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.

 Scottywan82 wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:
But who cares if someone sells a third-party component that requires the purchase of a GW kit? If I buy a box of Cadians and built it with a plasma gun and a flamer GW sells one Cadian box. If I buy the same box and a third-party plasma gun to build the squad with two plasma guns GW still sells the exact same Cadian box. And of course if GW still sold the packs of special weapons they used to have I wouldn't even need to buy that third-party plasma gun, I'd buy the pack of GW plasma guns and GW would get an additional sale. The issue with CHS was that they were replacing GW sales, not adding to GW sales.

Also, the current NMNR policy doesn't stop third-party sellers. There are still plenty of them selling stuff as alternate aesthetic options and plenty of them selling not-Cadians, not-Krieg, etc, as entire squads to go with whatever rules GW publishes.

Well, let's be clear: This is all speculation. We have no definite indications on any of this. So don't feel like you have to convince anyone here one way or the other. We will never really know.

To answer your question about who cares: The answer is Games Workshop. While third parties are now focusing on alternative sculpts and aesthetics for things like Imperial Guard, pinning the weapon loadouts in a datasheet to the exact contents of a sprue removes a lot of the market for third party bits. For example, when Chaos Marine Terminators could be loaded out with all combi-meltas, there was a market for extra combi-meltas since the sprue only had two of them. By removing that option, they don't prevent third party companies from selling combi-melta bits, but they remove the incentive for players to buy them in the first place since buying the bits won't benefit them in any way.

It doesn't make GW more money, but it makes those bits sellers less money.

Always remember: Corporations don't just want lots of money. They want ALL the money. It's the reason they have to constantly increase market share, even when they are the size of Google or Amazon or Microsoft. They cannot bear the thought that you might spend your dollars elsewhere.

I agree with all of this, but I think there is also an element of “mainstreaming” going on; geek hobbies seem to be on the rise and GW seemed to get some decent coverage in the media during lockdown and I think they are trying to cater to new blood more. Having a box where you build it as per the instructions and get playing with the basic rules included in the box does lower the “intellectual” cost of entry.

 Jadenim wrote:
I agree with all of this, but I think there is also an element of “mainstreaming” going on; geek hobbies seem to be on the rise and GW seemed to get some decent coverage in the media during lockdown and I think they are trying to cater to new blood more. Having a box where you build it as per the instructions and get playing with the basic rules included in the box does lower the “intellectual” cost of entry.

Oh, definitely. It's very much the Apple model of ecosystem. Everything you need, all in one box, no don't look at that other stuff, just look at this box, it's got all the parts you need.

No Model No Rules has multiple reasons behind it, at least as I see it.

1) It's easier on players to not have to combine multiple boxes to build a single unit. The alternative of including an extra sprue would mean thicker boxes and that would only complicate logistics.

2) With the new monopose paradigm, it's much harder to make extra weapons and the like that actually fit on different models. So better not even try,

3) It makes game balance just that bit easier because the more options there are, the greater the chance that some combination becomes an outlier.

4) It hurts third party suppliers. That isn't particularly important, but it certainly is no reason not to do it.

5) For things greater than options, like whole units, it secures copyright as per Chapterhouse.

So there are plenty of reasons for it. And the counterarguments of creativity and the like clearly aren't that important to GW as it is today.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Scottywan82 wrote:
It doesn't make GW more money, but it makes those bits sellers less money.

And this is why it's such an unconvincing explanation. GW gains nothing from NMNR, they earn themselves a lot of angry customers for the sole purpose of spite. GW has no financial incentive to hurt third-party sellers unless by doing so they generate additional revenue and, unlike in the CHS case, they don't here.

A lot of the problems are caused by the shift from buying metal models ala carte in blisters, to buying plastic models on a sprue.

"Back in the day" if you wanted a squad of Chaos Terminators with combi meltas you could buy 5 individual models (assuming you could find a shop with 5 combi melta termis hanging on the wall) and be done. No reason not to include that option. But once you change to sprues you now either have to make a sprue with 5 of each option, limit the number allowed to what fits in the box, or have angry customers who can't build the unit they want out of the $50+ box they bought.

