with the bathwater. Otherwise: profits miss forecast, the share price plummets, and the CEO Is out. If an individual manager of a certain section won't make budget, the CEO will ensure s/he is out. This is exactly why short-termism rules in British PLCs, and why their long-term investment and planning is universally acknowledged to be inferior to that of, for instance, German companies which tend to be privately or family owned. If you are not aware of this situation you must simply have been hiding under a rock for the last 30 years.

Yeah, I'm familiar with how PLCs work thanks.

What you fail to account for is that specifically in GWs case, their CEO is also a major shareholder, who appears to be lining his own pockets in preparation for his retirement at the expense of the long term health of the company. I find this distasteful just as much as the bankers whose actions brought about the economic downturn or those that run private utility companies posting record profits when families are struggling to make ends meet because their bills are so high distasteful, but I guess I can accept it as a consequence of a free market. Doesn't mean I have to like it though.

This has been pointed out to you many times. No, it doesn't excuse all of GW's behaviour, but it is the wider context in which they exist.

Nothing has been pointed out to me many times and again, everyone else is doing it is not an argument nor a reason for their behaviour.

I've suggested before you are personalising this too much, by characterising a company with many different employees, some good, some bad, as cartoon villains. Your attempts to deny this, sadly, just confirm that suggestion.

Of course I'm personalising this! Why the hell would I spend time online and IRL talking about something I didn't care about?! Again, you've taken a throw away comment I made in a post and characterised everything I write in reflection of that. I could very well have chosen 'bumbling fools' or 'like the three stooges' but went with the villains comment because in the wider context of this thread it seems most appropriate. It never was, nor was it intended to be, some deep insight into my psyche about how GW didn't love me.

In addition, I didn't attempt to deny anything, I AM flat out denying it. You have got me wrong, which perhaps suggests you are in fact projecting your own emotions into our discussion and seeing things in my post that simply aren't there.

You get offended by opposing arguments, call people "asinine" or guilty of "total hypocrisy". It's what you're doing with GW, too - taking things personally.

I'm not 'offended' by anyone's arguments, but as I've said, I do find some people's point of view, and how their thought processes must have gone to have arrived there, baffling, and often feel compelled to engage with those people to try and figure out why they are "wrong"

I called your argument, not you, asinine. I was attacking your argument not you. Please try and understand the difference, because if you can't then Dakka is not going to be a fun place for you. If you feel I attacked you, I was in violation of Rule 1, and please use the little yellow triangle of friendship and get the mods involved, as I was a bad boy and need to be sanctioned. As for hypocrisy? You posted in the same post that you wanted to support GW and keep their stores open and had purchased models from an online discounter. Regardless of wider context that statement was hypocritical. Again, your statement being hypocritical is not me calling you a hypocrite all of the time, important distinction.

I once ate at KFC and because of that, I now know how to run an international fast food franchise, a poultry processing plant and raise animals on a farm!

It is fun how consumers think they know everything because they buy a product and think that buying a product means they know everything about how the marketplace works.

And then, of course, there are those of us who work in various fields that are adequately analogous to see direct parallels between what successful companies do, vs. what GW is doing.

It's easy to be dismissive of Internet complaints. But while it is also very easy to post an opinion on the Internet, it doesn't follow that all of those Internet opinions are uninformed.

nkelsch wrote:
I once ate at KFC and because of that, I now know how to run an international fast food franchise, a poultry processing plant and raise animals on a farm!

It is fun how consumers think they know everything because they buy a product and think that buying a product means they know everything about how the marketplace works.

That's pretty unfair to a lot of posters. Sure, there are going to be a number of guys on here who are just spouting nonsense with no clue (they're easy to spot, they are the ones shouting "they should cut prices and give me everything I want. Rargh!!" or similar) but there are many who have real life experience that directly qualifies them to comment with some real authority.

Not to mention that absolutely everyone has a right to express their opinion on here, just as you do, and a right to disagree with the opinions expressed by others, as informed as those opinions may or may not be.

I agree with much of what Az says, but not the whole hypocrisy thing, thats just absolute nonsense.

Money talks at the end of the day.

I love and whole heartedly support my local football team, but if sports direct sold their shirts for a fiver cheaper than the club shop did, I and pretty much every guy I know would buy from sports direct.

Saying that therefore everyone is a hypocrite or not a proper fan is one of the daftest things ive ever read frankly.

 agnosto wrote:

GW's overreaction to anyone making money off of "their" IP is what is shameful. If you're not going to make a model for it, don't cry when someone else does, in my opinion.

GW's official policy is: Only GW makes money of of GW's IP. This policy seems to have been relaxed in the case of computer games because of the easy royalty money, but for miniatures, this is the policy and the CHS suit is a direct result. The policy is also the reason there will never be any licensed GW miniatures or bits.

Tim

 mattyrm wrote:
I agree with much of what Az says, but not the whole hypocrisy thing, thats just absolute nonsense.

Money talks at the end of the day.

