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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Down with "No model no rules", more like. It kills creativity and narrows the game down to fewer options. Them applying such a policy to orks was the last straw.

They are legally obligated to do so, or they will lose their IP rights.

Didn't stop them for the past 30 years or so. And besides, there has to be a more elegant solution than what they are currently doing.

Elegant is the enemy of efficient. And companies should, at least in theory, be efficient first.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Down with "No model no rules", more like. It kills creativity and narrows the game down to fewer options. Them applying such a policy to orks was the last straw.

They are legally obligated to do so, or they will lose their IP rights.

That’s hilarious, since their IP was ripped from other sources in the first place. 40K started out as a homage to a wide variety of existing sci-fi, if not a blatant attempt to cash in on certain properties popular at the time.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Down with "No model no rules", more like. It kills creativity and narrows the game down to fewer options. Them applying such a policy to orks was the last straw.

They are legally obligated to do so, or they will lose their IP rights.

Didn't stop them for the past 30 years or so. And besides, there has to be a more elegant solution than what they are currently doing.

You.. you do realise the reason they did so for those 30 years is because it was never challenged in court, and now it has been they can no longer do it? If you're angry with anyone blame Chapter House for ruining a good thing by not playing by the rules.

Can you explain this Chapter house thing and how it led to "no model, no rules"?

Pointed Stick wrote:
Can you explain this Chapter house thing and how it led to "no model, no rules"?

https://1d4chan.org/wiki/ChapterHouse_Studios#Lawsuit_from_Games_Workshop

Tl;dr Chapter House were making models for units GW had no models for, but also making 3rd party bits and using GW trademarks in the names. GW got pissy and sued them. Court ruled that unless GW makes models for the units they have rules for they can't stop people making models using the GW names and IP for them, but GW can stop third parties from using their Trademarks to describe their third party bitz.

e.g. You can make "Mongolian heads, compatible with most 28mm brands", not "White Scar Adeptus Astartes Space Marine heads". You can make Mycetic Spores because GW don't make models called that, but you can't make Female "Farseers" because GW make Farseer models.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you're angry with anyone blame Chapter House for ruining a good thing by not playing by the rules.

Or we can blame GW for their incompetence in handling the situation. GW should have had no concern for CH, they had much greater resources available in every area and the "official" label on their products. So what if CH produces something that competes with their products? Just make a superior product, dominate the market, and let CH fight with all the other third-party companies for the scraps. But instead GW made the mistake of listening to their legal department too much, showing major weakness and a lack of confidence in their own products, and lost a ton of goodwill with the community. It was a complete debacle from beginning to end, and it's unbelievable incompetence that GW hasn't reversed their policies since then.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you're angry with anyone blame Chapter House for ruining a good thing by not playing by the rules.

Or we can blame GW for their incompetence in handling the situation. GW should have had no concern for CH, they had much greater resources available in every area and the "official" label on their products. So what if CH produces something that competes with their products? Just make a superior product, dominate the market, and let CH fight with all the other third-party companies for the scraps. But instead GW made the mistake of listening to their legal department too much, showing major weakness and a lack of confidence in their own products, and lost a ton of goodwill with the community. It was a complete debacle from beginning to end, and it's unbelievable incompetence that GW hasn't reversed their policies since then.

Because that's not how IP law works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark "Competition" doesn't let you infringe on trademarks. You can't just make your own Dyson vacuum cleaners and claim you're competing.

GW are incompetent, but given the choice between "No Model, No Rules" and "Spend millions of pounds on moulds for models that won't make their money back to protect their trademarks", then obviously the former is going to win because shareholders.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because that's not how IP law works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark "Competition" doesn't let you infringe on trademarks. You can't just make your own Dyson vacuum cleaners and claim you're competing.

And the courts found that most of CH's products were not infringing, and most of the rest could have been sold just fine by relabeling them. "Female Farseer™" might be infringing, but "female space elf wizard suitable for use as 40k Farseer™" would not. GW spent a bunch of time and money in a raging dumpster fire of a poorly conducted attempt to bully the competition out of the market.

GW are incompetent, but given the choice between "No Model, No Rules" and "Spend millions of pounds on moulds for models that won't make their money back to protect their trademarks", then obviously the former is going to win because shareholders.

Nice false dilemma there. GW had another option: spend millions of pounds on molds that will make their money back because GW's product is superior and the handful of people buying the CH alternative probably weren't going to buy GW stuff anyway.

So much complaining about GW on this page from people who spend so much of there time and money on there products????

What I would like to see is a separate rule set matched play, don’t really care what it is like as I don’t play that way but I think it needs to simple and stream lined similar to epic 40000 so that everyone who does play match play can stop complaining and get on with the hobby while those of us who don’t can carry on enjoying this edition which is pretty good really.

No, basically entitled white knighters who rationalize IP theft simply to save a few bucks vs. rational people.

 Stormonu wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Down with "No model no rules", more like. It kills creativity and narrows the game down to fewer options. Them applying such a policy to orks was the last straw.

They are legally obligated to do so, or they will lose their IP rights.