And I agree. Yeah, I have a big bitz box and I love converting, but I am annoyed when I pay a bloody fortune for a box that literally cannot make the unit described in the rule book. Not one marine box has the parts needed to cover even common options. No lascannon in the tactical marine set for example.

And GW only have themselves to blame. The ancient Catachan and Cadian boxes could have included all the special weapons, yeah we would have had a few less grenades and pouches but they were deliberately left out. One of the many, many price hikes could have been offset by adding a heavy weapon sprue but the choice was made not to do it.

So I think that boxed kits should be able to build legal units, but rather than making their kits better GW seems to be deciding to make their rules worse.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
A lot of the problems are caused by the shift from buying metal models ala carte in blisters, to buying plastic models on a sprue.

"Back in the day" if you wanted a squad of Chaos Terminators with combi meltas you could buy 5 individual models (assuming you could find a shop with 5 combi melta termis hanging on the wall) and be done. No reason not to include that option. But once you change to sprues you now either have to make a sprue with 5 of each option, limit the number allowed to what fits in the box, or have angry customers who can't build the unit they want out of the $50+ box they bought.

And I agree. Yeah, I have a big bitz box and I love converting, but I am annoyed when I pay a bloody fortune for a box that literally cannot make the unit described in the rule book. Not one marine box has the parts needed to cover even common options. No lascannon in the tactical marine set for example.

And GW only have themselves to blame. The ancient Catachan and Cadian boxes could have included all the special weapons, yeah we would have had a few less grenades and pouches but they were deliberately left out. One of the many, many price hikes could have been offset by adding a heavy weapon sprue but the choice was made not to do it.

So I think that boxed kits should be able to build legal units, but rather than making their kits better GW seems to be deciding to make their rules worse.

Of course they did. That option costs GW nothing. Corporations with an entrenched foothold on a market will always choose the option that is cheapest for them. Every time.

 Jadenim wrote:
I agree with all of this, but I think there is also an element of “mainstreaming” going on; geek hobbies seem to be on the rise and GW seemed to get some decent coverage in the media during lockdown and I think they are trying to cater to new blood more. Having a box where you build it as per the instructions and get playing with the basic rules included in the box does lower the “intellectual” cost of entry.

Was this ever a problem for normal players? I get that the e-sport players can't stand the thought of playing with anything other than the perfect netlist and can't get started until they build it but you could always build at least some configuration without conversions. And that was fine for getting started.

The "No Model, No Rules" being because of the copyright thing doesn't make much sense. It doesn't give them any more ability to stop 3rd party replacements whether the model has rules or vice versa, they get the copyright for their particular model design only. It doesn't let them stop others doing something with the idea or the theme, just protects their specific model design. Whether there are models to go along with the rules doesn't make a difference.

Sure, if there are no rules for something then 3rd parties have little reason to make models for that, but the idea that they're removing things SPECIFICALLY to spite them just seems absurd.

If that was the case it would be prevalent throughout GWs approach yet we've just had Necromunda release vehicle design rules and several things there have rules but not models.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
The "No Model, No Rules" being because of the copyright thing doesn't make much sense. It doesn't give them any more ability to stop 3rd party replacements whether the model has rules or vice versa, they get the copyright for their particular model design only. It doesn't let them stop others doing something with the idea or the theme, just protects their specific model design. Whether there are models to go along with the rules doesn't make a difference.

Tell that to Chapterhouse Studios.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
The "No Model, No Rules" being because of the copyright thing doesn't make much sense. It doesn't give them any more ability to stop 3rd party replacements whether the model has rules or vice versa, they get the copyright for their particular model design only. It doesn't let them stop others doing something with the idea or the theme, just protects their specific model design. Whether there are models to go along with the rules doesn't make a difference.

