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.

 Xenomancers wrote:
This ethical debate is not necessary - there are plenty of legal ways that a copy of copyrighted material is fine.

"Is that a copy of the skyhammer formation?"
"Yes it is."
"Did you purchase that from GW?"

(these are all acceptable answers)
"That is none of your business."
"I purchased a copy, this is a copy of my purchased copy for my own personal use."
"Nope - bought it off ebay. The guy transfered full ownership to me - he no longer has ownership."
"My friend gave this to me - don't know where he got it - I assume through legal means."

Literally the only way you are not cool with playing against a copy of actual rules is if you are an utter tool.

This is the crux of it for me.

How, exactly, are the anti-piracy advocates planning to enforce not playing the formation?

I go home and print off the high-quality PDF I found online, double-sided on a nice sheet of glossy. Bring it into the FLGS with my Spess Muhreens. Oh yes, I was one of the lucky ones that managed to get a copy of the Skyhammer boxed set! If I can't make a convincing replica, I just take a photocopy and say I didn't want to bring my limited edition rules sheet with me.

There is no end-game victory here. Whatever your feelings about piracy, there's no realistic way to prevent someone from using the Skyhammer formation - except of course, banning it outright, which punishes the handful of people who did actually buy the rules.

You gonna start asking people to bring their proof of purchase? What about the proof of purchase on your codex, or your rulebook? How can I know those aren't professionally-made copies of a pirated PDF? Those dataslates on your phone - what's to say they're not entirely fabricated?

You want to have trouble finding someone to play with? Definitely start enforcing DRM on your games of Warhammer.

I can understand the complaints against pirating GW's rules, but I feel avoiding a "pay to win" scenario is the lesser of two evils. In an ideal world, all the players of a game would have access to all the rules for that game. GW may have a profitable interest in keeping rules limited and behind a paywall, but in the Internet age it is largely moot. Once one person scans it and puts in on the Internet, for all intensive purposes everyone has access to the rules.

I don't mind playing any army or formation or whatever, as long as they have access to the rule in HANDS, copy or orignal. I wouldn't mind if someone have a printed version of a pirated Skyhammer, but if he don't have a printed version, I wouldn't play it.

It't a matter of trust. If you bring all your rule + army list printed or at least available, then I can trust you that you will enforce the correct rule because I could ask you at any time to double-check a rule. If you don't bring your rule or your list, I might still play you, but any rule that I'm not familiar with and sound a bit cheesy will let me a sour taste in the mouth.

I've been to a number of places where they were fairly strict about people owning the rules. You can do what you want with your friends but acceptance of a practice doesn't diminish that it's wrong.

When ever there is something like this we get to hear the "eff-the-rich" mentality as if they were Robin Hood. He was rich. This may dissapoint people's sensibility but you don't have to be rich to have afforded this set. The average American household can afford this with less than a weeks pay. Piracy the micro-victory for socialist egalitarianism, yay.

The arguments that because it's oop and thus does minimum harm is insincere because let's be honest to most people they already owned most those models and simply wouldn't want to pay that much for a whole new set. That even if they could they wouldn't buy it because they don't like the price tag or how it's bundled.

As far as game balance goes the consensus seems to be that some of the in book formations are less balanced; thus a sub par choice is really just adding flavor and not "win".

kronk wrote:I wouldn't use the formation, even in a tournament. My buddy's are more laid back (casual) gamers than that, and I don't think we'd have fun playing it.

However, if I wanted to play it, I'd just print out one of the many pdfs floating around the interwebs.

LE rules? feth you, GW. feth you with 20 metal dreadnoughts.

Xenomancers wrote:This ethical debate is not necessary - there are plenty of legal ways that a copy of copyrighted material is fine.

"Is that a copy of the skyhammer formation?"
"Yes it is."
"Did you purchase that from GW?"

