Author Topic: Muse on Minis: MOM# 173  (Read 28659 times)

sleet01

  • Journeyman
  • ****
  • Posts: 461
  • Liked: 0
  • You maniacs!
    • View Profile
Muse on Minis: MOM# 173
« on: May 15, 2014, 04:17:16 AM »
From the relevant thread, you'd get a chance to re-target a spell that was cast at an out-of-formation unit, but if there were no other valid targets on the table you would just lose the focus.

Edit: not sure how this ended up in the "Tactical" forum.  If somebody wants to move it to the main forum, that'd be great.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2014, 04:19:31 AM by sleet01 »

StevenSwayze

  • Administrator
  • Warcaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 952
  • Liked: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Muse on Minis: MOM# 173
« Reply #1 on: May 15, 2014, 05:32:28 AM »
Awesome thank you, the guy who posted a link to this edited it out as I think it did not exactly support the argument he was making and then I could not find it. But the way he positioned it was that you got effed immediately, and the thread states that you do kinda get effed, but not as bad I was thinking. Still stupid though.
Khal Drogo, Khaleesi, Khan, Khador, Khacsmith...

DarkLegacy

  • Journeyman
  • ****
  • Posts: 491
  • Liked: 0
    • View Profile
Muse 173
« Reply #2 on: May 15, 2014, 08:44:11 AM »
RE: Spell casting at a banishing ward unit
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?193820-banishing-ward&highlight=banishing+ward+spell
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?85359-Banishing-Ward-model-targeted-by-Spell

When you cast a spell and have to rewind, the steps are:
1. Pay Cost
2. Declare target (including LOS)
3. Measure range
4. Make rolls.

So, if you fail at #2, which if you targeting a Banishing Warded or Spell Warded model/unit, you would rewind to the last successful spot. That would be #1. You'd then retry down the list, choosing a new target.
"Travis is the Vulcan of our gaming group." - Majortusk

Rynth

  • Dead to John.
  • Muse Moderator
  • Epic Warcaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1104
  • Liked: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Muse on Minis: MOM# 173
« Reply #3 on: May 15, 2014, 08:49:03 AM »
Edit: not sure how this ended up in the "Tactical" forum.  If somebody wants to move it to the main forum, that'd be great.

As you wish.

DarkLegacy

  • Journeyman
  • ****
  • Posts: 491
  • Liked: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Muse on Minis: MOM# 173
« Reply #4 on: May 15, 2014, 08:51:07 AM »
Edit: not sure how this ended up in the "Tactical" forum.  If somebody wants to move it to the main forum, that'd be great.

As you wish.

No wonder I made a new thread, I didn't look in other forums.
"Travis is the Vulcan of our gaming group." - Majortusk

rydiafan

  • Dickbag
  • Epic Warcaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1770
  • Liked: 0
  • Do you like to hurt other people?
    • View Profile
Re: Muse on Minis: MOM# 173
« Reply #5 on: May 15, 2014, 09:00:45 AM »
I'm going to continue to cut&paste my post from the other thread, since it's topical in every thread nowadays:

Currently I just don't feel like it's going to make as big of a impact as people think.  It seems like most of the examples of ways to abuse this are super corner case and won't come up nearly as often as people are claiming.  I could be wrong, and maybe 6 months from now I'll be complaining about how the game has devolved into nothing but TKing each others models out of formation, but I don't feel that way now.

Remember, this only does ANYTHING in the following situation:
  • You have a way of non-lethally moving/placing a trooper out of formation.
  • You successfully apply that movement/placement.
  • That unit needs a buff on it next turn.
  • That buff is not currently on them in the form of an upkeep.
  • That buff needs to be applied prior to them activating.

I just don't see that as an every-game situation.  Same with the targeting shenanigans here.  How often are you going to target a trooper who is in melee with one of your troopers who is part of a unit that is also out of formation and is also in melee with a second trooper from that first unit?

Makhina

  • Deus Ex
  • Noob
  • *
  • Posts: 80
  • Liked: 0
  • Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici
    • View Profile
Muse on Minis: MOM# 173
« Reply #6 on: May 15, 2014, 09:05:05 AM »
Am I the only poor bastard that can't download the episode?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"That'll do pig, that'll do."   
*zips up pants* -- raincaller


Rynth

  • Dead to John.
  • Muse Moderator
  • Epic Warcaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1104
  • Liked: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Muse on Minis: MOM# 173
« Reply #7 on: May 15, 2014, 09:09:12 AM »
Am I the only poor bastard that can't download the episode?

