Recasting and Battlescribe

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.

**Dysartes**

Recasting is frowned upon here on Dakka, and rightfully so - it is a form of piracy, it damages the IP created by other companies, etc, etc.

However - we see many posts on Dakka, especially around the time a book is released, with people declaring that they won't buy the book because they can either find a PDF online or "look it up on Battlescribe".

Ignoring the fact that BS (heh) is known to not be 100% accurate, how is this any different than recasting? Especially when statements are made encouraging other people to do the same thing? You're still denying a sale, you're still potentially damaging another company's control of their IP, etc, etc.

Should mods be doing more about this?

**Overread**

I don't know about the legal standing of Battlescribe, but when it comes to people suggesting that others use a "PDF they found online" then the mods do sweep in (provided its reported and spotted)

**kodos**

Not buying rules to play the game was always considered less of a problem than using re-casts by a lot of players

Usually because you would get the knowledge anyway by playing the game or because one book per club is considered enough for all.

Also for GW games were the rules in a book are outdated within a short timeframe, a lot of people do not consider it a problem to just use a copy of the book for the time it remains.
(same as re-casting OOP models is less of a problem for most)

Another thing is, while re-casting by itself is banned by law in most countries, sharing a book and copying it for personal use is not.

**Sterling191**

Dysartes wrote:

Ignoring the fact that BS (heh) is known to not be 100% accurate, how is this any different than recasting?

Because Battlescribe isnt a bootleg codex, it's a force building utility.

/thread

**Overread**

kodos wrote:

Another thing is, while re-casting by itself is banned by law in most countries, sharing a book and copying it for personal use is not.

Actually it sort of is. Books are still copyright protected.
It's why universities and schools have a licence that allows students to copy material they have access too (such a text books and journals) but there are limits on how much you can copy (its typically per person and you can hit the limit if you copy/print off a lot of stuff).

It's also why you can't just scan a codex/battletome and show it online for free.

Of course nothing stops you getting a scanner and home printer and copying your friends battletome, much like nothing stops you ripping the music off their CD. Neither is legal, but at that scale they are also un-enforceable to prevent. Typically online displays (which reach far more people) are identifiable and can be shut down and are of a scale that is worth shutting down.

**kodos**

Sterling191 wrote:

Because Battlescribe isnt a bootleg codex, it's a force building utility.
/thread

and if the army script includes all rules, effectively replacing the need of buying the book it is a bootleg codex and not only "force building utility" any more

of course the BS creator goes around it by not creating the army files but just the program to use them, while with the new EU copyright rules BS by itself would still be responsible if the specific scripts provide copyright material.

Overread wrote:

Of course nothing stops you getting a scanner and home printer and copying your friends battletome, much like nothing stops you ripping the music off their CD. Neither is legal, but at that scale they are also un-enforceable to prevent.

If this is legal or not depends on the specific country (while books are copyright material, copying parts for own use as long as you don't sell it is not illegal everywhere, same as streaming copyright material is not illegal everywhere, eg copying the singe page with rules from an OOP White Dwarf and handle it over to the guy who needs it would be considered fair use as it has the same effect as just writing the rules down on a sheet of paper and give it to him), and that is why some people feel less restricted regarding rules than for models
but yes the problem is sharing on the internet which is illegal everywhere

**Inquisitor Gideon**

Actually it is for the White Dwarf pages. If you look at any old ones where there are templates or roster pages that can be copied etc it will have small print saying they allow you to copy these pages for personal use but not for wider distribution.

**Sterling191**

kodos wrote:

and if the army script includes all rules, effectively replacing the need of buying the book it is a bootleg codex and not only "force building utility" any more

Following that logic, a friend who can remember the stat-line and inherent rules of a unit is a bootleg codex too. Guess we're not allowed to use brains anymore.

**Dysartes**

Sterling191 wrote:
Dysartes wrote:

Ignoring the fact that BS (heh) is known to not be 100% accurate, how is this any different than recasting?

Because Battlescribe isnt a bootleg codex, it's a force building utility.