(these are all acceptable answers)
"That is none of your business."
"I purchased a copy, this is a copy of my purchased copy for my own personal use."
"Nope - bought it off ebay. The guy transfered full ownership to me - he no longer has ownership."
"My friend gave this to me - don't know where he got it - I assume through legal means."

Literally the only way you are not cool with playing against a copy of actual rules is if you are an utter tool.

These guys get it!

Locrian wrote:Is all this talk of the legality of copywrite and such really necessary when there is a picture of the official rules right on the official GW 40k Website that you can refer to, or bring up on your ipad at any time?

Really? Oh wow, looks like GW isn't too concerned about keeping the rules exclusive after all!

Jambles wrote:This is the crux of it for me.

How, exactly, are the anti-piracy advocates planning to enforce not playing the formation?

I go home and print off the high-quality PDF I found online, double-sided on a nice sheet of glossy. Bring it into the FLGS with my Spess Muhreens. Oh yes, I was one of the lucky ones that managed to get a copy of the Skyhammer boxed set! If I can't make a convincing replica, I just take a photocopy and say I didn't want to bring my limited edition rules sheet with me.

There is no end-game victory here. Whatever your feelings about piracy, there's no realistic way to prevent someone from using the Skyhammer formation - except of course, banning it outright, which punishes the handful of people who did actually buy the rules.

You gonna start asking people to bring their proof of purchase? What about the proof of purchase on your codex, or your rulebook? How can I know those aren't professionally-made copies of a pirated PDF? Those dataslates on your phone - what's to say they're not entirely fabricated?

You want to have trouble finding someone to play with? Definitely start enforcing DRM on your games of Warhammer.

This is another thing too. One has to be careful not to go into "some things will slip through the cracks so let's not bother having the rule" like some do, but at the same time, this doesn't seem like it'd be feasible to enforce with any degree of success. It's one thing when it's an actual Codex and you can be reasonably sure about whether it's legit. It's another thing when it's a random piece of paper that GW handed off to a handful of rick and lucky superfans.

When you combine this with the moral and pragmatic angles of why this isn't a good thing to begin with, you end up with the sort of thing that's a waste of time even by the standards of a hobby about painstakingly painting plastic toys so you can play pretend with them.

PandaHero wrote:I don't mind playing any army or formation or whatever, as long as they have access to the rule in HANDS, copy or orignal. I wouldn't mind if someone have a printed version of a pirated Skyhammer, but if he don't have a printed version, I wouldn't play it.

It't a matter of trust. If you bring all your rule + army list printed or at least available, then I can trust you that you will enforce the correct rule because I could ask you at any time to double-check a rule. If you don't bring your rule or your list, I might still play you, but any rule that I'm not familiar with and sound a bit cheesy will let me a sour taste in the mouth.

That is truly fair. Thus why if we take the route to let everyone have it, there should be an emphasis on making the effort to have it ready to go so you're not trying to go off memory from what you saw on the website last night.

aka_mythos wrote:I've been to a number of places where they were fairly strict about people owning the rules. You can do what you want with your friends but acceptance of a practice doesn't diminish that it's wrong.

Good thing this isn't wrong for all the reasons previously listed out, then!

aka_mythos wrote:When ever there is something like this we get to hear the "eff-the-rich" mentality as if they were Robin Hood. He was rich. This may dissapoint people's sensibility but you don't have to be rich to have afforded this set. The average American household can afford this with less than a weeks pay. Piracy the micro-victory for socialist egalitarianism, yay.

It's not "eff the rich", it's "eff screwing people over unfairly", you'd know this if you listened to anything anyone said in here.

aka_mythos wrote:The arguments that because it's oop and thus does minimum harm is insincere because let's be honest to most people they already owned most those models and simply wouldn't want to pay that much for a whole new set. That even if they could they wouldn't buy it because they don't like the price tag or how it's bundled.

