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.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I woild find it hard to believe that Armada could be a "re-skin" of Battlefleet Gothic. I just bought extensively into Armada, and have owned several fleets for Battlefleet Gothic since it came out, and Armada has the feel of starting out right away as a Star Wars game.

Said source didn't say "re-skin". FFG game designers seem to be quite happy to modify mechanics as they see fit: Arkham Horror to Eldritch Horror, Mansions of Madness 1e to 2e, Descent 1e to 2e, GW's Space Hulk to FFG's Death Wing, and even GW's Horus Heresy to FFG's version and GW's Fury of Dracula to FFG's version. Oh, and GW's DungeonQuest to FFG's version. (Also, Dune to Rex, but be quiet about that.)

I think Warhammer Quest: Silver Tower is a good sign. GW could have kept the original Warhammer Quest mechanics. But they decided to update the game with more modern-day mechanics.

ced1106 wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I woild find it hard to believe that Armada could be a "re-skin" of Battlefleet Gothic. I just bought extensively into Armada, and have owned several fleets for Battlefleet Gothic since it came out, and Armada has the feel of starting out right away as a Star Wars game.

Said source didn't say "re-skin". FFG game designers seem to be quite happy to modify mechanics as they see fit: Arkham Horror to Eldritch Horror, Mansions of Madness 1e to 2e, Descent 1e to 2e, GW's Space Hulk to FFG's Death Wing, and even GW's Horus Heresy to FFG's version and GW's Fury of Dracula to FFG's version. Oh, and GW's DungeonQuest to FFG's version. (Also, Dune to Rex, but be quiet about that.)

I think Warhammer Quest: Silver Tower is a good sign. GW could have kept the original Warhammer Quest mechanics. But they decided to update the game with more modern-day mechanics.

The BL novel that went with the sliver tower was so depressing in a good warhammer way.

The novel is also a nice wink to the idea that the outcome of every game played is different.

Whoop's, sorry, I meant it the other way. I meant that if Armada started out as a theoretical FFG re-release/update of BFG (like when they updated Horus Heresy from the old chit-based dice-using version) but then it just reskinned it to be Star Wars by them to be more lucrative - that I don't really believe, unless they altered a whole bunch of rules from that prospective BFG re-release to fit Star Wars (like shield mechanics, squadrons, upgrade cards, all of which would have been odd-deeling in BFG.)

It's pretty simple to see it's utter baloney: FFG's license extended to roleplaying games, card games and board games. Star Wars Armada is a tabletop miniatures game the same as 40k (yes it uses custom measuring devices, but that's no different than the 40k 2nd edition vehicle turn template or the ubiquitous whippy-sticks), a 40k-skinned version would never have fit within their license and therefor would have been pointless to write.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
Rules writers are incredibly specialist, and tend to be quite independently minded. I mean, if you're working for a specific client with their own IP or established ruleset, you obviously follow the brief and fit in with the other members of the team and avoid being a prima donna or auteur type. But that's quite different from the kind of blind loyalty (or at least, blinkered loyalty -- the outside world does not exist!) that the GW corporate culture demands, and that IMO is the enemy of creativity.

Unless Rountree has turned around one of the central pillars of GW recruiting, i.e. that attitude is more important than skills or experience because if you have the right attitude we can train you (can we? who at GW is going to train up the next generation of rules writers?)...

Unless he has sacked or retrained the entire HR department...

GW will not recruit good rules writers. They no longer know how to recruit good rules writers. They would not know a good rules writer if they tripped over one. They would struggle to recognise a good rule.

Even Evil Old GW(tm) had no qualms about letting Black Library hire Green Ronin's Chris Pramas to write Dark Heresy (a lot of people forget it had a single print-run under Black Library's Black Industries imprint before being handed over to FFG).

A part of me doubts we will see GW try again at making an RPG, just a gut feeling.

Having FFG handle things like RPGs for them, it kept their own work load light so they could focus on things like destroying WHFB...Hm, maybe GW needs to work on making RPGs.

 Krinsath wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


but GW are messing with one of my favourite companies, and this will not stand. This aggression will not stand.

As has already been said, there's no real reason to attribute malice or ill-will to it. GW likely knew when X-Wing took off that the days of the license were limited, as did FFG. The request was very likely pro forma and both sides knew what the outcome would be long before the request was made; some things are done in the business world just for the sake of saying that they were done. The notice was given, the box was checked, and now they split ways.

