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.

Chapter House was the symptom, not the cause.

GW had to lawyer up and install secrecy, aggressive IP protection, etc.. when they took on the LoTR-franchise. Mostly out of self-preservation. If they'd had leaked early-info / concepts / visuals from the LoTR-movies they had for miniatures before they were out in public marketing, New Line would've sued them into oblivion.

Being a small company (at the time, and probably still in comparison to Hollywood), they just applied it to their game design/miniature-development/rules-team in general, rather then creating separate structures for LoTR and non-LoTR (and why wouldn't you protect your own IP too, if you're already doing the effort?) and thus starting in the early 2000s, this type of IP protection started being introduced and eventually became the norm / company culture.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
One wonders whether, had they yielded when ordered to cease & desist, if we'd be better off today, or would GW corporate still ended up the same way.

I'd argue GW Corporate was still the same back then, they just used different means to achieve the same end. They had to switch tactics once the Charterhouse suit brought down their house of cards which was always going to happen as someone was eventually going to call their bluff.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dirk Reinecke wrote:
So, looking at the codex, the Ogryn Bodyguard and Nork don't have the -1 damage that the regular Ogryn and Bullgryn have. That is a pity.

Do you think that's intentional(ly inconsistent) or something they forgot about?

it's at the top of page 89. Under "Abilities" it states that all bodyguard models gain three rules, including Wall of Muscle (damage reduction).

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
One wonders whether, had they yielded when ordered to cease & desist, if we'd be better off today, or would GW corporate still ended up the same way.

One wonders if we'd be better off today if GW's lawyers had bothered to check the law before filing their lawsuits.

 Polonius wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dirk Reinecke wrote:
So, looking at the codex, the Ogryn Bodyguard and Nork don't have the -1 damage that the regular Ogryn and Bullgryn have. That is a pity.

Do you think that's intentional(ly inconsistent) or something they forgot about?

it's at the top of page 89. Under "Abilities" it states that all bodyguard models gain three rules, including Wall of Muscle (damage reduction).

Thanks. I was looking for it on the datasheet, where it is for the other Ogryn.

 vipoid wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
One wonders whether, had they yielded when ordered to cease & desist, if we'd be better off today, or would GW corporate still ended up the same way.

One wonders if we'd be better off today if GW's lawyers had bothered to check the law before filing their lawsuits.

One wonders if we'd be better off today if people actually had bothered to make their own unique IPs rather than just glomming on to someone else's.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
One wonders whether, had they yielded when ordered to cease & desist, if we'd be better off today, or would GW corporate still ended up the same way.

One wonders if we'd be better off today if GW's lawyers had bothered to check the law before filing their lawsuits.

One wonders if we'd be better off today if people actually had bothered to make their own unique IPs rather than just glomming on to someone else's.

I mean considering all GW did was glomming onto others I think it was fair play, really. And the law seems to more or less agree.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
One wonders whether, had they yielded when ordered to cease & desist, if we'd be better off today, or would GW corporate still ended up the same way.

One wonders if we'd be better off today if GW's lawyers had bothered to check the law before filing their lawsuits.

One wonders if we'd be better off today if people actually had bothered to make their own unique IPs rather than just glomming on to someone else's.

And then that leads back to whether 40k could ever have been created in that kind of atmosphere.

Monopoly versus customer choice, restriction of creative expression versus being able to meaningfully contribute to a setting that is nominally owned by one entity, but enjoyed and expanded upon by hundreds of thousands (millions?) of individuals.

Imitation being flattery and all that.

And also ensuring that the IP owner can get a reasonable return on their intellectual investment.

Its all pretty hard, and doesn't benefit from simplistic takes.

 vipoid wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
One wonders whether, had they yielded when ordered to cease & desist, if we'd be better off today, or would GW corporate still ended up the same way.

One wonders if we'd be better off today if GW's lawyers had bothered to check the law before filing their lawsuits.

Didn't they win on multiple points?