Sure, if there are no rules for something then 3rd parties have little reason to make models for that, but the idea that they're removing things SPECIFICALLY to spite them just seems absurd.

If that was the case it would be prevalent throughout GWs approach yet we've just had Necromunda release vehicle design rules and several things there have rules but not models.

The newer 'boxed games' usually have the same No Models No Rules approach as 40k and AoS. They probably write off Necromunda, 30k etc as not worth trying to contain NMNR because most of the (usually older) people playing those games already know third party companies and games exist and if they they completely 'modernise' they're more likely to find other rulesets that do it similarly enough.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Jadenim wrote:
I agree with all of this, but I think there is also an element of “mainstreaming” going on; geek hobbies seem to be on the rise and GW seemed to get some decent coverage in the media during lockdown and I think they are trying to cater to new blood more. Having a box where you build it as per the instructions and get playing with the basic rules included in the box does lower the “intellectual” cost of entry.

Was this ever a problem for normal players? I get that the e-sport players can't stand the thought of playing with anything other than the perfect netlist and can't get started until they build it but you could always build at least some configuration without conversions. And that was fine for getting started.

As a non competitive player, yep. Remember people like us think 'hey stick that gun on that model' (an approach epitomised by Rogue Trader). Not being able to mix my version kits for me is a disincentive. I have this pile of models, why can't I mix them up (zoids!). Building x models all with identical loadouts is more like historical wargaming oddly enough.

Though deep down I would love the options to be cut right down and somewhat abstracted. Then modelling can go a lot wilder and still be easily useable in games.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
The "No Model, No Rules" being because of the copyright thing doesn't make much sense. It doesn't give them any more ability to stop 3rd party replacements whether the model has rules or vice versa, they get the copyright for their particular model design only. It doesn't let them stop others doing something with the idea or the theme, just protects their specific model design. Whether there are models to go along with the rules doesn't make a difference.

the point is (and was with CHS), if there are rules in the Codex, with an Artowrk, but no model, everyone can make a model based on the artwork that fits the rules, and the one doing it first has the copyright

and GW simply overreacted, and made a 180° turn by removing everything that has no dedicated model, while at the same time made rules for models that are in the box (like odd compinations of weapons simply because a metal model in a box existed though everyone played it with standard equipment)

not much GW is doing makes any sense from costumer point of view, but most things they do are also based on not understanding the difference between Copyright and Trademarks, or what the community means by "less complicated rules"

 Scottywan82 wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
The "No Model, No Rules" being because of the copyright thing doesn't make much sense. It doesn't give them any more ability to stop 3rd party replacements whether the model has rules or vice versa, they get the copyright for their particular model design only. It doesn't let them stop others doing something with the idea or the theme, just protects their specific model design. Whether there are models to go along with the rules doesn't make a difference.

Tell that to Chapterhouse Studios.

Didn't they win the lawsuit?

I though that's why GW is removing the need for 3rd party bits from their product - they can't do anything about them.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Scottywan82 wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
The "No Model, No Rules" being because of the copyright thing doesn't make much sense. It doesn't give them any more ability to stop 3rd party replacements whether the model has rules or vice versa, they get the copyright for their particular model design only. It doesn't let them stop others doing something with the idea or the theme, just protects their specific model design. Whether there are models to go along with the rules doesn't make a difference.

Tell that to Chapterhouse Studios.

Didn't they win the lawsuit?

I though that's why GW is removing the need for 3rd party bits from their product - they can't do anything about them.

They won, but in the process went bankrupt. So in a way, GW got what they wanted in the end.

