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.

tneva82 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I'm beginning to think that gw is trying to get Chaos players to buy a small library to get the "full Chaos experience". You need 4 codexes just to get all of the Cult Marines in your CSM army, and it's looking like this book and the Daemons codex are designed to work together as well, considering we've already got a keyword in the CSM codex that's apparently useless without the Daemons codex. So, you want all of the units that we had as recently as the 8th edition codex (minus everything that was just removed, of course)? You'll need:

BTW I really like how AOS does ally/etc stuff in that regard. The basic warscroll is freely available. It's the faction specific bonuses(which allies don't get) you need book for. So in AOS I don't need to get whole book for one stinking unit from other faction I want to add to my army. GW provides all I need for free...No rules I would need to use the model is missing. Literally everything in book besides the warscroll would be unusable any way.

I only need book when I invariably expand my small ally collection to full force

In the grimdark future of mankind, there is only rules painted on dead trees.

Hecaton wrote:
Nah, that's legal in the US. The information contained within isn't classified lol.

Lolwut? I assume you mean copyrighted, not classified, but yes, the book is absolutely copyrighted.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
But isn't something better than nothing?

Just barely, and it's still not acceptable. GW needs to do better, period.

Use Legends!

I will when GW treats them like actual rules instead of a lunch break project for the intern that will never be fixed or updated.

GW wont have "interns" in the american sense. That would be considered illegal here.

Dai wrote:
GW wont have "interns" in the american sense. That would be considered illegal here.

Given the poor quality of the legends rules I wouldn't be surprised if they had an intern somewhere in the US branch that got the project dumped on them. Even GW's actual game design employees, as hilariously incompetent as they are, normally produce better work.

 Jidmah wrote:

Spoiler:

Dudeface wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

ccs wrote:
But you want people to give GW gak because now instead of no one getting to use their jump pack chaos lords, some people who don't play with do? ???
You're mad you don't get to use your R&H or whatever other Legends pieces you own? Then be upset with those you choose to play with who tell you no. Get pissed off at those tourneys you attend that tell you no.

No, get mad at GW for writing error-filled garbage for the legends rules and never bothering to update them. People and events that ban legends rules do so because of the incredibly poor quality of those rules, if they weren't so completely broken they'd see a lot more use.

???

What is broken (in a strong way) in legends? Most of the stuff in there is underpowered so wouldnt break anything

Legends units being broken is an urban myth, if they're "broken" it's because they're either woefully poor or missing some keywords that are needed to function, it seemingly never gives an op outcome that I know of.

People denying legends is also an urban myth, in every poll on that topic and whenever it is discussed in any community, people are fine with you bringing your old miniatures as WYSIWYG unless it's a competitive event.

But if you really want an example for units in legends which are "too good" - big meks on bikes and MA warbosses from legends are currently strictly better than any of their codex counter-parts because they didn't receive any of the nerfs balance improvements. 81 points for a 5++ KFF or SAG on bike with a free KMB added on top is nice, right?
There are also some wargear shenanigans like free killsaws on koptas and combi-skorchas for spannas, not to mention the option to equip a kopta with both a "bigbomm" and a "big bomb".

So there actually is quite a good case to be made for not using abandoned rules from last edition, which is the prime reason why I am not using legends for my models. It just doesn't feel right to gain an advantage over my opponent because of such things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
Rewriting it, photocopying or creating your own in an exact likeness are all copyright infringement still.

According to the UK's copyright act, you are allowed to create a single copy for personal uses - which is a lot more strict than most countries' laws.
As you just need a single page, you aren't in danger of breaking any of the other limitations.

If I photocopy my codex and keep it for myself, that is for personal use. If I photocopy my codex and give you the copy so you don't need to buy it, that is not personal use.

The copy stuff is wildly confusing to me. you can read and make notes in a library, but they can't make copies of pages from a book for you, but you can openly do pictures of each page for yourself and this is somehow legal, but if you post it online it suddenly is not legal.

Karol wrote:
The copy stuff is wildly confusing to me. you can read and make notes in a library, but they can't make copies of pages from a book for you, but you can openly do pictures of each page for yourself and this is somehow legal, but if you post it online it suddenly is not legal.

It might be confusing because each country has its own laws about it. Here's perfectly legal to copy stuff from book you don't own, you're just limited to how many pages you can print all at once.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:


If I photocopy my codex and keep it for myself, that is for personal use. If I photocopy my codex and give you the copy so you don't need to buy it, that is not personal use.

But if you lend a book to a friend and he makes the copy for himself then it's for personal use.

tneva82 wrote:
BTW I really like how AOS does ally/etc stuff in that regard. The basic warscroll is freely available. It's the faction specific bonuses(which allies don't get) you need book for. So in AOS I don't need to get whole book for one stinking unit from other faction I want to add to my army. GW provides all I need for free...No rules I would need to use the model is missing. Literally everything in book besides the warscroll would be unusable any way.