If GW had immediately revoked the license or either side was talking about lawsuits, then that would be signs of aggression. Likely this has been coming for a while now, and is just how business works at times. FFG didn't have that opportunity when they got the 40k license, then they did, and now they're both moving on. As has been said it likely hurts GW far more than FFG, but it's their license to hand out or not.

Good point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ProtoClone wrote:
A part of me doubts we will see GW try again at making an RPG, just a gut feeling.

Having FFG handle things like RPGs for them, it kept their own work load light so they could focus on things like destroying WHFB...Hm, maybe GW needs to work on making RPGs.

If they could give a licence to somebody to make a good RPG video game, something like Elder Scrolls Oblivion, we'd all be happy. WEll, I would be anyway

I certainly do think that FFG explored the possibility of doing a new version of Battlefleet Gothic, but I suspect it was probably very early in the design when GW nixed it for whatever reason and they switched over to making it into Armada instead. Their Forbidden Stars game does use some BFG ships, which is why I suspect some work was put towards a BFG game (perhaps they hoped to adapt the designed from FS into a BFG game). Just thinking out loud, here.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Maybe GW will decided to keep the RPGs (or some of them at least) going, and maybe the workload will be so big they'll have to keep using freelancers.

(/slim hope)

Oh you mean like Matt Ward? Maybe that is what he is hired for?

 warboss wrote:
My understanding is that game mechanics themselves are not copyrightable...but rather the specific expression of those mechanics (the exact words used).

https://www.rpglibrary.org/articles/faqs/copyright.php

Also, what patents do you think FFG have for Forbidden Stars? Are you incorrectly using the term patent? If there is one on the game and I'm mistaken, can you post the number or a pic of the patent pending statement? It should be on the box.

You are absolutely correct.

I was using the term "patent" loosely to mean a specifically designed body of game mechanics. I am not a lawyer nor is English my first language, so I apologize if I offended or confused you. Nor am I an expert on copyright or intellectual property laws, but it is my general understanding that you can copyright, and/or recognize as intellectual property specific game designs; which means that in most cases a specific mechanic is not protected, whereas a game design (which incorporates and arranges game mechanics in a particular way) is protected, usually by IP-laws.

Regarding Forbidden Stars, the rights to the game itself probably belongs to either the designers or the publisher, or both, while the theme is obviously the IP of GW. Should GW want to publish the game at some point in the future they would have to obtain the rights from whoever owns the game itself, while the owners might decide to re-theme the game and publish it as something else. This sort of thing happens frequently in board game publishing and several of the games in FFG's catalogue are older games they've obtained the publishing rights for.

One such example is "Rex: Final Days of an Empire" (2012), which was originally published by Avalon Hill in 1979 as "Frank Herbert's Dune". FFG obtained the rights to publish the game from the original designer, after his deal with AH expired, but were unable to obtain permission from the estate of Frank Herbert for the Dune IP. Thus: "Rex: Final Days of an Empire, a reimagined version of Dune set in Fantasy Flight's Twilight Imperium universe, ...".

Postscript: Certain publishers make an effort to patent certain terms and/or mechanics. Wizards of the Coast infamously patented tapping of cards, both the term and the specific action as well as a plethora of collectible card game mechanics: https://www.google.com/patents/US5662332

It sucks that Conquest ends now. So much potential to go undeveloped.

Your English is better than many native speakers so I wouldn't worry about that. I just wanted to clarify some terms and misconceptions in your post.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I certainly do think that FFG explored the possibility of doing a new version of Battlefleet Gothic, but I suspect it was probably very early in the design when GW nixed it for whatever reason and they switched over to making it into Armada instead. Their Forbidden Stars game does use some BFG ships, which is why I suspect some work was put towards a BFG game (perhaps they hoped to adapt the designed from FS into a BFG game). Just thinking out loud, here.

Forbidden Stars also contains tanks and Titans that could have been great for Epic. But neither Epic nor Battlefleet Gothic ever fell within their license. What they could or could not do was hammered out before the agreement was signed, it was even stated in the original press release (https://sirdoomsbadcompany.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/games-workshop-rpg-press-release-2008.pdf): "The agreement does not include certain GW titles in which miniatures feature as the predominant component of the game, such as Space Hulk and Blood Bowl.", Battlefleet Gothic would have been off the table for two reasons, partly because of the central role of miniatures but mostly because despite the protestations of the flock-snobs Battlefleet Gothic is not a boardgame.

notprop wrote:Rick Priestley worked in the warehouse before he was given a chance to write for GW.