No, it's valid because random hypotheticals of what might've happened had the situation been different are completely irrelevant. Maybe some of these people would've pirated anyway, but that doesn't matter because THAT'S NOT WHAT THE SITUATION IS! By all means get indignant about people not ponying up the cash to buy something readily available though, you might actually have a point then. You certainly don't have one now, though.

aka_mythos wrote:As far as game balance goes the consensus seems to be that some of the in book formations are less balanced; thus a sub par choice is really just adding flavor and not "win".

A) Not what I've heard at all. Skyhammer's been made out to be a really big deal.
B) Even if it's not the BIGGEST deal, that doesn't mean it's not a big deal. The Black Knight and Darkshroud 2+ rerollable Jink from the Dark Angels Codex still put a lot of people on edge even though Decurion exists.
C) How powerful it is ultimately isn't that important. Restricting an option to a handful of privileged players might be less unfair when it's not DA BEST THING EVAR but it's still unfair nonetheless.

 aka_mythos wrote:
When ever there is something like this we get to hear the "eff-the-rich" mentality as if they were Robin Hood. He was rich. This may dissapoint people's sensibility but you don't have to be rich to have afforded this set. The average American household can afford this with less than a weeks pay. Piracy the micro-victory for socialist egalitarianism, yay.

I'm sure a ton of people here just have $611 sitting around just waiting to see if GW decides to drop something nice and LE randomly out of the blue.

But continue your poorly veiled attempt to point communism at people who think limited edition rules are stupid.

For me, an impulse buy is something five bucks or less. And even then I sometimes have to say no cause not enough money.

Certainly not 500 bucks.

Limited edition models are one thing, but limited edition RULES? The hell is this crap?

 aka_mythos wrote:
This may dissapoint people's sensibility but you don't have to be rich to have afforded this set. The average American household can afford this with less than a weeks pay.

And if you can afford to impulse-buy something that costs a week's pay for the average household then guess what, you're rich. This wasn't even a regularly-available product that you could save up for, carefully weigh the pros and cons of buying, etc. It was put up for pre-order and sold out within a week. If you don't have the kind of hobby budget that lets you immediately and without question buy every new release just in case you want to use it someday then you didn't have any realistic chance to get this.

Piracy the micro-victory for socialist egalitarianism, yay.

Why exactly is egalitarianism a bad thing in a game that is supposed to be fair?

The arguments that because it's oop and thus does minimum harm is insincere because let's be honest to most people they already owned most those models and simply wouldn't want to pay that much for a whole new set. That even if they could they wouldn't buy it because they don't like the price tag or how it's bundled.

I really don't see how this is supposed to be a convincing argument. All you're doing is saying "it's not because it's OOP, it's about some other way that GW treats their customers poorly". Even if you could still buy the package the formation came with it is still bad for the game, and I have zero sympathy for GW losing the "right" to do things that are bad for my game.

 Lammikkovalas wrote:

greyknight12 wrote:

tenebre wrote:but anyone can use it. At least amongst sane normal people anyone can.

Sane normal people can use any rules they want. But accepting a pickup game with "hey, I printed these off the internet" is not sane.

adjective, saner, sanest.
1. free from mental derangement; having a sound, healthy mind:
a sane person.
2. having or showing reason, sound judgment, or good sense:
sane advice.
3. sound; healthy.

Here's a dictionary entry for you. Maybe next time when you're using the word you understand the meaning better. The funny thing here is that claiming that the act of printing rules to use in your games somehow makes you mentally unstable..."

Don't be a douchebag. Read things in context with a colloquial understanding. Stop using Ad Hominem attacks in such a childish manner to win points in an arguement which has specific application to what many people experience as a majority of their games.

Personally I think that the entirety of 40ks rules should be free to download off of GW with physical copies available for those that want them, including this skyhammer formation, so that everyone can have free access to the rules since we are already paying exorbant prices for their models.

Unfortunately GW and the law doesn't seem to care about what I want.