CHS won some (2/3) but lost others

they one on "compatible with 40k Space Marines" or "if there is no model you can make one"

while all claimes based on Trademarks were won by GW as well as models that were too close to the original

 kodos wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
The "No Model, No Rules" being because of the copyright thing doesn't make much sense. It doesn't give them any more ability to stop 3rd party replacements whether the model has rules or vice versa, they get the copyright for their particular model design only. It doesn't let them stop others doing something with the idea or the theme, just protects their specific model design. Whether there are models to go along with the rules doesn't make a difference.

the point is (and was with CHS), if there are rules in the Codex, with an Artowrk, but no model, everyone can make a model based on the artwork that fits the rules, and the one doing it first has the copyright

and GW simply overreacted, and made a 180° turn by removing everything that has no dedicated model, while at the same time made rules for models that are in the box (like odd compinations of weapons simply because a metal model in a box existed though everyone played it with standard equipment)

not much GW is doing makes any sense from costumer point of view, but most things they do are also based on not understanding the difference between Copyright and Trademarks, or what the community means by "less complicated rules"

If there's artwork but no rules and someone outright copies that artwork to make a miniature, then that could be infringement of the artwork. If you make something inspired bythat, but that isn't an actual copy, then that's a different matter. And that applies regardless of if there's a model or not, because you don't own the general ideas and themes - it would only be the specific depiction that's covered. and how similar they are and such matters too.

But to me the strangest thing about saying that this is the result of the chapterhouse situation is that happened closer to a decade ago, and there have been multiple opportunities to remove these units with the previous codex updates. Sp that's saying they somehow haven't realized there's a "problem" with these specific Imperial Guard units until now.

No, the CHS lawsuit was very clear about that

An Artwork is not enough to prevent from making a model
To infringe the copyright of an Artwork you need to make an Artwork
To infringe the Copyright of a model there need to be a model

Well, GW still keeps the name Space Marine while others were changed directly after

It must not be that they realise now that it is an issue but simply that they said 10 years ago that problematic stuff will be phased out with the next model update
And Guard did not get one till now

 kodos wrote:
No, the CHS lawsuit was very clear about that

An Artwork is not enough to prevent from making a model
To infringe the copyright of an Artwork you need to make an Artwork
To infringe the Copyright of a model there need to be a model

Well, GW still keeps the name Space Marine while others were changed directly after

It must not be that they realise now that it is an issue but simply that they said 10 years ago that problematic stuff will be phased out with the next model update
And Guard did not get one till now

I think GW is more than happy to keep the name Space Marine because they have a Trademark on the name (not the same as copyright despite many people insisting GW have copyrighted “space marine”).

 kodos wrote:
No, the CHS lawsuit was very clear about that

An Artwork is not enough to prevent from making a model
To infringe the copyright of an Artwork you need to make an Artwork
To infringe the Copyright of a model there need to be a model

Well, GW still keeps the name Space Marine while others were changed directly after

It must not be that they realise now that it is an issue but simply that they said 10 years ago that problematic stuff will be phased out with the next model update
And Guard did not get one till now

Please provide quotes from the case where these were "very clear", because reading some of it myself, that sounds like a misinterpretation unless I've completely missed something.

Especially can't find anything saying it's fine to copy the artwork as a miniature and that "To infringe the copyright of an Artwork you need to make an Artwork" - you can make a model inspired by that artwork and that's alright, but you can't copy it exactly.

They lost on multiple things because they were considered to be generic/common elements that GW didn't own themselves - because like i said, ideas and themes aren't copyrightable.

 kodos wrote:
No, the CHS lawsuit was very clear about that

An Artwork is not enough to prevent from making a model
To infringe the copyright of an Artwork you need to make an Artwork
To infringe the Copyright of a model there need to be a model

Well, GW still keeps the name Space Marine while others were changed directly after

It must not be that they realise now that it is an issue but simply that they said 10 years ago that problematic stuff will be phased out with the next model update
And Guard did not get one till now

And none of that matters unless you have at a minimum tens of thousands of dollars to defend your rights in court assuming you are in the right. Ultimately, that was the take home lesson of the Chapterhouse trial for me personally regardless of what the actual legal findings were.

yeah, non is big enough to fight GW over copyright without going out of business
yet some of GWs policy is still based on what they learned from the CHS lawsuit

