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.

weeble1000 wrote:
Though never successfully enforced or tested in court. That sucker is ripe for invalidation. And Azrael, the USPTO will grant a patent on toast and ham sandwiches, so don't hurt your brain trying to figure out why something made it through the patent office.

*sigh*

And now I'm hungry. Thanks weeble!

 Ouze wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Get your facts straight before you accuse people of being dishonest next time. What they did can't be protected by fair use as a review, they never claimed it was any kind of review.

We're talking about the show "New Space Marines Codex Review Part 1. Aug 15th (Show 66)", right? That's the one they never claimed was any kind of review? Tell me more.

Have you listened to the whole thing? Both part 1 and part 2 of them talking about the codex? Those bits where they talk about how to use something? That's Fair Use.

That's a legitimate means of conveying the information that is protectable, at least in the US. All those points costs, specific rule names, and all that other stuff that you can copy down and then not have to buy the codex because they laid out even the cost of every bit of wargear in the book? Not so much.

But please, tell me about how listening to such a small portion of that episode makes you more knowledgeable about what was actually said through both episodes on the Space Marine codex that someone who actually sat through both of them. Please, enlighten me where the word "review" was used. Because from what I remember they weren't talking about reviewing the codex, they were talking about sharing all the rules, stats and details on all the stuff in the book. But if you can point me to that time code where they once claim to have legitimately obtained the materials and claim to be presenting a review of the product please let me know, because I've obviously forgotten. Until then you may want to actually have proof before you accuse people of outright fabrications.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Have you listened to the whole thing? Both part 1 and part 2 of them talking about the codex? Those bits where they talk about how to use something?

I have listened to most of it at this point, certainly enough to confidently say you're totally, 100% full of it when you claim:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
[40k Radio hasn't once "reviewed" a book, nor pretended too, they came out and said "here's everything in the book verbatim"

When of course they did absolutely nothing of the sort. Every bit of it has some commentary attached to it, and of course they didn't cover all of the book - they never "read verbatim" any of the fluff, for example, which presumably is about half the book, going by the other codices I own. You want to argue that they exceeded the bounds of what they could use as fair use, that's a good argument, but that's not the argument you made there.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Please, enlighten me where the word "review" was used.

You cant find where they called it a review on this page?



I can only lead you to the water, bro. I can't make you drink it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That's a legitimate means of conveying the information that is protectable, at least in the US. All those points costs, specific rule names, and all that other stuff that you can copy down and then not have to buy the codex because they laid out even the cost of every bit of wargear in the book? Not so much.

You're right, it isn't a case of fair use. Fair use only applies when you're using copyrighted material, and rules for a game are not copyrighted material. Copyright infringement or fair use would only apply to reading the exact words used by GW, not saying "X upgrade costs Y points".

I admit I forgot about the "review" label on the page (I'm not perfect and those episodes where about 2 months ago at this point), and I apologize. There was no lying however as there was no actual intention to mislead, I simply had forgotten (2 months and a lot of school will do that to you).

Outside of them claiming it to be a review or not, they certainly have set up a potential pitfall for themselves with the knowledgeable receipt of stolen goods (codex that's not for sale yet) and by providing so much detail that anyone with a little time, and something to write with and on can get all the stuff they need to play the codex without purchasing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That's a legitimate means of conveying the information that is protectable, at least in the US. All those points costs, specific rule names, and all that other stuff that you can copy down and then not have to buy the codex because they laid out even the cost of every bit of wargear in the book? Not so much.

You're right, it isn't a case of fair use. Fair use only applies when you're using copyrighted material, and rules for a game are not copyrighted material. Copyright infringement or fair use would only apply to reading the exact words used by GW, not saying "X upgrade costs Y points".

I'd disagree, but we'll end up in the weeds at this point, paticularly since very few of us are lawyers and because of this we can only argue what we think the law means, not what it actually means.

At the very least 40k Radio should rethink how they present the materials they're given in the future (assuming if they are given more in the future) to keep them out of court. They weren't particularly smart about it until now, but now GW will be watching them a lot closer so they need to be smarter about it.