Oh well, not that it matters in this case for me and my group as we have banned the formation at our LGS.

Even if you could still buy the package the formation came with it is still bad for the game, and I have zero sympathy for GW losing the "right" to do things that are bad for my game.

Your game? You're Rick Priestly? What was GW like back in the late 80s? I'll let you simmer on that one, and try and come up with some reason why you own the game, and have the "rights" to decide what happens to it, as opposed to the people who actually... you know... own it.

After that we can get back to why your opinion is the sole arbiter of what is bad for the game.

Breton wrote:

Even if you could still buy the package the formation came with it is still bad for the game, and I have zero sympathy for GW losing the "right" to do things that are bad for my game.

Your game? You're Rick Priestly? What was GW like back in the late 80s? I'll let you simmer on that one, and try and come up with some reason why you own the game, and have the "rights" to decide what happens to it, as opposed to the people who actually... you know... own it.

After that we can get back to why your opinion is the sole arbiter of what is bad for the game.

Just maybe by "game" in this case he means an individual gaming session, tournament or campaign. Not the entirety of 40k itself.

DoomShakaLaka wrote:Personally I think that the entirety of 40ks rules should be free to download off of GW with physical copies available for those that want them, including this skyhammer formation, so that everyone can have free access to the rules since we are already paying exorbant prices for their models.

Unfortunately GW and the law doesn't seem to care about what I want.

Yeah, that would be nice, though it seems GW can be a bit greedy about it. I don't even blame them for wanting to sell rules rather than give them away but the prices can be really questionable, often times they aren't as tested as a paid product should be and stuff like limited edition rules are utterly inexcusable no matter how some try to white knight it.

DoomShakaLaka wrote:Oh well, not that it matters in this case for me and my group as we have banned the formation at our LGS.

Probably a smart move, given that it's apparently quite unbalanced.

Breton wrote:Your game? You're Rick Priestly? What was GW like back in the late 80s? I'll let you simmer on that one, and try and come up with some reason why you own the game, and have the "rights" to decide what happens to it, as opposed to the people who actually... you know... own it.

C'mon man, it's clear he meant that in the sense of "my hobby" or "my favorite sandwich". Don't be obtuse.

Breton wrote:After that we can get back to why your opinion is the sole arbiter of what is bad for the game.

He's not, he's just someone who can see why handing out special rules as a privilege is a bad idea and who figured that these rules are unbalanced with careful (or not-so-careful, since it's apparently blatant) consideration. He doesn't have to be the supreme deity of Warhammer 40000 to say this.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
@Insaniak: Yes, it's absolutely GW's right to stop printing it. And now that they have, they have absolutely no reason to object to people pirating it anymore.

Unless, of course, they plan to release it again later... at which point, all those pirated copies suddenly become lost sales again.

What "entitles" us to do that? Because it's LITERALLY NOT AVAILABLE ANYMORE, because some might want it and that's the only way to get it and because saying only the rich and lucky get to use certain rules is the most ridiculously unfair crap ever.

You realise that 'But I WANT it!!!' isn't actually a valid reason for taking something that someone doesn't want to give you, right?

Well, my quote on Heinlein still holds water:
Most people see this "pay to win scenario" and think GW can stick-it some place uncomfortable.

So the easiest method logically comes to this forum topic: I do not support this form of rules distribution both by the company or those who support it.
Moral choice says I do not choose to play the game with Skyhammer, or accept it from my opponent, so "Ban" it is.

There, no copyright laws violated.
It just feels better sometimes to give in to that anarchist urge that "information wants to be free!".
In a former life "hacking" was a fun thing due to being nosy... I am cured of it now.
Some of the most violent rebellions are sparked with perceived inequity so I can sympathize with less ethical retaliation.

 insaniak wrote:
Unless, of course, they plan to release it again later... at which point, all those pirated copies suddenly become lost sales again.