That’s hilarious, since their IP was ripped from other sources in the first place. 40K started out as a homage to a wide variety of existing sci-fi, if not a blatant attempt to cash in on certain properties popular at the time.

so has literally every other sci-fi/fantasy anything since LoTR(at least).

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you're angry with anyone blame Chapter House for ruining a good thing by not playing by the rules.

Or we can blame GW for their incompetence in handling the situation. GW should have had no concern for CH, they had much greater resources available in every area and the "official" label on their products. So what if CH produces something that competes with their products? Just make a superior product, dominate the market, and let CH fight with all the other third-party companies for the scraps. But instead GW made the mistake of listening to their legal department too much, showing major weakness and a lack of confidence in their own products, and lost a ton of goodwill with the community. It was a complete debacle from beginning to end, and it's unbelievable incompetence that GW hasn't reversed their policies since then.

Because that's not how IP law works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark "Competition" doesn't let you infringe on trademarks. You can't just make your own Dyson vacuum cleaners and claim you're competing.

GW are incompetent, but given the choice between "No Model, No Rules" and "Spend millions of pounds on moulds for models that won't make their money back to protect their trademarks", then obviously the former is going to win because shareholders.

That wiki really really needs fixing, it's flat wrong in certain areas .... But I get your point.

 Just Tony wrote:
No, basically entitled white knighters who rationalize IP theft simply to save a few bucks vs. rational people.

What CH was doing was not IP theft. The court ruled that most of their products were perfectly legal as-is, and most of the rest were only a violation because they were described as "Farseer™" instead of "28mm space elf wizard compatible with 40k Eldar armies". The whole thing was a blatant attempt by GW to crush a competing company that couldn't afford to pay to defend themselves in court, as demonstrated by how laughably unprepared GW was when CH got lawyers and said "bring it on".

Can we get back to "What would you like to see in 9th ed?" please.

Wait, GW owns the word Farseer? Is that like a female shaman or an oracle in english, that would be like owning the word eldar or space marine.

Karol wrote:
Wait, GW owns the word Farseer? Is that like a female shaman or an oracle in english, that would be like owning the word eldar or space marine.

Seer is, but not Farseer.
Farseer isn't a common word.

Karol wrote:
that would be like owning the word eldar or space marine.

They tried, that is why we have Aeldari now

ingtaer wrote:Can we get back to "What would you like to see in 9th ed?" please.

In addition to my previous post, what would be nice for 9th if GW really goes thru the profiles and adept them to the new core rules
There is the problem that the core rule changes made specific value better / added new caps of what is good and what is bad

Strength and Toughness should be adopted to the new rules and Wounds should be the main factor to balance how tanky a model in general is.

For example, Terminators and Dreadnoughts should have a similar profile with the difference that Terminators should be slower and have less Wounds but identical Toughness and Strength (with Fists/Hammers).
To balance anti-tank, fixed or more reliable damage should be added (all D6 Damage turns into 2D3, D3 become 2)

If you want to get rid of small arms killing tanks you have to increase wounds on tanks and damage of dedicated anti tank weapons. Like a Rhino having 14 or 16 Wounds and a LAscannon doing a flat 5 or 6 damage.

Also cut almost all damage2 values from weapon profiles. Make them inflict either 1 to fight chaff or 3+ to fight big stuff. Then you can add in 2 wound models as a useful third class of a rock-paper-scissors meta. Especially if you allow to spread damage within a unit.

Unify old marines and primaris models. Primaris do look substanially better scaled than the old squished dudes.

I would hope this gets into a potential 9th edition.

 combatcotton wrote:
If you want to get rid of small arms killing tanks you have to increase wounds on tanks and damage of dedicated anti tank weapons. Like a Rhino having 14 or 16 Wounds and a LAscannon doing a flat 5 or 6 damage.

Also cut almost all damage2 values from weapon profiles. Make them inflict either 1 to fight chaff or 3+ to fight big stuff. Then you can add in 2 wound models as a useful third class of a rock-paper-scissors meta. Especially if you allow to spread damage within a unit.

Unify old marines and primaris models. Primaris do look substanially better scaled than the old squished dudes.

I would hope this gets into a potential 9th edition.

Or just increase their tougness value so that S4 wounds on a 6, thereby making it extremely unlikely to successfully wound a vehicle after saves.
There does need to be less variable damage though. Dedicated anti-tank weapons should deal some amount of minimal damage. A lascannon should really be more like 3+D6, for example.
That way AT weapons would be the go to solution to dealing with heavy targets due to how incredibly efficient they are, whilst still being inefficient against infantry (do you really need to deal 9 damage against a lone guardsman? I mean, if he were Marbo, sure, but give the poor rookie a break)

Why not add a keyword to vehicles "Vehicle Armor". That requires all weapons to have a associated keyword (Anti Tank) or wounds on a 6?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Why not add a keyword to vehicles "Vehicle Armor". That requires all weapons to have a associated keyword (Anti Tank) or wounds on a 6?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Or just increase their tougness value so that S4 wounds on a 6, thereby making it extremely unlikely to successfully wound a vehicle after saves.