EDIT: Also, I just wanted to point out that while the mechanics of the game aren't copyright-able material, the book as a whole is. That's a potentially in that GW can use to argue their case of what was presented on the show violating their copyrights and how it doesn't constitute fair use, I think. An actual lawyer who is fully versed in the particular subject would have to correct me on this though.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I admit I forgot about the "review" label on the page (I'm not perfect and those episodes where about 2 months ago at this point), and I apologize. There was no lying however as there was no actual intention to mislead, I simply had forgotten (2 months and a lot of school will do that to you).

Fair enough.

The other argument you made, about whether or not they used so much of it that it's not transformative, vs that rules are not protectable anyway - it's a better argument. If rules are indeed not protectable - and I don't know for sure - then I think this case bodes poorly for them. Weeble doesn't seem to think that's a homerun from his posts and I think he's well situated to speculate.

 Ouze wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I admit I forgot about the "review" label on the page (I'm not perfect and those episodes where about 2 months ago at this point), and I apologize. There was no lying however as there was no actual intention to mislead, I simply had forgotten (2 months and a lot of school will do that to you).

Fair enough.

The other argument you made, about whether or not they used so much of it that it's not transformative, vs that rules are not protectable anyway - it's a better argument. If rules are indeed not protectable - and I don't know for sure - then I think this case bodes poorly for them. Weeble doesn't seem to think that's a homerun from his posts and I think he's well situated to speculate.

Even if GW can't protect individual rules there is the matter of the fact that every codex, rulebook, supplement, ect they sell is protected by a copyright. I'm no expert, but seeing as one of the big reasons to buy a codex is the rules and that 40k Radio gave enough information between their two podcasts that it was legitimately possible to play a game with the updated rules despite not having the book might still fall into a violation of Fair Use.

And of course beyond that they also have accepted goods that weren't for sale at the time of their receipt meaning that they were stolen, and then have publicly admitted it (the talk about having the full codex on his tablet, and then showing it off at Gencon, to GW employees as well ).

I think there are a few avenues open to GW and a C&D was a rather (comparatively) nice way to ask 40k Radio to knock it off all things considered.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
EDIT: Also, I just wanted to point out that while the mechanics of the game aren't copyright-able material, the book as a whole is. That's a potentially in that GW can use to argue their case of what was presented on the show violating their copyrights and how it doesn't constitute fair use, I think. An actual lawyer who is fully versed in the particular subject would have to correct me on this though.

Copyright protects expression, not ideas. The book clearly contains copyrighted material. For example, the fluff is indisputably copyrighted and copy/pasting whole pages of it would be infringing GW's rights. However, the rules for playing the game are not. The exact words used to say "X costs Y points" might be, but good luck arguing that it's a creative work and not just a purely functional statement of a fact. And of course it wouldn't be violating copyright at all to say "X costs Y points" in different words.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Even if GW can't protect individual rules there is the matter of the fact that every codex, rulebook, supplement, ect they sell is protected by a copyright. I'm no expert, but seeing as one of the big reasons to buy a codex is the rules and that 40k Radio gave enough information between their two podcasts that it was legitimately possible to play a game with the updated rules despite not having the book might still fall into a violation of Fair Use.

The fact that GW wants to make money off something that can't be copyrighted doesn't mean they suddenly get legal protection for it. It's GW's fault that they've built a business model around selling something that anyone else can publish freely, I don't see any reason to legitimize that bad decision by letting them sue everyone into submission if their profits are threatened.

And, again, it's not fair use because fair use only covers copyrighted material. Game rules (including point costs) are not copyrighted material.

weeble1000 wrote:


Though never successfully enforced or tested in court. That sucker is ripe for invalidation. And Azrael, the USPTO will grant a patent on toast and ham sandwiches, so don't hurt your brain trying to figure out why something made it through the patent office.

But weeble, you forgot the greatest patent ever granted:
How to use a swing:
http://www.google.com/patents/US6368227

For a brief time, children across the US were engaging in brazen illegal activity.

So were is this '40k radio had a stolen copy' thing coming from?

If a store got their hands on it early and sold it before official release then its a contractual issue, not a legal one and 40k radio would have done nothing wrong by taking advantage of it.
Unless I'm missing something here..

 Peregrine wrote:


And, again, it's not fair use because fair use only covers copyrighted material. Game rules (including point costs) are not copyrighted material.

Only problem I have with this is that forums generally don't want you posting stats or point values due to fear of the citadel fine lawyers.


