In message <199708120430.AAA22045@smtp2.sympatico.ca> Allan Goodall writes:
> At 11:13 PM 8/11/97 +0000, Peter Ramos wrote:
I've said it before, but since we have Tuffers following the discusions, I'll
say it again. I think it would profit GZG to
write a stripped-down version of DS2 and hand it around gratis
on the 'net. The lite version should be written on the assumption that the
players will be using existing GW Epic models, so, eg. there's no need to
include vehicle design rules, just a table of Epic vehicles and their stats
and be in general somewhat abbreviated.
If people enjoyed the game, it would seem like a natural progression to buy a
proper copy.
> I've sent several people my Marine and Ork conversions. Not
Oh, pshaw. A Landraider is about the size of three 6mm double-
deck buses welded side-by-side, with two size 1's on each side
and two APSW on top. Surely you can fit a *few* stands of infantry into what
must be a size 5 vehicle...?
Hi!
> I to have done some Epic conversions to DSII and I took the previous
I
> think I gave it 2 linked HEL-4, APWS, and reactive armor.
It seems that many people have more or less envisioned this vehicle in the
same manner as I did. I always believed this vehicle represents a main battle
tank not a transport. I will however post the spartan land raider variant
which is a troop carrier.
> Try to take a look at Steve Gibson's extended infantry rules for DSII.
I have seen this post and have developed my own ideas with it as a base.
Well I'll begin typing it up!
----------
> From: David Brewer <david@westmore.demon.co.uk>
> I've said it before, but since we have Tuffers following the
This is a great Idea, but isn't that infringing on GW's copyright. I don't
think that they would be too happy about a competing game system writing rules
for their models. They may think that this would have some impact on the sales
of E40K. I personally would like to see the whole GW empire go down in flames,
but I don't want to see GZG get in trouble for doing something like what you
propose.
Now if a fan did this, in a professional manner, and put it out there might
not be as much of a response from GW.
> Oh, pshaw. A Landraider is about the size of three 6mm double-
I to have done some Epic conversions to DSII and I took the previous tact and
made the landraider a big, slow AFV with no troop carring ability. I
think I gave it 2 linked HEL-4, APWS, and reactive armor.
> --
Microbiologist by training....Wargamer by choice...Anime lover by addiction.
> Now if a fan did this, in a professional manner, and put it out there
I'm game. If someone would like to post a GW alturniative my site is open for
posting. (it has some GW stuff on it but, would work nicely with hints
pointing away from the GW empire)
Over all the site is still being moved out from testing into production on the
web (working out bugs).
If anyone has any ideas please let me know.
CMC
Hi!
> This also begs the question of whether the goal is to allow people to
I will try to remain true to the background but as I've stated before some
unit descriptions were really ridiculuos and therefore will be brought into
line with something the DSII rules can handle.
Steve Pugh's ideas: I believe they well represent the eldar capabilties as a
race so I will use them as a base.
To make things easier I'll post an army list at a time so everyone can comment
and change things then at the end I'll make the file available in a complete
form.
As for an alternate system using GW figs a friend and I are currently
designing rules from scratch using game concepts that have found favor in
other game systems (warzone, DSII,e40k,old epic and even some old 40k
concepts. At this stage the core rules have been laid out and we are writing
them in a coherent form to reevaluate them. After we are satisfied with it the
armies themselves willbe dealt with.
Although I haven't been on this list long,but I find the conversations very
stimulating and the level of maturity of the participants is much better than
the space marine mailing list I was previuosly on. I look foward sharing my
ideas and recieving your input.
Joseph A. Noll wrote, regarding David Brewers suggestion that GZG do DS II
Lite with stats for GW Epic vehicles:
> This is a great Idea, but isn't that infringing on GW's copyright. I
> writing rules for their models. They may think that this would have
Caveat: I am not a lawyer, etc., etc., but I _think_ that if the stats
used neither the GW terms (landraider, bolter, etc.) nor included an
illustration, that this would be okay. GW can hardly copyright the idea the
*idea* of an AFV with one large gun on each side, two lighter AP guns on top,
and transport capacity for ten infantry.
> Joseph A. Noll wrote:
I
> think I gave it 2 linked HEL-4, APWS, and reactive armor.
Peter Ramos added:
> I always believed this vehicle represents a main battle tank not a
This also begs the question of whether the goal is to allow people to use GW
figures with DS II, or also allow them to fight DS II battles in the GW
universe. If the latter, then it would probably be A Good Thing to not chang
the capabilities of the GW pieces too much...
> At 08:56 PM 8/12/97 -0400, Joe wrote:
It's not a question of copyright. It would be easy to include DS2 stats for
vehicles with a note saying, "You can use this stat with GW's Land Raider
models." No copyright violation. However, they may have trademarked "Land
Raider" so there would be a violation if that was used without permission. Of
course, it would be fairly easy to play around with the names and such so that
people knew that the DS2 stats were for GW vehicles.