Which won't solve anything as long as the amount of Wounds does not increase. Taking 50% of a model by rolling 6 is still worth it
Additional all anti-infantry weapons are still good or better anti-tank weapons as high ROF with 1 damage and wound on a 6 is more reliable as a single D6 damage shot and the potential damage that can be done on a lucky roll is even higher

To solve the problem, Anti-Tank need more reliable damage, either a fixed value or multiple D3 so that the minimum damage is >1
Damage 2 weapons either become Damage 3 (Anti-Tank) or damage 1 (anti-infantry)

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Alternating activations. That's the only important one. Everything else is minor as 8th Edition overall is a fine ruleset.

Some Tank rules would be nice, but I don't mean the crap we had in 6the/7th which made a Tank squishier than a Space Marine. Just something like falling back and shooting, or shooting in CC, or secondary weapons having better overwatch, little stuff like that.

I think tanks should be immune to CC locks for shooting. Oh no! You've surrounded my giant tracked death wagon. The guns don't work...wait a minute...

I also think that Tanks should either go to a 2+ Save, or should outright Ignore AP-1. I'm also of the opinion that tanks should be allowed to purchase invulnerable saves at the 5++ or higher level depending on point balance. Furthermore, tanks should be able to "roll over" units in CC causing wounds as they just drive right over the infantry huddled around them, squashing them to death.

 Togusa wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Alternating activations. That's the only important one. Everything else is minor as 8th Edition overall is a fine ruleset.

Some Tank rules would be nice, but I don't mean the crap we had in 6the/7th which made a Tank squishier than a Space Marine. Just something like falling back and shooting, or shooting in CC, or secondary weapons having better overwatch, little stuff like that.

I think tanks should be immune to CC locks for shooting. Oh no! You've surrounded my giant tracked death wagon. The guns don't work...wait a minute...

I also think that Tanks should either go to a 2+ Save, or should outright Ignore AP-1. I'm also of the opinion that tanks should be allowed to purchase invulnerable saves at the 5++ or higher level depending on point balance. Furthermore, tanks should be able to "roll over" units in CC causing wounds as they just drive right over the infantry huddled around them, squashing them to death.

But what if you're in CC with Terminators, who have giant power fists ready to tear you to shreds? Why can you just roll over them? I get that you can still shoot, that's fine. Maybe at a -1 penalty, representing the movement needed to try to avoid getting wrecked.

What I'd really like to see is people stop suggesting alternating activations or a move to d10s/d12s as a blanket magic-bullet solution to all possible problems.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
What I'd really like to see is people stop suggesting alternating activations or a move to d10s/d12s as a blanket magic-bullet solution to all possible problems.

But they fix everything.

Did anyone done tesing, because if yes, then why not send the results to GW?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
What I'd really like to see is people stop suggesting alternating activations or a move to d10s/d12s as a blanket magic-bullet solution to all possible problems.

Literally all possible problems? No. But those two changes sure would fix the majority of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But what if you're in CC with Terminators, who have giant power fists ready to tear you to shreds?

Because terminators are still small and squishy compared to a tank, and not suicidal enough to use those power fists by making one swipe as they are crushed to death under the tank's tracks.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 combatcotton wrote:
If you want to get rid of small arms killing tanks you have to increase wounds on tanks and damage of dedicated anti tank weapons. Like a Rhino having 14 or 16 Wounds and a LAscannon doing a flat 5 or 6 damage.

Also cut almost all damage2 values from weapon profiles. Make them inflict either 1 to fight chaff or 3+ to fight big stuff. Then you can add in 2 wound models as a useful third class of a rock-paper-scissors meta. Especially if you allow to spread damage within a unit.

Unify old marines and primaris models. Primaris do look substanially better scaled than the old squished dudes.

I would hope this gets into a potential 9th edition.

Or just increase their tougness value so that S4 wounds on a 6, thereby making it extremely unlikely to successfully wound a vehicle after saves.
There does need to be less variable damage though. Dedicated anti-tank weapons should deal some amount of minimal damage. A lascannon should really be more like 3+D6, for example.
That way AT weapons would be the go to solution to dealing with heavy targets due to how incredibly efficient they are, whilst still being inefficient against infantry (do you really need to deal 9 damage against a lone guardsman? I mean, if he were Marbo, sure, but give the poor rookie a break)

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:Why not add a keyword to vehicles "Vehicle Armor". That requires all weapons to have a associated keyword (Anti Tank) or wounds on a 6?

Adding a keyword would be a really good way of modifying the rules for vehicles. maybe have light armour and heavy armour.

Light could be T6-7(Rhino, Landspeeder etc)& Heavy T8+(knights, LR, Stompa, etc)

Light would make anything not specifically having the anti-tank keyword wound on 6's.
Heavy would be normal for anti-tank weapons.

Flat damage would be 6 or less +D3/D6 I think would work out.

Could respectable members of the w40k community just test it for GW, maybe even include the people who already did game testing for GW, as thet would know what format of report GW likes and wants. GW would get testing done for free, but it wouldn't be done by some randoms. Other people would feel as if they were fixing the game. IMO it would be a good thing to do.