BeyondPod didn't download the episode early this morning, but downloading from the main page works just fine now.

cheddercaveman

  • Epic Warcaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2274
  • Liked: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Muse on Minis: MOM# 173
« Reply #8 on: May 15, 2014, 09:19:05 AM »
Nathan's post gets at really my opinions on this, so I won't repeat that.  However, and caveat, I'm not all the way through the podcast yet, but I am really disappointed at the negativity that the podcast had about this without actually trying to approach it neutrally and discuss it.  It also really showed that a lot of you play a lot of infantry and that it was going to change your play styles.  I do agree with you on many points, but I think there could have been more of a discussion around it.  If this is the only time that its really ranted about, I think it'll be ok.

I intend this only as a friendly criticism/disagreement.  Still love the podcast and value your opinions.

<Returns to listening to the podcast>

carnage4u

  • Epic Warcaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1798
  • Liked: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Muse on Minis: MOM# 173
« Reply #9 on: May 15, 2014, 09:22:56 AM »
you guys need sad music playing in the background while your talking about the stuff early in the podcast.  Such negative attitudes.  I guess I was the oddball fool that always kept models in formations before anyway, and always worked on sniping unit leaders to split up units that spread out, so multiple models would be out of formation and couldn't attack on the following turn.


Yea, its an odd day to me that Crippled System were the POSITIVE PODCAST

cheddercaveman

  • Epic Warcaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2274
  • Liked: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Muse on Minis: MOM# 173
« Reply #10 on: May 15, 2014, 09:24:15 AM »
Yea, its an odd day to me that Crippled System were the POSITIVE PODCAST

rydiafan

  • Dickbag
  • Epic Warcaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1770
  • Liked: 0
  • Do you like to hurt other people?
    • View Profile
Re: Muse on Minis: MOM# 173
« Reply #11 on: May 15, 2014, 09:25:21 AM »
Your guys conversion analogy is so missing the point it's insane.  It's not like a guy in the STANDS dressed as Iron Man; it's like the QUARTERBACK being dressed as Iron Man.  I'm sure Marvel would be a little pissed about that.

And I have NO insider information here, but you guys are silly if you think Fair Use or lack of direct profit causation would protect them from being sued.  GW, for example, has shut down fan sites and web comics, and has sued people for using roman numerals for God's sake.  There is a reality here and that reality isn't PP is a bunch of big jerks who hate hobbyists.

freekittens03

  • Noob
  • *
  • Posts: 50
  • Liked: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Muse on Minis: MOM# 173
« Reply #12 on: May 15, 2014, 09:26:03 AM »
Addressing the conversion policy issue, yes PP would probably be safe under fair use if someone tried to sue them. The only problem is that if they ever did get sued they would still be out money because they would have to hire lawyers.

Piggy backing off Nathan. GW has many in house lawyers who they already have on pay roll so they literally sit around thinking about who they can sue to try and make money. Yeah it's shitty but its smart on PP.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2014, 09:29:35 AM by freekittens03 »

rydiafan

  • Dickbag
  • Epic Warcaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1770
  • Liked: 0
  • Do you like to hurt other people?
    • View Profile
Re: Muse on Minis: MOM# 173
« Reply #13 on: May 15, 2014, 09:30:55 AM »
Addressing the conversion policy issue, yes PP would probably be safe under fair use if someone tried to sue them. The only problem is that if they ever did get sued they would still be out money because they would have to hire lawyers.

Smaller companies NEVER get screwed over by a larger company suing them despite the smaller company having every legal right to do what they're doing.

Oh, wait: http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/01/23/candy-crush-saga-dev-king-trademarks-the-word-candy

octavius_maximus

  • Epic Warcaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2479
  • Liked: 0
  • Dojo Mister.
    • View Profile
Re: Muse on Minis: MOM# 173
« Reply #14 on: May 15, 2014, 09:40:43 AM »
Hmmm doing some reading on fair use:

Fair Use covers 'News', which Live coverage and No Quarter would probably cover. It also needs to look at 4 criteria:
1. "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;"
The 'purpose' of the work to the player is going to be nonprofit artistic purposes. It will be a homage at most unless the player is specifically looking to gain an advantage to selling their products through using the guise of another work.