> I to have done some Epic conversions to DSII and I took the previous
I
> think I gave it 2 linked HEL-4, APWS, and reactive armor.
I gave the Land Raider 4 HEL-2s in fixed mounts (actually sponsons using
the fixed mount cost). The troop carrier version of the Land Raider had 2
HEL-3s. I made the vehicle size 4 (as opposed to David Brewer's
suggestion of size 5) because the Shadowsword tank is bigger than the LR and I
wanted it to sit at size 5.
The reason for the HEL-3s was due to a design philosophy I had for the
three main sides in GW's universe: Humans, Orks, and Eldar. The humans, in my
conversion, are the middle of the road. They use tracked vehicles, but very
few grav vehicles (and those they do use are small). They have enhanced fire
controls and most of the vehicles have backup systems. Their weapons are not
the most powerful. For the Orks, I gave them VERY powerful weapons but only
basic fire control. They are technologically inferior (they still use wheeled
vehicles) and rely on brute force to destroy the enemy. The spleenrippa, for
instance, has basic fire control for its class 5 HKP. I haven't done the Eldar
yet, but I'm planning on giving them superior fire control. I haven't decided
if they'll get very powerful weapons or some more on a par with the humans.
This results in three armies that feel and play very differently. The Orks are
slow and have trouble hitting but when they DO hit, the target doesn't stand
much of a chance. The humans are more mobile but don't hit as hard as the
Orks. The Eldar are fast movers and probably very powerful, however their
numbers will be much less than the humans. Eldar versus Orks could be
interesting: small, fast and surgical, versus big, slow, and powerful.
> At 12:03 AM 8/14/97 GMT, you wrote:
> However, I have seen products before that use other companies' TMs
Will my wife's boss do? Leann is a litigation clerk. Although most of her work
is in contract litigation and unjust dismissal, they have had a number of
intellectual property rights cases.
I asked Leann and she says that she's pretty sure you've got it wrong (as a
law clerk, not a lawyer, she has to be careful what she says is not construed
as "legal advice"; this is a requirement of the Law Society of Upper Canada).
According to Leann, you can't use a trademark without the express permission
of the party holding the trademark. Now, this might not apply in the UK, but
it DOES apply in Canada and the US. If you want to use a trademark in another
product, you had better get permission from GW. You don't need prior
permission to use the trademark in a review of a game or other "fair use"
circumstances, but you still have to acknowledge the trademark.
Trademark law is quite a bit different from copyright law. You can lose your
trademark if you don't defend it, or if you are too frivilous about giving
away licenses (see classic Star Trek and SFB as an example). As such,
companies are more apt to heavily defend their trademarks. This gives them a
bad image as a litigous company (i.e. TSR) but in most cases they have little
choice. This is why there's been such a hit against Web sites dedicated to TV
shows and movies. If you just let these Web sites go without taking legal
action, they could be considered to not be defending thier trademark. (Of
course, most companies don't have a process for handing out
licenses for not-for-profit independant fan web sites, so the loyal fans
usually get hosed.)
Leann's suggestion is to include stats for, say, a "Ground Raider" or a "Space
Elf Grav Tank" and let the player infer the actual association. Or go to GW
and get permission.
> I gave the Land Raider 4 HEL-2s in fixed mounts (actually sponsons
I agree. The GW minis are pretty silly, really. You slope armour. Period. Even
if the enemy's weapons can't penetrate your armour, you slope it so you can
put on LESS armour and reduce the vehicle's weight. Mike Miserendino and I
were talking about this at GenCon vis a vis GZG figures. We both agreed that
the SG2 resin vehicles and the new DS2 miniatures based on them were too tall
and boxy. We figured that future weapons would be more sleek with a lower
profile.
Allan writes...
> I gave the Land Raider 4 HEL-2s in fixed mounts (actually sponsons
Period.
> Even if the enemy's weapons can't penetrate your armour, you slope it
<gasp!>
You think...that maybe...an Evil Empire(tm) employee got ahold of the
molds???
<horror!>
;-)
Mk
In message <199708150613.CAA04322@smtp1.sympatico.ca> Allan Goodall writes:
> At 12:03 AM 8/14/97 GMT, I wrote:
As an aside, I'd point people here to GZG's own Full Thrust, which references
both "Citadel TM" and "Games Workshop TM" and has a disclaimer tucked away at
the foot of the contents page. DS2 doesn't mention them, but I think DS1 did.
> >Still, that's by no means an expert opinion... say, Allan, do you
How did I know you'd say that...
> I asked Leann and she says that she's pretty sure you've got it wrong
Understood.
> According to Leann, you can't use a trademark without the express
Well, I guess GZG's use of GW TM might count as fair use so far...