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

They lost on multiple things because they were considered to be generic/common elements that GW didn't own themselves - because like i said, ideas and themes aren't copyrightable.

things CHS lost:
female version of existing models as those were seen too close to the original IP
using Trademarks to advertise the models/bits

the models that CHS won were the Tyranid Dropbod and Doom of Malantai, as GW did not have models by that time, therefore the court did not saw a copyright infringement (as just having the art in a Codex does not protect a possible future model, you can do it with a special claim, but that need to be done in advance, it does not happen by default)

I have to dig out the numbers as the names are not used in the available documents

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 kodos wrote:
No, the CHS lawsuit was very clear about that

An Artwork is not enough to prevent from making a model
To infringe the copyright of an Artwork you need to make an Artwork
To infringe the Copyright of a model there need to be a model

Well, GW still keeps the name Space Marine while others were changed directly after

It must not be that they realise now that it is an issue but simply that they said 10 years ago that problematic stuff will be phased out with the next model update
And Guard did not get one till now

Please provide quotes from the case where these were "very clear", because reading some of it myself, that sounds like a misinterpretation unless I've completely missed something.

Especially can't find anything saying it's fine to copy the artwork as a miniature and that "To infringe the copyright of an Artwork you need to make an Artwork" - you can make a model inspired by that artwork and that's alright, but you can't copy it exactly.

They lost on multiple things because they were considered to be generic/common elements that GW didn't own themselves - because like i said, ideas and themes aren't copyrightable.

Pretty much correct. I think kodos is getting a bit confused, as one of the takeaways of the lawsuit was some of the items chapterhouse was cleared of infringing were things that specifically *didn't* have artwork - the court found that they couldn't be infringing upon GWs IP by creating models of something that didn't actually exist in any visual medium, as there was nothing for Chapterhouse to "copy" from GW and producing a model or artwork based on what loose written descriptions may have existed was "transformative" because the written descriptions were subject to a lot of interpretation. Another takeaway/finding was that just because an item shared similarities with a work of art did not make it an infringement, unless it was specifically a direct 1:1 copy of the artwork itself.

 kodos wrote:
yeah, non is big enough to fight GW over copyright without going out of business
yet some of GWs policy is still based on what they learned from the CHS lawsuit

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

They lost on multiple things because they were considered to be generic/common elements that GW didn't own themselves - because like i said, ideas and themes aren't copyrightable.

things CHS lost:
female version of existing models as those were seen too close to the original IP
using Trademarks to advertise the models/bits

the models that CHS won were the Tyranid Dropbod and Doom of Malantai, as GW did not have models by that time, therefore the court did not saw a copyright infringement (as just having the art in a Codex does not protect a possible future model, you can do it with a special claim, but that need to be done in advance, it does not happen by default)

I have to dig out the numbers as the names are not used in the available documents

The art in the codex does not prevent someone making a model inspired by that art or general idea, but that's not the same thing as you're saying with "To infringe the copyright of an Artwork you need to make an Artwork" and "To infringe the Copyright of a model there need to be a model ".

kodos wrote:
the models that CHS won were the Tyranid Dropbod and Doom of Malantai, as GW did not have models by that time, therefore the court did not saw a copyright infringement (as just having the art in a Codex does not protect a possible future model, you can do it with a special claim, but that need to be done in advance, it does not happen by default)

Not quite. The court found that GW failed to establish prior use in commerce on the basis of artwork for the purposes of unregistered trademarks, which is why GW lost the claims - because GW was arguing that Chapterhouse infringed on GWs trademarkof these items because GW was selling these items in the form of artwork before chapterhouse did in the form of sculptures. The court evaluated these items on the basis of the claims GW was making (specifically with regards to prior use in commerce as a means to establish ownership of unregistered trademarks), rather than ruling broadly on whether or not they were truly infringements.