2. "the nature of the copyrighted work;"
This is where Aduro will have some issues on some of his models. The Nature of the work he is placing with his Necrons is that it is mostly a direct transcription (as far as my perspective.) He is essentially using Necrons in Privateer Press events, which will cause issues for them if they want to use the image of his models since they are models which they do not own a copyright on, but unlike most conversions the copyright IS held by another competing party. (more on that later).

3. "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and"
This is another issue with Aduros necrons. They are far too recognisable under fair use to really be protected. Calling a Team the "Sydney Iron Men" probably wouldn't be an issue unless they used a distinct Red and Yellow colour scheme with a blue insignia on the chest. While Aduro owns the Necron based army, PP (as far as I know) own the image of any official photos that they take of that army. This means that any images of Aduros army would be weighed on the substantiability of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work.

4. "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
Now, this might be a stickler. The point here is that if PP endorses (or tacitly endorses) using other recognisable bits from other companies, that may have an issue upon the potential market of models. The thing is whether competative companies decide to go hard line (using our image and copyright for your game is wrong) or avoid prosecution (This allows more sales of our models and bits).


So I think this might be part of the reason for Fair Use not necessarily being totally applicable, and the most successful legal battle is the one you don't have.

Not that I agree with this at all, I love conversions and wish I had the skills to do it. I think the change could be worked out, especially if PP actually approached GW to find a joint agreement on what constitutes fair use and what doesn't.

(Note: I am not a lawyer).

Atlantean

  • Thrall
  • **
  • Posts: 238
  • Liked: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Muse on Minis: MOM# 173
« Reply #15 on: May 15, 2014, 09:44:23 AM »
On the formation change I agree with John that I think it is a very, very dumb rule for new players. Keeping stuff in formation while learning the game is tough enough, having a gotcha rule just makes it worse. I actually asked DC in the main forum thread if they think it will effect new players and there was no reply.

I was also the guy who mentioned Corbeau, she may be a good fix in certain situations and she also has seduction, which if you could pull it off would easily take a grunt out of formation and you don't even need a roll to make it work.

On the conversion issue, while I am not an IP lawyer I have worked with them a lot and I do not think PP's conversion policy is based on any IP concerns. Frankly they could be sued now for some of their character designs being close to established characters "likeness". The idea that someone would see them post a photo or stream a game with a likeness and be sued would be far fetched albeit possible, but like I said they could easily be sued now. Considering fair use, satire, mash-up, etc. it could easily be defended if it were ever to come up.

I think this is pure branding move, they want all PP all the time at their events. I guess I understand the motivation but it really seems like it could be toxic to some of their most hardcore fans.

I also agree on the bits issue, it really makes it rough for people and will have a farther impact than PP sponsored events.

AduroT

  • C'Tan Overlord
  • Epic Warcaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2256
  • Liked: 0
  • Stuffes.
    • View Profile
Re: Muse on Minis: MOM# 173
« Reply #16 on: May 15, 2014, 09:49:17 AM »
Addressing the conversion policy issue, yes PP would probably be safe under fair use if someone tried to sue them. The only problem is that if they ever did get sued they would still be out money because they would have to hire lawyers.

Piggy backing off Nathan. GW has many in house lawyers who they already have on pay roll so they literally sit around thinking about who they can sue to try and make money. Yeah it's shitty but its smart on PP.

GW only has a few in house lawyers I believe. The legal team handling their current lawsuit only had a single in house person on it, who was their legal head, and they wasn't even leading the case in trial. Most of their lawyering has been outsourced. (also they fired that in house person who was involved in the suit after they failed to annihilate their opponent)

Mahu

  • Warcaster
  • ***
  • Posts: 758
  • Liked: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Muse on Minis: MOM# 173
« Reply #17 on: May 15, 2014, 09:53:56 AM »
Quote
especially if PP actually approached GW to find a joint agreement on what constitutes fair use and what doesn't.

Considering GW would probably copywrite the very concept of miniatures games if they could, this is funny to me.