I only need book when I invariably expand my small ally collection to full force

AoS has 40k quality of experience beat in almost every way, at least as far as the way units are presented and their approach to the equivalent of strategies. The Nephilim CP changes seems to suggest 40k may be moving that direction in the future, which can only be good for the game in my opinion. Honestly, I kind of agree with the FLG article recently where they suggested getting rid of strats (1 free relic/warlord trait) entirely in the competitive environment, at the very least it would speed things up and dramatically reduce the number of gotcha moments on the table.

 Blackie wrote:

Karol wrote:
The copy stuff is wildly confusing to me. you can read and make notes in a library, but they can't make copies of pages from a book for you, but you can openly do pictures of each page for yourself and this is somehow legal, but if you post it online it suddenly is not legal.

It might be confusing because each country has its own laws about it. Here's perfectly legal to copy stuff from book you don't own, you're just limited to how many pages you can print all at once.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:


If I photocopy my codex and keep it for myself, that is for personal use. If I photocopy my codex and give you the copy so you don't need to buy it, that is not personal use.

But if you lend a book to a friend and he makes the copy for himself then it's for personal use.

It's not as he hasn't copied something he owns, otherwise every codex pdf online is just someone lending someone their book to copy.

Dudeface wrote:


It's not as he hasn't copied something he owns, otherwise every codex pdf online is just someone lending someone their book to copy.

Is it specified in the UK laws that you must own the original book you want to copy? I mean, is it flat out illegal to copy something you don't own? If the answer's yes you're right.

 Blackie wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


It's not as he hasn't copied something he owns, otherwise every codex pdf online is just someone lending someone their book to copy.

Is it specified in the UK laws that you must own the original book you want to copy? I mean, is it flat out illegal to copy something you don't own? If the answer's yes you're right.

Here's the government guidance:

Spoiler:

Fair dealing
Certain exceptions only apply if the use of the work is a ‘fair dealing’. For example, the exceptions relating to research and private study, criticism or review, or news reporting.

‘Fair dealing’ is a legal term used to establish whether a use of copyright material is lawful or whether it infringes copyright. There is no statutory definition of fair dealing - it will always be a matter of fact, degree and impression in each case. The question to be asked is: how would a fair-minded and honest person have dealt with the work?

Factors that have been identified by the courts as relevant in determining whether a particular dealing with a work is fair include:

does using the work affect the market for the original work? If a use of a work acts as a substitute for it, causing the owner to lose revenue, then it is not likely to be fair

is the amount of the work taken reasonable and appropriate? Was it necessary to use the amount that was taken? Usually only part of a work may be used

The relative importance of any one factor will vary according to the case in hand and the type of dealing in question.

The bold bit is key here, no you don't have to own it, but if you're circumventing the market by copying it (via removing the need to purchase) it isn't legal. The other caveats around this that make it legal sometimes is if its for studying, press use etc. so recreational hobbies and copying to save buying a book = bad.

 Blndmage wrote:
But isn't something better than nothing?

Accept mediocrity, expect it to continue.

tneva82 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

IMO the codex should have 3 Character datasheet

Exalted Legionnaire
Exalted Cultist
Demon Prince

and then each of them should have ALL relevant weapon/armor/mount/special ability listed on them.

Pity anybody wanting 4 marine characters in their army then

Its almost like the rule of 3 is a gakky bandaid mechanic that GW applied to the game

Speaking of legends models getting updated profiles that make them fairly OP, the sonic dread wields 2x Blastmasters+1 Doom Siren at the same cost of a standard multimelta.

Dudeface wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Rewriting it, photocopying or creating your own in an exact likeness are all copyright infringement still.

 Jidmah wrote:

According to the UK's copyright act, you are allowed to create a single copy for personal uses - which is a lot more strict than most countries' laws.
As you just need a single page, you aren't in danger of breaking any of the other limitations.

If I photocopy my codex and keep it for myself, that is for personal use. If I photocopy my codex and give you the copy so you don't need to buy it, that is not personal use.

That's not how it works

If I lend you my DG codex, you are allowed to make a copy of the one page containing the plague marine datasheet for your personal use.

That's how library research works, you know?

 Jidmah wrote:
That's how library research works, you know?

https://www.zotero.org/

You can add the codex scan to your research materials and even properly cite it in your materials if you really want to be particular. Personally I find Chicago style most useful, but a number of people prefer Turabian.

Daedalus81 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Legends units being broken is an urban myth, if they're "broken" it's because they're either woefully poor or missing some keywords that are needed to function, it seemingly never gives an op outcome that I know of.