/thread

So using it to get updated points costs instead of buying CA18 isn't making use of bootlegged material from CA18?

And, yes, partial piracy of a book is still piracy.

**kodos**

Sterling191 wrote:

Following that logic, a friend who can remember the stat-line and inherent rules of a unit is a bootleg codex too. Guess we're not allowed to use brains anymore.

If your friend is sharing his knowledge upon the internet eg on a forum, hes is.

there is a reason why forums do not allow posting of point costs or full rule quotes

**Horst**

Dysartes wrote:
Recasting is frowned upon here on Dakka, and rightfully so - it is a form of piracy, it damages the IP created by other companies, etc, etc.

However - we see many posts on Dakka, especially around the time a book is released, with people declaring that they won't buy the book because they can either find a PDF online or "look it up on Battlescribe".

Ignoring the fact that BS (heh) is known to not be 100% accurate, how is this any different than recasting? Especially when statements are made encouraging other people to do the same thing? You're still denying a sale, you're still potentially damaging another company's control of their IP, etc, etc.

Should mods be doing more about this?

Because in order to actually PLAY the army you built with Battle Scribe, you need the codex so you can access the stratagems, and read about any special rules, and exactly how they work. Battlescribe isn't super clear on army wide special rules and stratagems. It's not a replacement for a codex, it's a supplement. I think GW understands this, which is why they haven't tried to kill it with litigation yet.

**Captain Joystick**

Horst wrote:
Because in order to actually PLAY the army you built with Battle Scribe, you need the codex so you can access the stratagems, and read about any special rules, and exactly how they work. Battlescribe isn't super clear on army wide special rules and stratagems. It's not a replacement for a codex, it's a supplement. I think GW understands this, which is why they haven't tried to kill it with litigation yet.

Battlescribe's defence is that it's just the tool, in principle it could be used for any game at all, it could be used for shopping lists! The 40k BSData group has been a lot more cavalier about it, though it necessarily varies from army to army, the standard they uphold these days includes unit profiles, accurate points costs, weapon profiles, hard rules enforcing equipment limitations and fully written explanations for all special rules included in the list.

If GW wants to argue that that group is infringing on their IP rights by reproducing rules from their retail books, they can argue that precisely because that's what they're doing. To pretend they aren't just because they could elect not to is disingenuous. People can and do use it in lieu of buying a Codex and they can do so because, barring the odd mistake (I'm looking at you, Terminator Chaplain) they're a complete and faithful representation of the rules in said books. They may not have stratagems now, but that has more to do with sheer volume of I formation and it can be mitigated by a deck of cards, and obviously when they had 7th edition armies with the same level of information the BS version was essentially complete.

For the record, I use battlescribe so much I pay for it, and I buy the relevant books. The fact that they reproduce the rules in the 40k BSData is incredibly useful, but lets not have any illusions on what exactly it is they are doing.

**Peregrine**

Important fact: under US law the rules for playing a game can not be copyrighted. You're free to post descriotions of rules,point values, etc and all GW can do about it is whine.

**Captain Joystick**

Peregrine wrote:
Important fact: under US law the rules for playing a game can not be copyrighted. You're free to post descriotions of rules,point values, etc and all GW can do about it is whine.

I didn't know that!

**Excommunicatus**

Captain Joystick wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Important fact: under US law the rules for playing a game can not be copyrighted. You're free to post descriotions of rules,point values, etc and all GW can do about it is whine.

I didn't know that!

Probably because it isn't true.

**JohnHwangDD**

The difference?

Models are copyrighted

Stats (numbers) are not.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Excommunicatus wrote:
Captain Joystick wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Important fact: under US law the rules for playing a game can not be copyrighted. You're free to post descriotions of rules,point values, etc and all GW can do about it is whine.

I didn't know that!

Probably because it isn't true.

You're going to have to cite law / decisions for that.

The functional rules, stats and numbers are not copyrightable, only the "artistic" expression (e.g. fluff).

