Adding rules text

[metr0]

Who can I coordinate with if I'd like to donate some time to create paraphrased text for models and wargear in the new Necron update? I'd like to see the same level of support as other factions, and am willing to help get it done.

[jlong05]

Who can I coordinate with if I'd like to donate some time to create paraphrased text for models and wargear in the new Necron update? I'd like to see the same level of support as other factions, and am willing to help get it done.

It isn't a matter of time but of Intellectual Property. It has been decided that going forward new codex rules will be updated to no longer provide the detailed information, but instead will direct the user to the appropriate rule book. This prevents issues with GW and us whereby they could have a claim that we are allowing people to play their game without ever purchasing the rulebooks. By instead pointing users to the relevant rules, we eliminate this concern as the user will still need access to the rulebook.

[metr0]

Who can I coordinate with if I'd like to donate some time to create paraphrased text for models and wargear in the new Necron update? I'd like to see the same level of support as other factions, and am willing to help get it done.

It isn't a matter of time but of Intellectual Property. It has been decided that going forward new codex rules will be updated to no longer provide the detailed information, but instead will direct the user to the appropriate rule book. This prevents issues with GW and us whereby they could have a claim that we are allowing people to play their game without ever purchasing the rulebooks. By instead pointing users to the relevant rules, we eliminate this concern as the user will still need access to the rulebook.

Makes sense. IANAL, but GW can only copyright the text of their books, not the intent or general ideas. That means that paraphrasing, or presenting the rules in a different way can not be protected by copyright. On the other hand, AB40k's use of unit names, including named characters may be an issue and this is a good way to keep our head down, I suppose.

If AB40k changes their mind, I'm happy to contribute.

[fatzech]

That is a bummer, while I do have a lot of codexes I don't have them all. The AB files had all the relevant information all in one spot so I could look at it at a glance, it just made it really easy to get to know the codex easier when I played and it was makes for fewer books to lug around since everything was on a few sheets of paper.

I hate the fact that we have to worry about "copyright" protection.

Has there ever been rumblings from GW about the info in the AB files prior to this?

[Homer_S]

The did shutdown a different tool, where they were hosting the tool and the data files.

[jlong05]

That is a bummer, while I do have a lot of codexes I don't have them all. The AB files had all the relevant information all in one spot so I could look at it at a glance, it just made it really easy to get to know the codex easier when I played and it was makes for fewer books to lug around since everything was on a few sheets of paper.

I hate the fact that we have to worry about "copyright" protection.

Has there ever been rumblings from GW about the info in the AB files prior to this?

This is the sort of issue that we have the deal with GW on. Their contention is, with the AB application, players don't buy the codex rules. Your answer clearly indicates you are one of these players. Use of AB and the various datafiles implies you have also purchased the codex rulebooks as well. It is a copywrite violation to use the files without already owning those same rules.

The steps we are taking is making it clear to GW that the files are for army generation, not for playing the game. A player will have to have the actual rulebooks to play the game as there will be no rules information provided other than a ref to the page in the rulebook.

[dbgoldberg323]

I understand the reasoning behind this, but veterans of 40k AND Army Builder like myself have ALWAYS joked about how horribly inaccurate Army Builder truly is datafile-wise. We're ALWAYS directing players to their rulebooks and codexes because there are tons of already paraphrased rules typed into certain datafiles. It causes a lot of conflicts on the tabletop for new players. So, we're already using the books/rules in addition to the print-out.

Look, like a poster above said, if you paraphrase a rule then that breaks no more copyright laws than what you're already doing by using the names of the units, characters, armies, and wargear options (and it still requires people to look up the rule since it's just "paraphrased"). Really, this is a gray area as far as IP infringement is concerned. Then there's the fact that your datafiles aren't directly coming from Wolf Lair. When you look at similar smart-phone applications, as long as the application itself and the datafiles are separated (like, on a forum), they can't be dinged for it. Several of them have already adopted this new way of hosting files, but this is how AB40k has done it for years (the files are fan-made and on a separate site). Unless you guys have already been contacted by GW on this issue specifically, I'm quite certain you're free and clear.

[Spack]

I'm not going to go into any details, but the AB40k team has in the past been contacted GW regarding IP infringement. I'm also aware of a couple of other army creation tools that have had C&D letters from GW. While Lone Wolf won't have any legal issues with GW as they are not providing the potentially infringing files, the AB40k team could very well be pursued. I have spoken personally to GW legal to find out where we stand but their official response is that they cannot advise on our position and that we would have to seek legal advice from a solicitor with copyright/IP expertise which is very expensive.

The 1 month minimum embargo and removal of paraphrased rules does not guarantee that GW will not take action at some point in the future, but it should hopefully make any legal challenge not worth the cost to GW as they would not be sure of winning. Just because there are paraphrased rules already present in older files isn't a valid reason for putting them in new files.

And if at the end of the day you're already using the files simply to generate a list and you use it alongside the codexes because the files are "horribly inaccurate", I can't see why having page references is an issue for you - rather then relying on horribly inaccurate paraphrased rules you can read the highly accurate printed rules right there in the codex/FAQ for the army.

The decision has been made by the team as a whole. Please respect the decision and leave it at that. If you're really unhappy about it then you could simply make your own 40k files - ABCreator is already on your PC and you can edit the files to put the rules in yourself if you feel that strongly about it.