There's a greater potential for things in legends to become broken as the sheets and keywords decay or if rare weapon loadouts suddenly become very good ( e.g. sonic dreadnought ). Still, the vast majority wouldn't be a problem.

Right, but you still have to separate the "problems" from the "not problems", and convince your opponent that whatever Legends unit you're wanting to use is one of the "not problems". Sure, you or I might say "+25 points for FLY, +6 movement, and deep strike? Cool, no problem". But someone else might say "Gw removed that from the Codex for a reason. It's obviously broken when used with [INSERT STRATAGEM, LEGION TRAIT, RELIC, WARLORD TRAIT]. No dice". So dumping this stuff into Legends doesn't really fix the problem for everyone.

tneva82 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I'm beginning to think that gw is trying to get Chaos players to buy a small library to get the "full Chaos experience". You need 4 codexes just to get all of the Cult Marines in your CSM army, and it's looking like this book and the Daemons codex are designed to work together as well, considering we've already got a keyword in the CSM codex that's apparently useless without the Daemons codex. So, you want all of the units that we had as recently as the 8th edition codex (minus everything that was just removed, of course)? You'll need:

BTW I really like how AOS does ally/etc stuff in that regard. The basic warscroll is freely available. It's the faction specific bonuses(which allies don't get) you need book for. So in AOS I don't need to get whole book for one stinking unit from other faction I want to add to my army. GW provides all I need for free...No rules I would need to use the model is missing. Literally everything in book besides the warscroll would be unusable any way.

I only need book when I invariably expand my small ally collection to full force

Really? So, since Cult Marines don't get faction specific bonuses (Legion traits), why couldn't they just do that for CSM?

AoS, 40k, Specialist Games. How can all of these parts of the same company be so different in their approach to rules availiabilty?

 Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Rewriting it, photocopying or creating your own in an exact likeness are all copyright infringement still.

 Jidmah wrote:

According to the UK's copyright act, you are allowed to create a single copy for personal uses - which is a lot more strict than most countries' laws.
As you just need a single page, you aren't in danger of breaking any of the other limitations.

If I photocopy my codex and keep it for myself, that is for personal use. If I photocopy my codex and give you the copy so you don't need to buy it, that is not personal use.

That's not how it works

If I lend you my DG codex, you are allowed to make a copy of the one page containing the plague marine datasheet for your personal use.

That's how library research works, you know?

No, that is how it works here, I'm not saying it's enforced correctly or even widely understood: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright

Dudeface wrote:
No, that is how it works here, I'm not saying it's enforced correctly or even widely understood: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright

Yeah, do you see that section in what you posted called 'Sufficient Acknowledgement'? In some circles those are known as citations.

tneva82 wrote:
The basic warscroll is freely available.

...where? They're no longer on the GW webstore, for example, of anywhere obvious on WHC.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
No, that is how it works here, I'm not saying it's enforced correctly or even widely understood: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright

Yeah, do you see that section in what you posted called 'Sufficient Acknowledgement'? In some circles those are known as citations.

Which has what to do with photocopying a page out of a codex? Who am I acknowledging for the copied page?

Dudeface wrote:
Which has what to do with photocopying a page out of a codex? Who am I acknowledging for the copied page?

I love how you didn't actually read what you posted.

If you read the various sections, I can make solid arguments for photocopies under at least 3 other sections of that page, outside of the one I mentioned in my previous post.

There's enough wiggle room in there to photocopy a page in a book for use in a game you're not specifically selling as a product to someone.

Dudeface wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Rewriting it, photocopying or creating your own in an exact likeness are all copyright infringement still.

 Jidmah wrote:

According to the UK's copyright act, you are allowed to create a single copy for personal uses - which is a lot more strict than most countries' laws.
As you just need a single page, you aren't in danger of breaking any of the other limitations.

If I photocopy my codex and keep it for myself, that is for personal use. If I photocopy my codex and give you the copy so you don't need to buy it, that is not personal use.

That's not how it works

If I lend you my DG codex, you are allowed to make a copy of the one page containing the plague marine datasheet for your personal use.

That's how library research works, you know?

No, that is how it works here, I'm not saying it's enforced correctly or even widely understood: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright

Google gives me all these university libraries disagreeing with you, including a surprising number of universities that I've actually heard about. Forgive me for taking their word over yours.

 Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Rewriting it, photocopying or creating your own in an exact likeness are all copyright infringement still.

 Jidmah wrote:

According to the UK's copyright act, you are allowed to create a single copy for personal uses - which is a lot more strict than most countries' laws.
As you just need a single page, you aren't in danger of breaking any of the other limitations.

If I photocopy my codex and keep it for myself, that is for personal use. If I photocopy my codex and give you the copy so you don't need to buy it, that is not personal use.

That's not how it works

If I lend you my DG codex, you are allowed to make a copy of the one page containing the plague marine datasheet for your personal use.