I love and whole heartedly support my local football team, but if sports direct sold their shirts for a fiver cheaper than the club shop did, I and pretty much every guy I know would buy from sports direct.

Saying that therefore everyone is a hypocrite or not a proper fan is one of the daftest things ive ever read frankly.

Can't argue with your point, its a fair interpretation, my take was more along the lines (to use your example)

"Buy shirts from the club, we should support the club whenever possible, I buy all my merchandise from the club!" (whisper,whisper) "They're how much cheaper??!!! Well...just this once."

Which, while a long way from being a capital offence, did read a tad hypocritical to me.

 azreal13 wrote:


I called your argument, not you, asinine. I was attacking your argument not you. ...As for hypocrisy? You posted in the same post that you wanted to support GW and keep their stores open and had purchased models from an online discounter. Regardless of wider context that statement was hypocritical. Again, your statement being hypocritical is not me calling you a hypocrite all of the time, important distinction.

I can see you find other people's arguments baffling. One way of finding them less baffling is to read what they actually say and not project your own fantasies.

Where, as a trivial example, did I mention buying from an online discounter? Or that people should "buy from GW wherever possible"? Nowhere. Dark Sphere is our most local store, and we'll be there playing games on Wednesday. We also buy items from GW,. There you go, I hope you find that passes the high moral test required to have an opinion and to be "happy" on Dakka.

To attack someone for "supporting" GW, as in stating they are typical of one lamentable aspect of UK Plc, then to distort that into an exhortation to "buy from them whenever possible", then to accuse of "hypocrisy" for buying from other retail outlets in addition to GW?

Well, it's hardly such a credible or hurtful argument anyone needs to click on that little yellow triangle.

 agnosto wrote:


Then there's also a goodly number of us who don't have the time, inclination or skill to convert models and never did; 3rd party manufacturers are a nice stop-gap for that..

Entirely reasonable. I've never criticised CHS for making conversion parts - only for using GW names more flagrantly than others have, in order to sell their stuff.
Nor did I suggest that was inherently immoral, merely that it invited a lawsuit from GW, and CHS must accordingly share some of the blame - as, indeed, the jury has found.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


I called your argument, not you, asinine. I was attacking your argument not you. ...As for hypocrisy? You posted in the same post that you wanted to support GW and keep their stores open and had purchased models from an online discounter. Regardless of wider context that statement was hypocritical. Again, your statement being hypocritical is not me calling you a hypocrite all of the time, important distinction.

I can see you find other people's arguments baffling. One way of finding them less baffling is to read what they actually say and not project your own fantasies.

Where, as a trivial example, did I mention buying from an online discounter? Or that people should "buy from GW wherever possible"? Nowhere. Dark Sphere is our most local store, and we'll be there playing games on Wednesday. We also buy items from GW,. There you go, I hope you find that passes the high moral test required to have an opinion and to be "happy" on Dakka.

To attack someone for "supporting" GW, as in stating they are typical of one lamentable aspect of UK Plc, then to distort that into an exhortation to "buy from them whenever possible", then to accuse of "hypocrisy" for buying from other retail outlets in addition to GW?

Well, it's hardly such a credible or hurtful argument anyone needs to click on that little yellow triangle.

Ok, mea culpa. As I don't live in London, I see Dark Sphere as an online retailer, its easy for me to forget that they have a B+M store too. But, unless you bought the smallest Ork army ever, I assume you spent over £100 and received their online discount? Making this a distinction without a difference.

My nipper has funded an Ork army (bought from Dark Sphere... can't afford full retail) fro eBay sales and had a huge amount of fun, meeting other kids (and older gamers). The staff at around 75% of the stores are terrific - and this is at a time when the High Street is dying. Jessops have gone, Modelzone have gone, I wince at some of the GW prices but I don't want to see their shops shuttered. GW are also creating jobs in the UK economy - which we bloody well need - many of their competitors, more loved on this board, produce in China.

Now, if you can't see how I could read this statement as in support of buying from GW direct, and therefore assume that is what you were advocating then we really are so diametrically opposed, not only in this but in our outlook on life that I heartily suggest we just put each other on ignore for both our sakes and to avoid dragging every thread we post in way off topic in future.

Lastly, and to cut to the meat of it, I am not attacking you. You really are using some very emotive language, either to try and wind me up, or because you are wound up yourself. I am disagreeing with you, that's a whole different thing.

Incidentally, I'm still waiting for some examples of short termism from other PLCs, rather than the vague hand waving you've already offered about me being told repeatedly, but otherwise, for the sake of staying on topic, we are done here, as I can only see this discussion devolving from now on.

 cincydooley wrote:
Didn't Chapterhouse, initially, sell things using the actual names? I know for certain that they were about ready to sell a "Doom of Malantai" that never came to fruition due to the suit.

So you can see into the future and under oath can confirm what Chapterhouse would have called this product?
Guess current lawsuits are not yet adapted to people with these farseer/clairvoyance skills
Those Minority Report procedures, where you can be convicted for deeds in the future are not yet established.