Fun fact GW: If someone decided to copy those down and tried to play the game they probably weren't going to spend money anyways.

 Ravenous D wrote:
Only problem I have with this is that forums generally don't want you posting stats or point values due to fear of the citadel fine lawyers.

That's because forum owners can't afford to get sued even if they'd probably win in the end. It's pure intimidation by GW.

Stop saying rules in a GW codex are not copyrighted. They are. Being "rules or mechanics for a game" doesn't make the codex or the words within it "unprotectable"

You can't say this isn't a "fair use" issue when they are reading quotes from a copyrighted publication simply because "they are rules."

You can argue that their podcast is transformative enough to make it not infringement, you can claim they only used enough of the source material as part of an integral aspect of the review, but you can't claim the material has no valid copyright, as it does.

This is why we don't post points or stats on army lists... We can discuss army lists as rules, points and stats are not integral to the discussion of the copyrighted material so don't need to be reproduced.

It is the difference between quoting a sentence in a review to make a point in a review about a characters interactions and simply quoting an entire chapter. That would be infringement outside of fair use even though it is a review as too much of the source material was quoted and it wasn't integral to the review.

You can argue they are fair use and GW is bullying by hoping they can't afford to claim fair use, but you can't say it was an unprotectable material and there is no copyright on GW codexes. If that was true, then PDFs of every game on the internet would be free and legal to redistribute.

nkelsch wrote:
Stop saying rules in a GW codex are not copyrighted. They are. Being "rules or mechanics for a game" doesn't make the codex or the words within it "unprotectable"

You can't say this isn't a "fair use" issue when they are reading quotes from a copyrighted publication simply because "they are rules."

You can argue that their podcast is transformative enough to make it not infringement, you can claim they only used enough of the source material as part of an integral aspect of the review, but you can't claim the material has no valid copyright, as it does.

This is why we don't post points or stats on army lists... We can discuss army lists as rules, points and stats are not integral to the discussion of the copyrighted material so don't need to be reproduced.

It is the difference between quoting a sentence in a review to make a point in a review about a characters interactions and simply quoting an entire chapter. That would be infringement outside of fair use even though it is a review as too much of the source material was quoted and it wasn't integral to the review.

You can argue they are fair use and GW is bullying by hoping they can't afford to claim fair use, but you can't say it was an unprotectable material and there is no copyright on GW codexes. If that was true, then PDFs of every game on the internet would be free and legal to redistribute.

So are you a lawyer? Do you have a link to something to back all that up? Is their any reason I should take your word on that over other people's in this thread because some people on here are lawyers and some of the others are linking things.

 jonolikespie wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Stop saying rules in a GW codex are not copyrighted. They are. Being "rules or mechanics for a game" doesn't make the codex or the words within it "unprotectable"

You can't say this isn't a "fair use" issue when they are reading quotes from a copyrighted publication simply because "they are rules."

You can argue that their podcast is transformative enough to make it not infringement, you can claim they only used enough of the source material as part of an integral aspect of the review, but you can't claim the material has no valid copyright, as it does.

This is why we don't post points or stats on army lists... We can discuss army lists as rules, points and stats are not integral to the discussion of the copyrighted material so don't need to be reproduced.

It is the difference between quoting a sentence in a review to make a point in a review about a characters interactions and simply quoting an entire chapter. That would be infringement outside of fair use even though it is a review as too much of the source material was quoted and it wasn't integral to the review.

You can argue they are fair use and GW is bullying by hoping they can't afford to claim fair use, but you can't say it was an unprotectable material and there is no copyright on GW codexes. If that was true, then PDFs of every game on the internet would be free and legal to redistribute.

So are you a lawyer? Do you have a link to something to back all that up? Is their any reason I should take your word on that over other people's in this thread because some people on here are lawyers and some of the others are linking things.

Section 107 of the copyright act.

Here is a good article.
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/gp_solo/2011/september/fair_use_news_reviews.html

Being unpublished work is a large strike against 40k radio as a copyright holder has the right of first appearance.

It is a "grey area" but the volume of source material, the doing it before the publication was published, "fair use" doesn't sound like it will hold up. But if they feel it was, more power to them to fight it.