A) I don't really buy this, those who would've otherwise bought it but couldn't would happily buy it even if they pirated it earlier (see my comment on EarthBound, it was a pretty impressive hit, even among those who had emulated copies precisely because of this).
B) If they want those sales they should just sell it.

 insaniak wrote:
You realise that 'But I WANT it!!!' isn't actually a valid reason for taking something that someone doesn't want to give you, right?

Certainly not TAKING something, hence laws against real theft. But someone downloading these rules doesn't actually take these rules away from anyone else. If they don't want to sell them, they don't get those sales and no longer have any justifiable reasons to stop people getting them by other means.

Please stop trying to stand up for such abhorrent practices.

 insaniak wrote:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
@Insaniak: Yes, it's absolutely GW's right to stop printing it. And now that they have, they have absolutely no reason to object to people pirating it anymore.

Unless, of course, they plan to release it again later... at which point, all those pirated copies suddenly become lost sales again.

Actually, that's untrue. All GW wanted to do was sell a bunch of devastator and assault Marines, and provide a fluffy reason to use them.

Whether you buy a bunch of models separately or ad a bundle, you're still buying the same models. And of you have a nice independent, they'll even order the bundled version for you and give you a nice discount.

GW never charged a premium for the bundle, so there are no lost sales.

But anyways, what am I doing posting in this thread again, LOL.

I can't believe this thread.

This is the hobby:

Buy the codex from GW buy the miniatures from GW: feel free to use those rules. Game on.

Or don't buy the codex, photocopy it, and buy the miniatures from china. don't expect anyone to play you who actually likes the hobby. You might get lucky. Ruin the game for everyone else. Feel like a winner act like a loser.

You can't ignore this black and white choice just cos piracy means you get an unbeatable list

ConanMan wrote:
I can't believe this thread.

This is the hobby:

Buy the codex from GW buy the miniatures from GW: feel free to use those rules. Game on.

Or don't buy the codex, photocopy it, and buy the miniatures from china. don't expect anyone to play you who actually likes the hobby. You might get lucky. Ruin the game for everyone else. Feel like a winner act like a loser.

You can't ignore this black and white choice just cos piracy means you get an unbeatable list

You're missing the point. The Skyhammer rules aren't in the codex that I bought for my space marines. They only made 200 copies and they're all gone, now.

So if I want to use that Limited Edition formation, now what?

Certainly not TAKING something, hence laws against real theft. But someone downloading these rules doesn't actually take these rules away from anyone else. If they don't want to sell them, they don't get those sales and no longer have any justifiable reasons to stop people getting them by other means.

You mean like laws against "theft of service" that also don't involve actual goods being stolen?

How did your justification work for Napster?

Please stop trying to stand up for such abhorrent practices.

Which abhorrent practices are those? Defending the intellectual property rights they have, thus ensuring the continued employ of their workers?

Ensuring the value of this limited edition set is maintained for the people who DID purchase it with the Limited Edition expectations?

 kronk wrote:
You're missing the point. The Skyhammer rules aren't in the codex that I bought for my space marines. They only made 200 copies and they're all gone, now.
So if I want to use that Limited Edition formation, now what?

I think the other point is copying the rules from some image on the net and that person goes "problem solved".
While we are trying to figure out the moral highground of buying our BRB and all the codex's for our armies and whatever dataslates that hit our fancy.
Considered ethical for some.
Foolish by others.

It is "just a game" so is it "appropriate" to break the law or print off something because it is "just" a game publication?

Don't care anymore.
Got friends who I can try this out on, if it is too "rude" they laugh, call it bull-pucks and threaten to put me in a headlock if I do it again.
The headlock usually follows with a wedgie, so it does not get played again.

kronk wrote:You're missing the point. The Skyhammer rules aren't in the codex that I bought for my space marines. They only made 200 copies and they're all gone, now.

So if I want to use that Limited Edition formation, now what?

Precisely, a lot of people are failing to grasp this.