There isn't some sort of distinct criteria that outright says what is and isn't infringement either, its determined on a case-by-case basis. GW thought things were too similar, and that was what was evaluated with the dispute.

the main problem was that GW thought Trademarks are the same as Copyright and that having the Trademark in the UK grants them Copyright somewhere else

this does not change just because CH did violate the Trademark in same cases

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
One wonders whether, had they yielded when ordered to cease & desist, if we'd be better off today, or would GW corporate still ended up the same way.

One wonders if we'd be better off today if GW's lawyers had bothered to check the law before filing their lawsuits.

Didn't they win on multiple points?

They won on points where Chapterhouse used their trademarked terms and copyrightable names, like offering variants on GW models (eg female Farseers), or specifically using names like Tyranids or Space Wolves.

On the points where GW alleged infringement because the models were similar to theirs, or based on codex entries for which no model existed, or used names that GW didn't really own (eg Eldar), or were compatible with GW kits (like shoulder pads), GW lost. Hard.

All in all GW won on about a third and Chapterhouse won on about two-thirds of the specific claims; but Chapterhouse won on the big points of contention.

 kodos wrote:
the main problem was that GW thought Trademarks are the same as Copyright and that having the Trademark in the UK grants them Copyright somewhere else

this does not change just because CH did violate the Trademark in same cases

I don't think anyone on GW's legal team didn't know the difference between trademarks and copyright.

Unless they hire lawyers the same way they hire designers, for attitude rather than expertise.

 catbarf wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
One wonders whether, had they yielded when ordered to cease & desist, if we'd be better off today, or would GW corporate still ended up the same way.

One wonders if we'd be better off today if GW's lawyers had bothered to check the law before filing their lawsuits.

Didn't they win on multiple points?

They won on points where Chapterhouse used their trademarked terms and copyrightable names, like offering variants on GW models (eg female Farseers), or specifically using names like Tyranids or Space Wolves.

On the points where GW alleged infringement because the models were similar to theirs, or based on codex entries for which no model existed, or used names that GW didn't really own (eg Eldar), or were compatible with GW kits (like shoulder pads), GW lost. Hard.

All in all GW won on about a third and Chapterhouse won on about two-thirds of the specific claims; but Chapterhouse won on the big points of contention.

 kodos wrote:
the main problem was that GW thought Trademarks are the same as Copyright and that having the Trademark in the UK grants them Copyright somewhere else

this does not change just because CH did violate the Trademark in same cases

I don't think anyone on GW's legal team didn't know the difference between trademarks and copyright.

Unless they hire lawyers the same way they hire designers, for attitude rather than expertise.

The issue is that the points where chapterhouse won, although I'm not sure it's so much chapterhouse winning so much as GW losing, we're thing GW as has been shown can largely circumvent or were largely hit and hopes anyway (like arguing they were the sole owners of "space marines"). Chapterhouse was not winning regardless how it shook out the second they were found to be partially liable, especially since the legal action was going to be enough to sink them anyway.

Swastakowey wrote:
The codex definitely says only one of each special weapon for the Cadians, it's in the asterisk under the sheet. The asterisk of each datasheet has what the limitations of the special gear is.

cadians can take two of the same special.
*You cannot select the same weapon more than twice per unit.

What's the rule for Kasrkin and Scions/Storm Troops?

100+ converted models want to know.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
What's the rule for Kasrkin and Scions/Storm Troops?

100+ converted models want to know.

Two of each special for Kasrkins and ten men scions, one of each for smaller Scion and scion command squads.

 Polonius wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
What's the rule for Kasrkin and Scions/Storm Troops?

100+ converted models want to know.

Two of each special for Kasrkins and ten men scions, one of each for smaller Scion and scion command squads.

Thanks so that means a 10 man Scion squad can have 4 specials, but no more than 2 of each? Command squads too?

(looks at metal models and cries )

At least my Arbites squads should be legal...

Kasrkins can also have a sniper on top of it, or did I misread that.

Yeah, Scion command squads are only one of each special. (platoon command squadas are the same).

I'm kind of okay with it, as the idea of command squads being better special weapon squads (and more efficient veteran squads) never sat right with my, OTOH they deleted the SWS and veteran squads, so I dunno.

I had been using metal kasrkin as scions, and looking at the new rules, I think I'll use them as Kasrkin instead and sell off a few squads.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
What's the rule for Kasrkin and Scions/Storm Troops?