Also:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

If your game includes any written element, such as instructions or directions, the Copyright Office recommends that you apply to register it as a literary work. Doing so will allow you to register all copyrightable parts of the game, including any pictorial elements. When the copyrightable elements of the game consist predominantly of pictorial matter, you should apply to register it as a work of the visual arts.

GWS codexes are copyrighted materials. Quoting it in a review falls under fair use.

nkelsch wrote:
Stop saying rules in a GW codex are not copyrighted. They are. Being "rules or mechanics for a game" doesn't make the codex or the words within it "unprotectable"

You can't say this isn't a "fair use" issue when they are reading quotes from a copyrighted publication simply because "they are rules."

You can argue that their podcast is transformative enough to make it not infringement, you can claim they only used enough of the source material as part of an integral aspect of the review, but you can't claim the material has no valid copyright, as it does.

This is why we don't post points or stats on army lists... We can discuss army lists as rules, points and stats are not integral to the discussion of the copyrighted material so don't need to be reproduced.

It is the difference between quoting a sentence in a review to make a point in a review about a characters interactions and simply quoting an entire chapter. That would be infringement outside of fair use even though it is a review as too much of the source material was quoted and it wasn't integral to the review.

You can argue they are fair use and GW is bullying by hoping they can't afford to claim fair use, but you can't say it was an unprotectable material and there is no copyright on GW codexes. If that was true, then PDFs of every game on the internet would be free and legal to redistribute.

Sigh...

Let me, for the record, state that while I am an IP attorney, I do not know the specific facts of this case, so my remarks here are only of academic interest and do not constitute legal advice.

nkelsch, I say this as gently as I can, but you really don't seem to understand how copyright works in the USA.

You're not grasping the idea-expression dichotomy; "the rules" as they are embodied in a particular work are protected, the ideas within those rules are not.

Fake edit;

nkelsch wrote:
...
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

If your game includes any written element, such as instructions or directions, the Copyright Office recommends that you apply to register it as a literary work. Doing so will allow you to register all copyrightable parts of the game, including any pictorial elements. When the copyrightable elements of the game consist predominantly of pictorial matter, you should apply to register it as a work of the visual arts.

GWS codexes are copyrighted materials. Quoting it in a review falls under fair use.

You're just trolling now, right? Literally the first paragraph on the page you linked;

Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.

So are you trying to say that GW codexes are not copyrighted publications and they are afforded no protection? That simply isn't true. While someone can totally make their own game or play a game which functions as the rules in the publication describes, the words as written in the publication are protected and quoting them in part or whole in a review has to pass the test of 'fair use' regardless if they are rules or not.

They can discuss the rules without heavily quoting the source material. When you do too much of the source material, it becomes an issue of infringement.

We do it all the time when people post 'rumors' or discuss codexes. We seem to be able to do it without quoting the entire thing...

But some would want us to believe that "go ahead, you can quote all the rules. points and stats word for word and nothing bad can happen because it is not protected by copyrights!"

And that is not a true statement as you would be quoting a copyrighted publication.

There is a reason we have such as thing as an 'open game license' even though game mechanics are not protectable because the combination in a document is... and for people to reproduce those rules word-for-word is derivative works. Hence why they give blanket permission so people can use the publications 'as-is' and not be infringing.

If it was unprotectable, there would be no need for OGLs because the copyright would be invalid in the first place.

nkelsch wrote:
So are you trying to say that GW codexes are not copyrighted publications and they are afforded no protection?

Of course he isn't.

You cannot reproduce the book without express permission. Discussing the contents of the book however? That's not breaking copyright.

Though I'm betting the fact they illegally obtained a copy and quoted it before it's official release would put a serious damper on fair use. I'm no lawyer, but somehow I doubt the law offers fair use protection on illegally obtained property.

As for Harper and Row, I don't see how that applies....the only reason 'The Nation' won on appeal is because the court deemed as per wikipedia ""the robust debate of public issues" outweighed the limited power of copyright ownership." and that certainly wouldn't apply here.

Orktavius wrote:
Though I'm betting the fact they illegally obtained a copy and quoted it before it's official release would put a serious damper on fair use.

Again, where is the proof that they obtained it illegally vs. getting a store to give it to them early? A store handing over a copy of the codex before they're supposed to might be breaking their contract with GW and risking GW's willingness to ship them new products in the future, but it isn't illegal.