Which is an appropriate hire for a small start up. For an established company trying to develop a product for multi-million dollar international market, less so.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If that inside source from the previous page is true...

I very much doubt this. I mean, GW may think that they invented the grenade launcher, skulls and arrows (and they are on the record as saying as such), but I doubt they're deluded enough that they can tell another company what they're allowed to produce with IP that is not GW's, and that that company will somehow roll over and do as they are told.

You're misinterpreting what occurred. It was more of a "We will not renew your license if you continue producing these games" kind of thing, not a "You WILL stop producing these games" type exchange.

"Yes! Let us make a capital ship combat game based on a pretty obscure GW game from 20 years ago, and *not* a spin-off from our insanely popular spaceship game based on the biggest and most popular science fiction IP in the entire world! bFG all the way baby!" Hahaha, no chance.

It's pretty simple to see it's utter baloney: FFG's license extended to roleplaying games, card games and board games. Star Wars Armada is a tabletop miniatures game the same as 40k (yes it uses custom measuring devices, but that's no different than the 40k 2nd edition vehicle turn template or the ubiquitous whippy-sticks), a 40k-skinned version would never have fit within their license and therefor would have been pointless to write.

Worth noting that my source never actually said that Armada started out as BFG, that was my interpretation of the hint he gave me. I made that abundantly clear in my original post.




FYI, to the doubters I've seen another source who claims to be a former FFG employee essentially saying the same things (though no hint as to what the converted GW IP game was, just that one exists).

 Ian Sturrock wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


There's bound to be good freelancers out there they can hire?

Sure. I mean they could hire Eric Lang and he would produce a 40K ruleset that would put GW dominating the market for miniatures games again (rather than just miniatures). But they don't seem to work like that. They would rather promote someone from the warehouse who has a really good attitude, and hope for the best.

Andy Chambers.

Personally, I would KILL for an action RPG in a similar style to Champions of Norrath or Diablo in the Warhammer universe, with magical weapons that you can find that are straight up magic gear out of the old rulebooks. This would make me the world's happiest video gamer.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I certainly do think that FFG explored the possibility of doing a new version of Battlefleet Gothic, but I suspect it was probably very early in the design when GW nixed it for whatever reason and they switched over to making it into Armada instead.

There is just no way this happened. None. At all.

This place never ceases to amaze me.

Caliginous wrote:
There is just no way this happened. None. At all.

This place never ceases to amaze me.

I realise I have a slightly different perspective to most people, but yeah, you're right, and the idea that people could actually think that is kinda silly.

Any'a y'all really think FFG just starts making a game and then stopped once GW caught wind of it and 'nixed' it. No, GW owns the IP, and they have a specific (or had a specific) agreement with FFG. FFG knew what they were allowed to produce, and everything they did had to go through GW at multiple stages.

You don't just partially develop a game in the hope that you'll get away with it.

I mean, BFG is a miniature game. Always was. There's no way FFG would even look at re-doing it, because there's no way GW would ever let them do it anyway, especially not in the form Armada exists.

The whole 'insider scoop' reads like something people would tailor make up to match 'the GW narrative'. Everyone knows that Kirby is nutso, right? Let's just throw the most outrageous mud at the wall, something WILL stick. Some are clearly happy to take it at face value, so mission accomplished I guess.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You don't just partially develop a game in the hope that you'll get away with it.

I don't know, it probably depends on the definition of "partially develop". Do extensive work to the point that you have a playable prototype? Hell no, not unless you're planning to release the game with or without the GW IP glued on top of it. Do a quick design sketch as a sales pitch to GW and try to convince them that it's a profitable idea that GW's licensing department should approve? Sounds a lot more plausible.

 Peregrine wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You don't just partially develop a game in the hope that you'll get away with it.

I don't know, it probably depends on the definition of "partially develop". Do extensive work to the point that you have a playable prototype? Hell no, not unless you're planning to release the game with or without the GW IP glued on top of it. Do a quick design sketch as a sales pitch to GW and try to convince them that it's a profitable idea that GW's licensing department should approve? Sounds a lot more plausible.

That's the point I was trying to make, but it was easier for others to just rudely dogpile on it, I guess. After all, GW themselves have mountains of sketches that never became actual models, is it really that damn hard to entertain just the merest possibility of a thought that someone maybe threw a few sketches and concepts together to pitch an idea? And where one IP holder said no, another one said yes?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If that inside source from the previous page is true...