**insaniak**

Excommunicatus wrote:
Captain Joystick wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Important fact: under US law the rules for playing a game can not be copyrighted. You're free to post descriotions of rules,point values, etc and all GW can do about it is whine.

I didn't know that!

Probably because it isn't true.

Yes, it is. The wording of the rules is covered by copyright. The mechanics described by those rules are not. That's how you get so many cheap knock-offs of popular boardgames that are functionally identical to the originals.

Army building software is certainly a bit of a grey area in the whole copyright minefield. Back in the day, when it was just Army Builder on the scene, there was (supposedly) a behind-the-scenes agreement with GW that the software would be given a free pass by GW legal so long as it wasn't configured in such a way as to completely replace the need for a codex - so special rule descriptions and the like were not reproduced in the builder, so you would have to refer to the relevant book.

So by the time Battlescribe came along, we had all pretty much accepted that this sort of software was ok. IIRC, Battlescribe did run into some problems early on with GW legal, resulting in them going down the same road as Army Builder with datafiles hosted separately to the software, but after that point they've been left alone, and as far as I'm aware the creators and hosts of the datafiles have been similarly left alone by GW legal, which is taken as, if not tacit approval, at least a sign that they're not doing anything wrong - as opposed to recasters, which we know GW do go after periodically.

So, the short answer is that we'll continue to treat army builder software as an acceptable part of the hobby so long as the original creators of the content these builders work with do so. If there comes a point where legal issues arise, then this policy would obviously need to be reviewed.

**Ghaz**

insaniak wrote:
Back in the day, when it was just Army Builder on the scene, there was (supposedly) a behind-the-scenes agreement with GW that the software would be given a free pass by GW legal so long as it wasn't configured in such a way as to completely replace the need for a codex - so special rule descriptions and the like were not reproduced in the builder, so you would have to refer to the relevant book.

The history of Army Builder and their dealings with Games Workshop can be seen HERE:

Greetings,

Since this topic seems to be coming up on a recurring basis, I figured I would take the time to try and provide a little background on this issue. The reality is that we've been striving for more than a decade to work out an equitable license with GW to write official data files for their games. If you're interested in the history behind all this, read on for a recap of the past 11 years as it pertains to AB data files and why volunteers are writing them.

When AB was first prototyped back in 1997, it was designed exclusively as a tool for Warhammer Fantasy. That's simply because WHFB was the game I regularly played at the time. After seeing the prototype in action at local Cons, a few prominent GW players were emphatic that AB should be turned into an actual product. So I contacted GW and they expressed interest. I flew to the UK twice to meet with GW's senior staff about the project and everything looked like a go to publish AB as a GW product.

As development of AB 1.0 neared completion, nothing had been actually signed with GW, and it became apparent that the terms we originally discussed were no longer satisfactory to GW. I'd worked on multiple projects with companies like Electronic Arts, so I was well-versed in what the industry standards were for both compensation and allocation of responsibilities when software products are developed by outside studios. Unfortunately, GW believed that the industry standards weren't appropriate and insisted on a structure that I considered to be less than equitable. So I was left with either taking what they offered or figuring out a different strategy.

I broke off discussions with GW and set about revising the AB release plan. After consulting with legal counsel, I concluded that I could safely publish the engine without any data files. As long as the product was "generic" and designed to work for a range of game systems, and as long as the data files for individual game system were not included, AB would be safe from any legal concerns. In order for Lone Wolf to develop or sell data files, a license from the game company is required. However, if all of the intellectual property of each game company resided in the data files, and those data files were not developed or sold by Lone Wolf, no license was required. AB would work a lot like Excel, with AB providing a generalized tool and the data files being comparable to spreadsheets.

Since I'd been doing software development for many years and learned from some of the best, AB had already been built around a data-driven engine. This made it easy to separate the data files from the actual product. The trick would be in making it possible for users to create and share those data files. I needed to formalize things better and document how the data formats worked so that users could write the data files for AB. I also needed to extend the engine for use with other miniatures game systems that were available. After a couple months of extra work, AB V1.0 was ready to go.