 Peregrine wrote:

Orktavius wrote:
Though I'm betting the fact they illegally obtained a copy and quoted it before it's official release would put a serious damper on fair use.

Again, where is the proof that they obtained it illegally vs. getting a store to give it to them early? A store handing over a copy of the codex before they're supposed to might be breaking their contract with GW and risking GW's willingness to ship them new products in the future, but it isn't illegal.

Who knows of any store that had the Space Marine codex nearly a month early? They were offering rules information quite a ways out from even the pre-order announcement, by a couple weeks at least.

Even that aside the copy they have was apparently digital since they had it on their tablet and where showing off pages at Gencon, so someone reproduced it without permission (if it wasn't the person who gave it to them, then it was the 40k Radio guys).

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Orktavius wrote:
Though I'm betting the fact they illegally obtained a copy and quoted it before it's official release would put a serious damper on fair use.

Again, where is the proof that they obtained it illegally vs. getting a store to give it to them early? A store handing over a copy of the codex before they're supposed to might be breaking their contract with GW and risking GW's willingness to ship them new products in the future, but it isn't illegal.

Who knows of any store that had the Space Marine codex nearly a month early? They were offering rules information quite a ways out from even the pre-order announcement, by a couple weeks at least.

Even that aside the copy they have was apparently digital since they had it on their tablet and where showing off pages at Gencon, so someone reproduced it without permission (if it wasn't the person who gave it to them, then it was the 40k Radio guys).

Regardless using the term 'illegal' when there is no actual evidence to suggest anything of the sort needs to stop. At best it is deliberately misleading.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
And of course beyond that they also have accepted goods that weren't for sale at the time of their receipt meaning that they were stolen

If Gamestop sells me a game before the street date, did I steal it?

 Peregrine wrote:

Orktavius wrote:
Though I'm betting the fact they illegally obtained a copy and quoted it before it's official release would put a serious damper on fair use.

Again, where is the proof that they obtained it illegally vs. getting a store to give it to them early? A store handing over a copy of the codex before they're supposed to might be breaking their contract with GW and risking GW's willingness to ship them new products in the future, but it isn't illegal.

Unless they were involved in some sort of corporate espionage and actually stole the copy themselves (as opposed to someone on the inside sending it to them) - that generally doesn't impact the aspects of Fair Use (which largely would be irrelevant anyway as the rules themselves are outside of copyrights and therefore not subject to Fair Use).

Journalists report on leaked information all the time. It may be early copies of software which gets leaked to them, classified documents, prototypes of hardware - all sorts of things. Many of those are protected by copyrights, patents and even criminal law. However, journalists in most the civilized world is given broad lee way provided that they do no break any laws in obtaining it.

Even before that point though, you need to determine if it is copyrightable. The cover page of a book saying "Copyright 2013" doesn't mean it is - and it doesn't mean it all is. You can find a lot of "classic" books now which have been rereleased, and most of them have a copyright listed. However, I can guarantee you that the "Copyright 1999" statement on my copy of the Iliad does not mean that the publishers have a valid copyright on anything other than the cover art (which to be honest I think is actually a reproduction of an ancient Greek painting).

Along the same lines, if I were to write a book about WWII and include a number of charts which cover things like equipment used in different battles or a timeline of events - my words describing things would be copyrightable. However the tables would not be. Transferring that over to a rulebook like a GW codex, the fluff and descriptions are copyrightable, the rules, stat lines and tables are not (though to some extent how they express them would be).

It would take a fair amount of effort by a site like 40K radio to violate those aspects of the copyrightable material in a Codex - at least without going so far as to post full pages along with their podcasts. Beyond that, discussing the rules - even in detail would still be fair use, even if the rules haven't been released yet.

In fact, the very nature of them being not released would likely strengthen the news worthy nature of the consideration. While some people seem to be hung up on that being something which makes it less "fair use" - the reality is that once the Codex is released, it is no longer newsworthy in the same way as an exclusive a month before it is officially released. That is a significant determination as well in just determining whether or not something is news or not news.

So, someone could lift 40K's entire game mechanism and stats, set it in WWII and relabel things,for example autogun now becomes Lee Enfield, and GW could do nothing about it? Of course, Space Marine would have to become British Commandoes but I'm just biased.