That is very different from claiming that there is no infringement because a sculpture cannot infringe on 2D artwork. Rogers v Koons has already set US legal precedent that sculpture can infringe on two-dimensional depictions (in this case a photograph rather than a piece of art/illustration). In fact, the court did find in several instances that Chapterhouse infringed on GWs artwork, one notable example from the ruling is that of Lightning Claws:

In its response to GW's motion for summary judgment, Chapterhouse concedes that GW owns the exclusive rights for all but one of the works at issue in the litigation: an illustration of a fictional "Lightning Claw" weapon. The illustration, created by Nick Coleman, was included in a 1991 GW book on Warhammer 40,000 (entries 132 and 133 on the new products claim chart). Chapterhouse contended in its motion that GW has never claimed Coleman as a current or former GW employee and had not produced a confirmatory assignment documenting a previous assignment of rights in the illustration. Chapterhouse appeared to agree, however, that a confirmatory assignment from Coleman would resolve the issue of GW's ownership of the "Lightning Claw" illustration in entries 132 and 133. In its reply, GW stated that it did not yet have a confirmatory assignment but expected to receive one within a matter of days. Pl.'s Reply, Stevenson Decl. at 2. On March 29, GW filed a confirmatory assignment by Coleman. See docket entry 330. This document confirms GW's prior and continuing ownership of the "Lightning Claw" illustration. GW is entitled to a finding in its favor on the issue of its ownership of Coleman's illustration as well as on the issue of its ownership of copyrights for all of its other products still at issue in this litigation.

Let's get back on topic please.

Is there a place that compiles all the rumors?

After looking at the new Kasrkin and some of the Guard like models...so besides being monopose they look taller and slimmer.

Are they actually going to do new Cadians? Or stick with the latest box with the upgrade sprue? I'm thinking new because they can include female guardsmen.

Just something Kid Kyoto said about Tactical Squads not having las cannons: When I worked for GW the idea was you'd buy a couple Tac Squads, a couple Devastator Squads and spread the parts and weapons out between the various boxes. So on one hand they would get the extra sale from a Dev Box, and also not have to pack the Tacticals with other parts.

Another aside....if GW rules design and box contents were being influenced by tournament players ( and GW traditionally hates competitive play) how come only official GW tournaments/events require 99% GW parts? I don't even know what the rules are...I was learning to sculpt digitally to make Kasrkin legs for my custom Stormtroopers and now have to worry if they would be legal....

If I have not misunderstood the rumours, there are only faction rules for Catachan, Krieg and Cadia in the codex?

Or does it refer to specific units with rules of these regiments?

And then what about the attilan rough riders?

And finally, is it confirmed that there are new catachans? (by rumors of course)

The_Real_Chris wrote:


Though deep down I would love the options to be cut right down and somewhat abstracted. Then modelling can go a lot wilder and still be easily useable in games.

Because that worked so well for Chosen squads.

zamerion wrote:
If I have not misunderstood the rumours, there are only faction rules for Catachan, Krieg and Cadia in the codex?

Or does it refer to specific units with rules of these regiments?

And then what about the attilan rough riders?

And finally, is it confirmed that there are new catachans? (by rumors of course)

As I understand it - "Cadian Shock Troops", "Death Korp of Krieg" and "Catachan Jungle Fighters" are not classed as regiments but as specific units (which are more or less an infantry squad). These units are the only units that have the Cadian/Krieg/Catachan regiment keyword which just unlocks strategems.

I don't think it's been confirmed but it seems plausible to me with how Command squads (and I think Heavy weapon teams) were discribed that there may still be an "Infantry squad" or Platoon. These and other units can be given one of three keywords that then represent the type of regiment they are from - Born Soldiers, Guerillas and something else that I've forgotten. These don't grant traits, but open up strategems and you can mix and match across your army.

More leaks less no models no rules discussion pls

Thinking about it (and I stress I have seen no rumors to directly support this), could the rumored removal of heavy weapons teams from the infantry squads mesh with the concept of a return to platoons (for which I don't think I've seen any rumors) where the heavy weapon teams would show up in a heavy weapon squad within the platoon rather than taking up a heavy slot?