Once AB was officially released, GW immediately adopted an adversarial stance towards AB, threatening litigation and other actions. Given the way that AB was released, though, there was nothing GW could do. By having the data files decoupled from the product and entirely fan-created, AB was unassailable. More importantly, AB became an invaluable tool for a wide range of game systems as a result of its generic nature.

A year or two later, after AB had established itself as a solid product, GW decided internally that they needed their own product that did what AB did. GW retained a consultant to assess the costs and look at the various options available. He came to the conclusion that licensing AB for use by GW was the most sensible option and championed the idea internally at GW. Sadly, after months of discussions, the idea of licensing AB was ultimately shot down by GW's execs, and GW set about developing their first attempt at replacing AB.

I was already at work on AB 2.0, which raised the bar significantly over AB 1.x. Fortunately, when GW's Interactive Army List was finally released, it was unable to compete with AB. The success of AB earned further ire from GW's executive ranks, who maintained their adversarial stance towards AB. Among GW's creative staff, though, AB quietly and steadily became the tool of choice.

The "cold war" between GW and Lone Wolf persisted for a few years. During that time, key GW design staff volunteered that they all used AB in-house and thought that a formal licensing arrangement would be good for everyone. We finally got AB 3.0 out the door at the end of 2004. Meanwhile, GW came out with a new and improved IAL product. The new IAL met with a poor reception, as AB had already established itself as the de facto tool for miniatures games.

A few members of the GW design staff privately suggested to us that the failure of the second IAL release had resulted in a philosophical shift at GW. Apparently, the general attitude of the GW execs had become open to discussing a license for AB again. So we approached GW about the possibility. The overall process was extremely slow and required the GW licensing person to work carefully around some of the negativity that lingered towards AB. It seemed that progress was being made and that something would ultimately be worked out. Then the licensing person left GW and a new person took over, requiring us to essentially start over from the beginning again. We soldiered on, but we were unable to regain any serious traction with the new licensing person. After *three years* of ongoing discussions, GW finally made the decision this year that they were no longer interested and broke off talks.

Assuming we were to secure a formal license with GW, our plan was to quickly follow suit with all the other miniatures companies. Since they all generally view AB as a valuable tool for their games, we figured that it would be relatively easy to secure licenses with everyone else once GW was onboard. However, without the support of GW, it really doesn't make a lot of sense to secure those licenses. Overseeing development of all the data files in-house would be a lot of work that would entail significant cost. Since the GW data files are both the most popular and most complex, the greatest benefit would be gained by managing those data files with in-house oversight and control. Lacking the ability to officially do GW files, the perceived added value to users would not be sufficient to justify the additional product cost increases needed to pay for all the data file development. So we concluded that it was better to keep the price point unchanged and keep all the data files fan-created.

That pretty much sums up why Lone Wolf doesn't do any of the data files for miniatures games. We'd very much like to, and we've invested significant time and energy towards being able to do so. In fact, we started out with that goal in 1997 and have been striving to achieve that goal with GW for 11 years now. Alas, it's been to no avail. What I'd love more than anything is to work directly with the fans creating the data files for all the various games and pay them for their efforts. They could then put in more time and get compensated for their work, plus we could do better testing before release. We could also get pre-release information from the publishers so that data files are available when the products hit the street, instead of having development merely get *started* when each release comes out. It would be a win for everyone.

Sadly, GW has decided that it doesn't share that vision, which leaves us all with fan-created files that are developed on a purely volunteer basis. Volunteers mean we don't get to complain when the data files aren't completed as quickly as we'd like. These guys are doing a bang-up job on a very difficult task. We should all be thankful that they are investing all that time and energy for the rest of us to benefit from, without any compensation other than knowing they did a great job. I know that I sure appreciate their efforts and wish that I could actually do something for them as a "thank you", but our hands are tied. If we did anything material for the volunteers, GW could claim that we're actually compensating them for their efforts, which would open everything up to legal recourse from GW. So all we can do here at Lone Wolf is express our thanks and keep hoping that someday we can work out something official with GW.