Apologies if I'm being simplistic but as a result of GW's actions I'm regularly finding out that things that people think would be protectable actually aren't.

alphaecho wrote:
So, someone could lift 40K's entire game mechanism and stats, set it in WWII and relabel things,for example autogun now becomes Lee Enfield, and GW could do nothing about it?

Yes.

alphaecho wrote:
So, someone could lift 40K's entire game mechanism and stats, set it in WWII and relabel things,for example autogun now becomes Lee Enfield, and GW could do nothing about it? Of course, Space Marine would have to become British Commandoes but I'm just biased.

Apologies if I'm being simplistic but as a result of GW's actions I'm regularly finding out that things that people think would be protectable actually aren't.

They can and do with some regularity...more often with board games than with wargames though. You can find hundreds of "not" games on Board Game Geeks, and the entire basis of Hasbro doing the Open Gaming License with the D&D rules is that they knew they couldnt protect rules and stat lines.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

alphaecho wrote:
So, someone could lift 40K's entire game mechanism and stats, set it in WWII and relabel things,for example autogun now becomes Lee Enfield, and GW could do nothing about it? Of course, Space Marine would have to become British Commandoes but I'm just biased.

Apologies if I'm being simplistic but as a result of GW's actions I'm regularly finding out that things that people think would be protectable actually aren't.

They can and do with some regularity...more often with board games than with wargames though. You can find hundreds of "not" games on Board Game Geeks, and the entire basis of Hasbro doing the Open Gaming License with the D&D rules is that they knew they couldnt protect rules and stat lines.

So the entire gaming industry is ripe for others to rip off (and I don't care whether its legal or not) the hard work of others.

 azreal13 wrote:


So you're contending that an online news site, who, for the sake of this discussion we will assume, did nothing illegal in obtaining the info they shared, and that info was in itself "hard to copyright" and absolutely completely relevant to its target audience still did something wrong?

Other ones got bells on dude.

No. I am contending that things are sufficiently clear-cut enough to be sure any court will rule in 40KRadio's favour. Even if "fair use" is a more likely outcome (say ~ 75%), there are enough angles that a superiour legal team may exploit to make a decision go the other way, or a pro-copyright inclined judge may base his argument on and not be "wrong" either.

I am contending that your version is the 100% certain outcome, even while I don't claim, and never have, that it may be the more likely outcome. But that just isn't good enough.

alphaecho wrote:
So the entire gaming industry is ripe for others to rip off (and I don't care whether its legal or not) the hard work of others.

No. Remember that there are least three different IP types involved here:

Copyright protects a creative work (literature, music, etc) and is automatically granted as soon as you make a qualifying work. It protects the specific expression of an idea, not the concept itself. So, for example, you can copyright the Horus Heresy books but you can't copyright the entire idea of a civil war between Starship Troopers-style super soldiers. The protection of copyright law lasts (effectively) forever for anything produced in the "modern" era (including everything by GW). Game rules can not be copyrighted.

Patents protect a functional object and requires that you demonstrate the uniqueness of your idea and that it provides a useful function, and then submit it to the government for evaluation and official recognition. A patent gives you exclusive right to produce the thing you patented. So, for example (and let's pretend they're the first to do it) FFG could patent the maneuver template and dial system used in X-Wing, but could not patent the idea of having dice with special symbols on them. Patents last for a relatively short fixed time period and expire automatically, at which point the patented invention can be used freely. Game mechanics CAN be patented if they meet the requirements.

Trademarks protect a brand name or image that is closely associated with a product. These must be unique to your brand and clearly identified with your product, and do not necessarily apply in other industries where there is no possiblity for confusion. For example, the "Games Workshop" logo can be (and is) trademarked within the gaming industry, the Ultramarines chapter symbol might be trademarkable in a very specific gaming context but would not prevent, say, a football team from using it, and the word "missile launcher" is way too generic to trademark even if GW products use the term. Game mechanics can't be trademarked, but unique names for them and IP associated with them can be.

So based purely on copyright law yes, you could produce a "reskinned" 40k using only the mechanics (though why you'd want to copy such an utterly awful game, I have no idea) but GW may or may not have current patents on core game mechanics that you'd be using. And of course you absolutely can not copy the IP of GW's fictional universes or sell your new game using "based on 40k" or any other trademark that could possibly imply GW endorsement of your product.