I very much doubt this. I mean, GW may think that they invented the grenade launcher, skulls and arrows (and they are on the record as saying as such), but I doubt they're deluded enough that they can tell another company what they're allowed to produce with IP that is not their own, and that that company will somehow roll over and do as they are told.

I shouldn't really be replying to somebody on my ignore list

but GW are messing with one of my favourite companies, and this will not stand. This aggression will not stand.

There are ways to get back at GW. Next time I'm in WH Smith (British shop that sells magazines)

I'm going to hide all the copies of White Dwarf behind the women's magazines. Take that Games Workshop!

How will punishing the employees with more recovery and/or forcing the bookstore to spend more with the magazine distributor instead of exchanging unsold product for credit "get back at GW"?

 Peregrine wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You don't just partially develop a game in the hope that you'll get away with it.

I don't know, it probably depends on the definition of "partially develop". Do extensive work to the point that you have a playable prototype? Hell no, not unless you're planning to release the game with or without the GW IP glued on top of it. Do a quick design sketch as a sales pitch to GW and try to convince them that it's a profitable idea that GW's licensing department should approve? Sounds a lot more plausible.

No, not even that part happened.

Armada happened exactly like this:

INT. FFG Office - Morning

FFG Man #1: Hey, have you seen this X-Wing sales figures?
FFG Man #2: Yes, I used all six reams of paper to print them off. Started last night.
FFG Man #1: Rad. Have we got more of this stuff coming out?
FFG Man #2: We are scouring the very depths of anything that has ever had a Star Wars IP on it that contained a spaceship. Don't worry.
FFG Man #1: That pleases me. But we really need to do something else to bring all the bigger ships onto the table. New game, new cash. Can you write something like that? For big ships?
FFG Man #2: You really want me to stop work on Enemies Whassup for Dark Heresy?
FFG Man #1. Yes.

Everyone dies. Fin.

As someone who was heavily in X-Wing, the fan base was clamoring for a capital ship game almost immediately after the game launched, when it became clear that playable Star Destroyers models would never make an appearance in a starship dogfighting game. So the BFG angle I suppose is possible, in the sense that its a big universe out there and who knows maybe aliens killed the dinosaurs. But I find it much, much more probable that Armada was developed due to observed historical strong product performance of X-Wing and Imperial Assault, and vocal demand from the fanbase probably backed up by market studies.

 rabidaskal wrote:
As someone who was heavily in X-Wing, the fan base was clamoring for a capital ship game almost immediately after the game launched, when it became clear that playable Star Destroyers models would never make an appearance in a starship dogfighting game. So the BFG angle I suppose is possible, in the sense that its a big universe out there and who knows maybe aliens killed the dinosaurs. But I find it much, much more probable that Armada was developed due to observed historical strong product performance of X-Wing and Imperial Assault, and vocal demand from the fanbase probably backed up by market studies.

Way too logical and sensible. Frame it as a rumour that you heard from a guy who was a roommate of a cousin that had an adopted child that knew the potted palm tree in the FFG reception area.

Why are we assuming that the game must be Armada and acting like the original claim is completely absurd because Armada doesn't fit? Even the person who posted the original story only speculated that it was Armada based on what they thought were hints in that direction. Even if Armada had nothing to do with GW IP at any point in its development it's still entirely possible that one of FFG's other games did.

And for the record I don't think Armada was going to be a BFG update, unless we're talking about a very old concept for Armada that was significantly changed before the final release. Aside from the strong demand from Star Wars fans for a game like Armada the rules just feel more like a Star Wars game than a 40k game. The fighter rules feel much more like Star Wars dogfighting than 40k-style expendable ordnance, there's a ton of attention given to representing characters that would be important for the Star Wars license but irrelevant in a BFG update, etc. I think the most it could have been is that FFG tried to pitch a BFG update independent from anything going on with their Star Wars license, failed to convince GW, and some of the ideas on game mechanics ended up in Armada when FFG started work on that project.

Is there any way for Black Library to rerelease the game, and continue the lines?

 Grot 6 wrote:
Is there any way for Black Library to rerelease the game, and continue the lines?

No. GW would have to buy the game from FFG, and I wouldn't bet anything on that happening.

!@#$!!!!!

In that case, if anyone wants, I have a few of the Dark Heresy Books, I'd be wiling to trade for Black Crusade.... OR Inquisition for Only War material.

Other then that. anyone want to talk about pooling resources... and making a library of a dead game....?

!@#$ !!!