Thanks for listening....

**Excommunicatus**

It may well be true that it isn't unlawful under U.S. law. I never studied U.S. law beyond a few civil liberties cases.

It doesn't, however, follow that there's nothing that GW can do about it but whine, 'cause GW aren't limited to U.S. courts and the dictates of U.S. law.

**Horst**

Excommunicatus wrote:
It may well be true that it isn't unlawful under U.S. law. I never studied U.S. law beyond a few civil liberties cases.

It doesn't, however, follow that there's nothing that GW can do about it but whine, 'cause GW aren't limited to U.S. courts and the dictates of U.S. law.

Of course GW *could* do something about it... but they aren't really going after it, as insaniak said. They probably recognize that it wouldn't be in their best interests to do so, because fooling around in Battlescribe allows me to build new armies, which I will have to buy models to make. So I spend more money on plastic, which is what GW is *really* selling. I'm sure I'm not the only one like that either.

**Excommunicatus**

Making "all GW can do about it is whine" an incorrect statement.

Nobody suggested that they were about to wade in with C&Ds.

Just that Peregrine was wrong. Again.

**Bharring**

Copyright protects artistic works. A creative layout or fluff piece is an artistic work. A set of data or rules is not. That said, there's enough grey area around names and wordings of rules that the company can start a fuss, as long as it's not provable that they know they can't win.

Also, remember that, while data and rules are clearly not copywriteable, a trial court found Google infringed on Oracle by using rules that were too similar to Java's when implementing Dalvic (something for Android) - so it's either a lot more complicated than that, or being right doesn't mean you're safe.

But that's the copywrite argument.

A big part of the reason people who aren't fine with discussing/promoting Recasts are just fine with BattleScribe is that BattleScribe is typically supplemental to GW products. It's a lot more common for someone with BattleScribe to also have the GW Codexes/rulebooks (and even GW models) than for someone with Recasts to have GW models (or codexes/rulebooks).

Another big part is that, while BS can make it easier to go without buying the codexes, it's primary use is to build lists, not provide rules. It may also be useful for that purpose, but it's not it's primary purpose.

**dreadblade**

Bharring wrote:
A big part of the reason people who aren't fine with discussing/promoting Recasts are just fine with BattleScribe is that BattleScribe is typically supplemental to GW products. It's a lot more common for someone with BattleScribe to also have the GW Codexes/rulebooks (and even GW models) than for someone with Recasts to have GW models (or codexes/rulebooks).

**JohnHwangDD**

Excommunicatus wrote:
It may well be true that it isn't unlawful under U.S. law. I never studied U.S. law beyond a few civil liberties cases.

It doesn't, however, follow that there's nothing that GW can do about it but whine, 'cause GW aren't limited to U.S. courts and the dictates of U.S. law.

It isn't unlawful. The settled law is that "facts" (e.g. stats, numbers) are not copyrightable. Period. Otherwise, I'd copyright "Strength 4, Toughness 4", and everybody would have to pay me if they wanted to have those stats or any variation thereof. I'd license at a very reasonable rate, though. Rules are potentially copyrightable, to the extent that there is an "artistic" way of expressing a concept; however, if there is only one way to express the concept "re-roll the die", then that can't be copyrighted, either. The net result is that the overwhelming majority of rules mechanics cannot be copyrighted.

GW can always sue. GW would likely lose on merit, but possibly win via exhaustion / bankrupting the target. If GW intends to sue a US company or person, they absolutely *are* limited to US Courts and US law; GW doesn't get to sue me in England if that's not where I'm located.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
a trial court found Google infringed on Oracle by using rules that were too similar to Java's when implementing Dalvic (something for Android)

Oracle v Google was less about the law and licenses, and more about Oracle spending enough money to create an infringement where there was none.

**Excommunicatus**

Yeah, they can. And U.S. courts routinely enforce foreign judgments.

There's no magical law shield 'cause you're American.