The conversion policy is a rational, probably needed one. The more they expand live coverage of events, the more they need to make sure they protect themselves. In my opinion, this is a common sense ruling. Nothing stops you from the traditional weapon swaps and head swaps, you just have to make sure that the model still represents beyond a shadow of a doubt the model it is in game, and that you are not infringing on other companies iconography or IP. There is still a lot of freedom there, and to be fair to PP, they could have just shut down conversions altogether, which is the ultimate "safe" thing.


https://www.patreon.com/enterthecrucible

Current factions: Khador, Retribution of Scyrah, Convergence of Cyriss, Skorne

misomiso

  • Journeyman
  • ****
  • Posts: 331
  • Liked: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Muse on Minis: MOM# 173
« Reply #18 on: May 15, 2014, 10:24:31 AM »
Muse
Really good analysis and not what I was expecting from you guys.  I didn’t even realise how messed up the whole conversion policy was.  My guess is there’s a bit of a fear from GW about this, a GW are known to be ‘proactive’ in their dealing with other people in the Hobby.

Having said that I think it’s a real shame how the community has got completely divided over the coherency change.   Reading the PP forum post there’s so much bile there on both sides.

Do you think PP should bite the bullet and just work out how to introduce Mark 2.5 / 3?

But I do agree with your points, and I would love to see you debate the Crippled System guys on this.  One of you vs Nathan over Skype?  Just don’t pick Crump. 

octavius_maximus

  • Epic Warcaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2479
  • Liked: 0
  • Dojo Mister.
    • View Profile
Re: Muse on Minis: MOM# 173
« Reply #19 on: May 15, 2014, 10:28:18 AM »
Honestly, the game has gotten a little clusterfucky with its errata. A 2.5 simply to clean it all up and get cards in order (with a few minimal balance changes) would be great for Health and lifestyle of the game.


Usbprime

  • Noob
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • Liked: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Muse on Minis: MOM# 173
« Reply #20 on: May 15, 2014, 10:28:54 AM »
If you built a family reunion list, and gave every troll a Red Solo Cup, would that be considered Intellectual property (or under normal circumstances Unintellectual property)?

Flamephoenix

  • Journeyman
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Liked: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Muse on Minis: MOM# 173
« Reply #21 on: May 15, 2014, 11:26:37 AM »
Honestly, the game has gotten a little clusterfucky with its errata. A 2.5 simply to clean it all up and get cards in order (with a few minimal balance changes) would be great for Health and lifestyle of the game.

Ya I agree with this. I don't want a drastic rules shift (see GW edition changes), but what you said sounds good, especially since the rulebook itself is starting to get out of date, makes it hard to on the new player who picks up the rulebook and is trying to learn with other new people especially in areas where a decent WM community doesn't exist .
If they are truly trying to encourage jacks and discourage infantry this would be a time to do it, They could just change the base rules on how jacks work (I've seen many good suggestions, my favourite was jacks can run and charge for free, but get 2 focus. That way you can run 4 heavies and still get your buff's out, and then allocate as needed for combat.) then they wouldn't need to play with each jacks stats individually.


AgeOfEgos

  • Thrall
  • **
  • Posts: 121
  • Liked: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Muse on Minis: MOM# 173
« Reply #22 on: May 15, 2014, 11:31:43 AM »
I'll just cut/paste my thoughts from the other thread;

It's not going to be a common rule interaction but when it does happen, it's going to be nonsensical and super frustrating.  Especially for new players;

"You can issue a charge order even if that guy is out of formation, it's ok, just the guys in formation receive the order.  But you can't cast a spell on them."
"You mean I can't cast a spell on the guys out of formation or just the ones in formation receive it?"
"I mean if one guy is out of formation, then no one can get the buff/Fell Call/Whatever"
"But they can still issue orders to guys in formation?"
"Yeah, well unless it's a spell like Revive because it really doesn't target"

It's going to happen and when it does, it's going to be one of those "Gotcha!" moments that new players loathe.  Or hell, even experienced players will probably be surprised by it from time to time.  A much more consistent (and logical) application would be;

"Only models in formation can give or receive orders, or be the target of friendly spells or effects."  Solves the command bunker issue, is consistent, makes sense and is one sentence.


Hell, you might even be able to add "Friendly models only grant passive abilities or effects while in formation" to the end of that as well...although I would have to think through the factions for that.  This would also solve the "I'll run a Ranger here to mark target, even though he's fleeing after he failed his out of formation test".  I imagine to a new player this would be easy to remember, "Is my guy out of formation?  Then he doesn't help me any".