100+ converted models want to know.

I don't think Kasyrkin can become troops

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
What's the rule for Kasrkin and Scions/Storm Troops?

100+ converted models want to know.

I don't think Kasyrkin can become troops

they cannot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Kasrkins can also have a sniper on top of it, or did I misread that.

youre correct, sniper on top of the 4 specials.

 usernamesareannoying wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:
The codex definitely says only one of each special weapon for the Cadians, it's in the asterisk under the sheet. The asterisk of each datasheet has what the limitations of the special gear is.

cadians can take two of the same special.
*You cannot select the same weapon more than twice per unit.

My bad I'm low iq

Swastakowey wrote:

 usernamesareannoying wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:
The codex definitely says only one of each special weapon for the Cadians, it's in the asterisk under the sheet. The asterisk of each datasheet has what the limitations of the special gear is.

cadians can take two of the same special.
*You cannot select the same weapon more than twice per unit.

My bad I'm low iq

To be fair, this is almost certainly a typo that will get fixed in the first FAQ. There's no reason for a "no more than twice" note if a unit can only take two total anyway, so the obvious conclusion is that it's a copy/paste error and meant to say no more than once per unit.

 usernamesareannoying wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:
The codex definitely says only one of each special weapon for the Cadians, it's in the asterisk under the sheet. The asterisk of each datasheet has what the limitations of the special gear is.

cadians can take two of the same special.
*You cannot select the same weapon more than twice per unit.

Can they take more than two special weapons per squad?

 Albertorius wrote:

 usernamesareannoying wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:
The codex definitely says only one of each special weapon for the Cadians, it's in the asterisk under the sheet. The asterisk of each datasheet has what the limitations of the special gear is.

cadians can take two of the same special.
*You cannot select the same weapon more than twice per unit.

Can they take more than two special weapons per squad?

No, which makes the wording bizarre.

 Crimson wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 usernamesareannoying wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:
The codex definitely says only one of each special weapon for the Cadians, it's in the asterisk under the sheet. The asterisk of each datasheet has what the limitations of the special gear is.

cadians can take two of the same special.
*You cannot select the same weapon more than twice per unit.

Can they take more than two special weapons per squad?

No, which makes the wording bizarre.

Being cynical it's because you can only get them in the army set currently, which would give you two of the same special weapons. Only need to FAQ it once they go on general release.

yeah, this is one of those situations where the RAI seems clear, given the trend elsewhere in the book and the awkward/redunant wording, but I would not be at all surprised at the result either way.

it's worth noting that if you build a "cadian" squad out of the "basic" (also cadian) box set, you can, in fact, have double grenade launcher or double flamer.

Well, I guess the RAI as intended is clear, but the GW approach is inconsistent.

I.e. it is rules based on what comes in the box, except at the same time it isn't. The command squad can take chainswords on everyone for example, but there aren't enough chainswords in the box.

The tempestus medic must take a pistol and can no longer take a hotshot lasgun.

They need to move away from the model designers essentially being allow to write the rules. i.e. the new Cadian's sargeant looks cool with rifle (it is a sensible thing to have) but the autogun doesn't interact with the majority of the rules, and cadian sargeants are apparently allergic to power swords, again because the designer did not include them

Argh.

So going around the net......because there is now an official entry for Kasrkin, you can no longer use your old metal/resin Kasrkin models as stormtroopers and can only use actual scions or older stormtrooper models to represent stormtrooper/scions.

I am hating this release more and more.

General Hobbs wrote:


Argh.

So going around the net......because there is now an official entry for Kasrkin, you can no longer use your old metal/resin Kasrkin models as stormtroopers and can only use actual scions or older stormtrooper models to represent stormtrooper/scions.

What? Of course you can.

General Hobbs wrote:


Argh.

So going around the net......because there is now an official entry for Kasrkin, you can no longer use your old metal/resin Kasrkin models as stormtroopers and can only use actual scions or older stormtrooper models to represent stormtrooper/scions.

I am hating this release more and more.

But can I still use my Van Saar?

or my Arbites?