That's how library research works, you know?

No, that is how it works here, I'm not saying it's enforced correctly or even widely understood: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright

Google gives me all these university libraries disagreeing with you, including a surprising number of universities that I've actually heard about. Forgive me for taking their word over yours.

So are you suggesting that the Universities don't utilise the books for personal study and teaching, which are listed exceptions in the rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Which has what to do with photocopying a page out of a codex? Who am I acknowledging for the copied page?

I love how you didn't actually read what you posted.

If you read the various sections, I can make solid arguments for photocopies under at least 3 other sections of that page, outside of the one I mentioned in my previous post.

There's enough wiggle room in there to photocopy a page in a book for use in a game you're not specifically selling as a product to someone.

Nobody in the real world will give a gak, but there isn't. Please outline your 3 points where you can justify circumventing the rules.

Dudeface wrote:

The bold bit is key here, no you don't have to own it, but if you're circumventing the market by copying it (via removing the need to purchase) it isn't legal. The other caveats around this that make it legal sometimes is if its for studying, press use etc. so recreational hobbies and copying to save buying a book = bad.

So just create a blog where you review various Cult Troops performance on the table, call your 4 copied entries "Research" and you're good.

Dudeface wrote:
Nobody in the real world will give a gak, but there isn't.

See, this is a perfect point. Strangely this goes both ways, you assume that GW or maybe some arm of UK law enforcement will want to expend the resources to justify, investigate, prosecute, and enforce this as a result of the rampant photocopying of Plague Marine datasheets (perhaps this is one of the more contentious and dangerous trends plaguing the British Isles). I contend that they will not, clearly, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Dudeface wrote:
Please outline your 3 points where you can justify circumventing the rules.

Non-commercial research and private study
Text and data mining for non-commercial research
Criticism, review and reporting current events
Teaching
Helping disabled people
Parody, caricature and pastiche
Fair dealing

There you go, I gave you 7. Could someone put you in front of a judge and make an argument against you? Possibly. Is it likely? Again, I contend that no, it's not likely. Given that this would involve getting lawyers and scheduling court dates, I'm pretty sure nobody is going to expend this level of effort to stop your wild Plague Marine photocopying spree.

Might as well ask my question here.

I’m quite enamoured with the Cultist and Possessed type kits.

How doable is a Possessed and Cultist and Gribbly Mutant army?

Not fussed if it sucks on the board or not. Just interested if it’s possible to construct such a list, with an effective list being a pleasant bonus.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Might as well ask my question here.

I’m quite enamoured with the Cultist and Possessed type kits.

How doable is a Possessed and Cultist and Gribbly Mutant army?

Not fussed if it sucks on the board or not. Just interested if it’s possible to construct such a list, with an effective list being a pleasant bonus.

You will struggle with the 'Mere Mortals' rule as you cannot have more Cultist units than you do Core Infantry. This does not apply to Possessed which means that you must counter every unit of Cultists with another unit of Legionaries, Chosen, Terminators, Raptors or Havocs.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Might as well ask my question here.

I’m quite enamoured with the Cultist and Possessed type kits.

How doable is a Possessed and Cultist and Gribbly Mutant army?

Not fussed if it sucks on the board or not. Just interested if it’s possible to construct such a list, with an effective list being a pleasant bonus.

not even doable without taking tax units sadly (well, the "tax" units are pretty good).
I expect we'll get an army of renown built around cultists

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Nobody in the real world will give a gak, but there isn't.

See, this is a perfect point. Strangely this goes both ways, you assume that GW or maybe some arm of UK law enforcement will want to expend the resources to justify, investigate, prosecute, and enforce this as a result of the rampant photocopying of Plague Marine datasheets (perhaps this is one of the more contentious and dangerous trends plaguing the British Isles). I contend that they will not, clearly, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Dudeface wrote:
Please outline your 3 points where you can justify circumventing the rules.

Non-commercial research and private study
Text and data mining for non-commercial research
Criticism, review and reporting current events
Teaching
Helping disabled people
Parody, caricature and pastiche
Fair dealing

There you go, I gave you 7. Could someone put you in front of a judge and make an argument against you? Possibly. Is it likely? Again, I contend that no, it's not likely. Given that this would involve getting lawyers and scheduling court dates, I'm pretty sure nobody is going to expend this level of effort to stop your wild Plague Marine photocopying spree.

So your entire argument is that you can lie about the reason you copied protected material? That was obviously always a "solution", but that's not remotely close to arguing in good faith.

Using the copy in place of the actual work (without owning it, of course) to play the game fits into none of these, therefore it's a copyright violation.

Teaching, just to pick one example, would STILL involve you buying the codex, but then photocopy one or two essential pages for an event where you teach newbies how to play the game.