I suppose I have to accept your Mrs.as a more informed source than I, but I
still maintain a weak belief that, so long as you're not trying to pass off
your product as approved of by the TM holder, you can use their TMs if you
acknowledge the as such. How many books
have you seen out there with names like "Unapproved X-Files TM
Companion", e.g. using a trademark without permission, but stating so
unequivocally to pose no challenge?
This is all assuming that these names are trademarked. I've turned up a recent
Dwarf and they're not listed among the long list of trademarks, registered and
unregistered. This isn't to say that they couldn't still claim them as TMs.
Suppose we (with JMT's approval) knocked out the proposed "Dirtside Lite" with
an internal table of stats labelled "Land Raider",
"Rhino", "Skullsmasha" etc. What is the worst-case scenario we could
face? If it were a paper product, GW could make us pulp them, but, half the
point of the plan is to distribute it electronically. They could seize
revenues that we've earnt... but the other half of the point is to make it
free. They could sue for damages, but, AFAIK, damages in these cases are
assessed on presumed loss of income; since the third half of the point is to
target people who have already bought GW product and who aren't going to buy
any more, so no loss to GW. So we withdraw it. Big fat hairy deal.
> Leann's suggestion is to include stats for, say, a "Ground Raider" or
Or, less clumsily, mark as "high-tech", "mid-tech", "low-tech" for
the elfs, humans and orcs, respectively. I'd still prefer to call a spade a
spade, so to speak.
> At 11:33 AM 8/16/97 GMT, you wrote:
> Well, I guess GZG's use of GW TM might count as fair use so far...
Well, yes and no. This is the reason why there are so many trademark
lawsuits. If you write a book about the X-Files with lots of plot
outlines, episode guides, and that sort of thing, I think you're okay just
putting in the disclaimer. Your book is basically reiterating what was already
common knowledge due to the broadcasting of the shows, information that might
NOW be in the public domain by virtue of the broadcast. Things like "air
date," "episode name," and the plot synopsis. I think this falls under fair
use. On
the other hand, not just anyone can write an X-Files novel and call it
an
X-Files novel. The rights to the novels are licensed out to third
parties.
If you call your novel an "X-Files (TM) novel" you could end up being
sued by Fox and the holder of the novel license.
Where the GW stuff comes in is tricky. You aren't writing a "40K Universe
game" but you are writing a conversion of epic or 40K for a different game
system. You are using the 40K trademarks (with proper citation) to compete
with the official products that use those trademarks. I'm not sure if there's
an analogy for this. At any rate, you might legally be okay just putting down
the citation for the trademark, but that's probably not going to stop GW from
suing you. According to Leann, they'd have a good case. Whether they could win
or not is up to a court (or several courts, in the case of an appeal).
Could you afford to fight this in court? There are many things in civil law
that might be your right or freedom, but that doesn't protect you from being
sued. Mikko was right, summary judgement is usually your protection against
frivolous lawsuits but Leann confirms what he said and tells me that you
rarely get summary judgement in trademark disputes.
> This is all assuming that these names are trademarked. I've turned
Another thing to check is if Valkyrie, Pyramid, Challenge, MARS or any other
magazines have used those terms. If they have, and GW didn't sue them for it,
then it can be shown that GW hasn't been protecting its trademarks for those
vehicles. Still, can you afford it if they decide to sue you over it anyway?
Sure you'd win, but can you afford the financial burden until then?
> Suppose we (with JMT's approval) knocked out the proposed "Dirtside
Good point. Unless, of course, GW can bring people forth who were "going to
buy Epic, but used DS2 light instead." PacBell once stated in court that their
"top secret" document that a hacker stole from one of their sites was worth
$80,000, when they sold a copy of it by their mail order service for $13. They
only have to "prove" a monitary loss; they don't actually have to HAVE one.
Still, a conversion table inside might be fair use, especially if you also
included Ogre and Battletech conversions. I don't know, at least not without
paying a lawyer for some consulting time. On the other hand, they are most
likely to hit with a "big foot" letter to force you to cease and desist first.
In message <199708180421.AAA11072@smtp1.sympatico.ca> Allan Goodall writes:
> At 11:33 AM 8/16/97 GMT, you wrote:
I don't think so. Quite by coincidence I came accross a pamphlet issued by the
(British... Royal... whatever) Patent Office about intellectual property
rights. It summed trademark law in a few paragraphs and, as I recalled form
earlier reading, it all comes down to whether or not you are passing off your
product as by, or approved by, the trademark holder, in order to cash in on
the reputation invested in their trademark.
Frankley, since the idea is to cash-in on the *bad* reputation of
GW, and make doubleplus certain that people know that the product
*isn't* by them I'm pretty damned sure that the concept is flame-
proof, and we could call a Landraider a Landraider.
> Still, can you afford it if they decide to sue you over it
...did you hear of the "McLibel Two" out in Canada?...