Breton wrote:You mean like laws against "theft of service" that also don't involve actual goods being stolen?

I mean that since downloading the rules doesn't take them away from anyone and because they're no longer on sale, there's no damage done, pretty obvious.

Breton wrote:Which abhorrent practices are those?

Screwing people over with this limited-edition crap, and directly standing up for giving those privileged enough to get it having an unfair advantage. Along with insanely dippy copyright white-knighting. Yeah it's probably still technically illegal. So what? The law can be really stupid sometimes so that doesn't prove anything at all.

Breton wrote: Defending the intellectual property rights they have, thus ensuring the continued employ of their workers?

Nope. Notice I don't stand up for anything pirating just because they can't be arsed to buy something that's still available.
But if they're not gonna sell it, they don't get to get pissy about people getting it elsewhere.

Breton wrote:Ensuring the value of this limited edition set is maintained for the people who DID purchase it with the Limited Edition expectations?

If the value is "Yay, I have this special thing!" then it's still there. Much like the value of an authentic original Rogue Trader book from when 40k first started isn't diminished by .pdfs floating around the web.
If the value is "I get to use these rules and you don't, nya nya nya!" then screw that value, I don't put any value on that and neither would anyone with their head screwed on right.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
If the value is "I get to use these rules and you don't, nya nya nya!" then screw that value, I don't put any value on that and neither would anyone with their head screwed on right.

Exactly. I have no sympathy whatsoever for that (possibly hypothetical) person, and if that's the "value" GW is protecting then too bad for them.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

Screwing people over with this limited-edition crap, and directly standing up for giving those privileged enough to get it having an unfair advantage.

Sorry, but people with more money can buy things that people with less money can't.

That's not an abhorrent practice . It's just commerce .

There is no particular advantage being gained , here. If you feel that the rules that someone is trying to use are unfair, surely a more appropriate response to illegally downloading them so that you have them yourself would be to simply not play against them?

Nope. Notice I don't stand up for anything pirating just because they can't be arsed to buy something that's still available.

I'm a photographer. I release limited runs of my photographs so that the demand for them is higher than the supply. That makes it easier to sell the next set because the previous ones are still valuable and still limited. And this is ignoring the royalties for use of my work. You don't think copying them instead of competing with the other buyers to raise the value I can charge for those photographs wasn't stealing?

I don't like limited edition rules either, but I don't let that and some selfish desire to have without paying twist my way into rationalizing theft.

2 things......

I have a laminated copy of the WD Bloodthirster rules that i copied because i didn't want to cut them out or take the mag every where i go. Would anyone actually not play against me if i wanted to use it?

Also, a certain army-builder app has the rules word-for-word in its listing for the formation. Which apparently is good enough for a lot of TOs that run major tournaments.

How does that stand with regards to copyright? Not trying to argue. Serious question

 jokerkd wrote:
2 things......

I have a laminated copy of the WD Bloodthirster rules that i copied because i didn't want to cut them out or take the mag every where i go. Would anyone actually not play against me if i wanted to use it?

Also, a certain army-builder app has the rules word-for-word in its listing for the formation. Which apparently is good enough for a lot of TOs that run major tournaments

Sure I'd play you. Whether you actually own the rules or not is up to you and your conscience, or in some cases lack thereof, and not my business. As long as you've got them there so they can be read/used/etc. Its your business how you got them.

Edit: To the second part of your question, Army Builder and the like usually try and work pretty hard to avoid pasting up the rules word for word, and just notate and page ref them. Hard to do on a one page sheet.

Army builders are good enough for generating lists, but most TOs still also require you to have the relevant books on hand.

Look, we can find the rules. We can print them out and make it an official part of the roster of formation we have. Who gives a feth if we weren't one of 200 to get the bundle.