**Peregrine**

Excommunicatus wrote:
Probably because it isn't true.

It absolutely is true. Directly from the US government: https://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.pdf

Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

Now, the fluff and art and even the exact expression of the rules may be copyrighted:

Material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container may be registrable.

So, the fact that a lascannon costs 20 points for IG units is not copyrighted. A simple phrase like "on a 3+ the model suffers a wound" has no literary or artistic merit, it's a straightforward statement of fact (with the fact being the game rule being described). GW's fluff-style rules, such as "this ancient and sacred chainsword owned by space Jesus himself allows the model to re-roll 1s" would be protected because they're a creative statement. But a copy of the unit rules with a simple "re-roll 1s" in its stat line, conveying the exact same information but without any creative content, would not be protected. And of course an entire codex, complete with all of the art, fluff stories, etc, would be protected.

TL;DR: uploading an entire codex is copyright infringement, quoting the entire rules for an army without any associated creative material is not.

**JohnHwangDD**

No, it's an issue of improper venue.

**DominayTrix**

LOL. Recasting isn't the same as battlescribe. At all. Recasting, in theory, provides a product that is identical to something GW offers which is a flagrant violation of IP. Battlescribe is a supplement that uses information that GW provides behind a paywall, but ultimately is not remotely close to an actual codex or BRB. Do you think that Alexa/Siri are the same thing as Wikipedia because they rely on that source of information? Is wikipedia going to be sued into oblivion because it makes references to media that is normally not accessible without purchase? No. This is before you look into things like GW being the source of point leaks that happen before CA is released every year.

**yakface**

The ultimate answer is this:

Yes, the legalities of recasting is ONE of the reasons we (the owners of the site) don't allow Dakka to be safe-haven for recasting discussions, but its not the only one. As miniature manufacturers ourselves now, we know firsthand the insane amount of time and money that goes into conceptualizing and producing a miniature long before a mold gets made for it.

• You have to spend the time/money to conceptualize what the model might be.
• You have to spend the time/money to pay an artist to visualize that conception.
• You have to spend the time/money to iterate on that idea until it is good, often requiring the concept artist to produce dozens of revisions.
• You have to spend the time/money to have someone sculpt the model.
• In the case of plastic models in particular, you have to pay someone to figure out how to break down the model's parts to be part of the sprue (a skill that is in very high demand and known by very few).

Only after all these things are completed, do you actually:

• Create the mold/tool, and then:
• Make copies from that mold/tool.

Someone who recasts models and resells them is skipping the massive costs for those first five steps and only paying for the last two (which in reality are the least costly of the steps).

This makes recasting a true plague on having new/cool miniatures produced in the future. The recasters are making money off of the backs of a ton of time and money spent conceptualizing and designing those models. Even if you think a particular company's prices are way to expensive for their models, by buying recasted models, you're taking money out of the companies that actually pay people to design and create new models and are giving it to companies that do none of those things.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that when there is less money going back to the company that comes up with new/cool ideas, there will be less new/cool ideas made.

---

Army building tools on the other hand, are not generally used as a method to steal the IP of another company and make money off that. Nothing in these army building tools replaces any of the artistic merit found in those rulebooks (pictures, art, fiction), so there is still value in purchasing the original books if you appreciate that art, and as has been pointed out, they are also just summaries of rules, instead of complete replacements.

In other words, they are a supplement to the miniature gaming hobby, as opposed to recasting, which is a practice that actively looks to destroy it from the inside out.

Obviously a lot of this viewpoint is simply our own opinions/preferences on these matters, but as this is our site, we're the ones who ultimately get to make that decision!

**Grimtuff**

Excommunicatus wrote:
Captain Joystick wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Important fact: under US law the rules for playing a game can not be copyrighted. You're free to post descriotions of rules,point values, etc and all GW can do about it is whine.

I didn't know that!

Probably because it isn't true.

Oh really? Go on the app store on your phone. Go on, I'll wait. Look and see how any identical games are out there just reskinned. Rules and game mechanics cannot be copywrited, only the way they are presented.