This isn't a discussion of morals. If you have a copy of the rules I'll play you (skyhammer non-withstanding) IDGAF, its a game where a little honor is expected towards the other PERSON not the company. But hey I buy their models because I like to paint, not play, I own a little of every codex. Killa-kans, Incubi, IG Commisar, Stormtroopers, FW Raven Guard squad.

Peregrine wrote:Exactly. I have no sympathy whatsoever for that (possibly hypothetical) person, and if that's the "value" GW is protecting then too bad for them.

Exactly, you hit the nail on the head! And yeah, hypothetical, but given that we have people here standing up for this crap I might have accidentally described a good number of real people...

insaniak wrote:Sorry, but people with more money can buy things that people with less money can't.

That's not an abhorrent practice . It's just commerce .

It's also not what I was talking about. Notice how it was always "rich and lucky" or "privileged". I recognize that people with more cash to spare will have an easier time building armies and getting models and books, this crosses the line because it's literally not available even if you have the dough. And that crosses the line from "by the nature of the hobby, people with more money will have more flexibility" into "this tiny handful of rich and lucky, privileged players gets an advantage over everyone else because dumb copyright technicalities are more important than fairness, common sense and a reasonable level playing field".

insaniak wrote:There is no particular advantage being gained , here. If you feel that the rules that someone is trying to use are unfair, surely a more appropriate response to illegally downloading them so that you have them yourself would be to simply not play against them?

Hence why banning Skyhammer is also an option. It just needs to be a decision on a club/tourney wide level whether everyone gets it or nobody does, the important thing is to have a level field of at least OPPORTUNITY for all players to get it. Someone might not be able to afford all the models for a Decurion but anyone could still go onto GW's website and get all those Necrons and the Necron Codex and it would all be there. Not every Dark Angels player would be able to afford a Mortis Mark V Dreadnought but anyone could still go on Forge World's website and buy the model (or the appropriate add-on gun for a normal Dread) and Imperial Armour 2 and it would all be there. Not everyone could just get Skyhammer, only a handful. It's literally not available. So like all OOP things (discontinued models, discontinued books and so on) the options are:
1) Accept piracy/proxying sometimes because it's literally not available anymore.
2) Ban it.
The only reason this decision doesn't normally need to be made is because most OOP things are no longer compatible, forcing Option 2. And most people who deliberately play old editions or abandon-ware wouldn't get stuffy about new players using pirated copies because they know it's all dead anyway and that's the only way, forcing Option 1. Something brand new and otherwise legal being OOP is virtually unprecedented.

Breton wrote:I'm a photographer. I release limited runs of my photographs so that the demand for them is higher than the supply. That makes it easier to sell the next set because the previous ones are still valuable and still limited. And this is ignoring the royalties for use of my work. You don't think copying them instead of competing with the other buyers to raise the value I can charge for those photographs wasn't stealing?

If someone wants one of your pics and they aren't available I don't blame them for copying or whatever. It's not wrong because that's their only choice and it's not stealing because they're not taking anyone else's copy of the picture away. If you wanted their sale and are mad about losing it, you should've kept it available or did a print-on-demand thing. If you can't compete without this goofy monopoly idea, you're not going to be able to compete period in an era where the internet exists and you probably never deserved it anyway.
Besides art doesn't need this crap. There's a reason why people still go still the Mona Lisa in the Louvre even though they can find it on Google Images with no problems.

Breton wrote:I don't like limited edition rules either, but I don't let that and some selfish desire to have without paying twist my way into rationalizing theft.

1) If you don't like it, DON'T STAND UP FOR IT! It's a horrible and harmful practice that should not be supported by anyone, you included.
2) It's not selfish to want Skyhammer any more than it is to want the Space Marines Codex.
3) It's not about wanting to have without paying, it's wanting or needing to have without the option any other way, thus forcing this course of action.
4) It's not theft, it's taking nothing away. GW lost no sales because they weren't selling it and nobody had their copy taken away. Stop calling it theft when it's not.