Again though, I would have to think more on that...if I was paid to do it...instead of the game being a hobby.  And just FYI, unless I recall incorrectly, Vengeance will not fix the formation issue unless your leader's vengeance fixes all your formation issues---as out of formation models do not get a Vengeance move.



As an aside, good to see you guys being honest about your thoughts on the change.  I know it's a difficult situation when you generally love a company and want to stay positive---but the right thing is to tell your buddy when you feel he's making a dumb mistake (which I consider this Errata and Conversion Policy).  Maybe the game is getting too unwieldy for the designers when thinking through an errata or maybe they're experiencing that "Of course it makes sense"--not realizing they are veterans that most things come second nature to.  The unit/subtype erratas are likely another example of that.


Kaorti

  • Warcaster
  • ***
  • Posts: 761
  • Liked: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Muse on Minis: MOM# 173
« Reply #23 on: May 15, 2014, 12:11:16 PM »
I think the nurse crew would benefit from getting Lance's perspective on the new conversion rules. IP law is a notorious clusterfuck. It uses a lot of technical language and the rights it purports to give the public are almost always weak and vulnerable to suit from a protective IP holder.

For instance, re: your short discussion on public domain characters. Almost nothing had entered the public domain since... I think it's the early 1920s. Copyright protection has been continuously extended since then. There is a lot of money and power tied up in keeping IP law restrictive. Look at the patent wars that the big tech firms are waging.

Mahu

  • Warcaster
  • ***
  • Posts: 758
  • Liked: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Muse on Minis: MOM# 173
« Reply #24 on: May 15, 2014, 12:33:21 PM »
If I am nitpicking the formation ruling with a new player, I am doing a great disservice to the new player.


https://www.patreon.com/enterthecrucible

Current factions: Khador, Retribution of Scyrah, Convergence of Cyriss, Skorne

Polar Bear

  • Thrall
  • **
  • Posts: 225
  • Liked: 0
    • View Profile
    • My personal website
Re: Muse on Minis: MOM# 173
« Reply #25 on: May 15, 2014, 12:36:51 PM »
If you built a family reunion list, and gave every troll a Red Solo Cup, would that be considered Intellectual property (or under normal circumstances Unintellectual property)?
If it looked exactly like a red Solo cup then yes but you would be doing some amazing hobby work if you could pull that off.

Also, Fair Use is pretty nebulous since the tests are effectively judgement calls by judges for the most part. Youtube can be very strict about used copyrighted work on their site. For example, a baby dancing to a song playing in the background. Is that Fair Use? They still got a copyright strike because the record company didn't think it was.

The new conversion policy sucks for some people who want to use GW bits. I had thought about doing it for some of my Ret models but I won't be doing that now. Still, IP law can be maddening and I think its better for them to cut it off at the pass. Maybe they can talk with GW and get in writing that neither will sue the other for their players used bits from the other company.

Dan from Chicago

  • Warcaster
  • ***
  • Posts: 598
  • Liked: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Muse on Minis: MOM# 173
« Reply #26 on: May 15, 2014, 12:38:57 PM »
People are going to get used to it. The end.

Heck, maybe people will even start playing the rules correctly(a.k.a. mandatory command checks for out of command grunts)

I believe there's an excellent chance nobody thinks this is a big deal in 6 months.

Dan from Chicago

  • Warcaster
  • ***
  • Posts: 598
  • Liked: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Muse on Minis: MOM# 173
« Reply #27 on: May 15, 2014, 12:41:43 PM »
If I am nitpicking the formation ruling with a new player, I am doing a great disservice to the new player.

No matter what you are doing, if you are being an ass, then you are doing a disservice to your opponent regardless of their experience, since this is a game and we are supposed to be having fun.

If you are helping a new player understand the rules, and doing so in a respectful manner. than you are not doing a disservice to the new player. In fact, you are doing the opposite.

Polar Bear

  • Thrall
  • **
  • Posts: 225
  • Liked: 0
    • View Profile
    • My personal website
Re: Muse on Minis: MOM# 173
« Reply #28 on: May 15, 2014, 12:49:45 PM »
Still listening to the podcast. What did Nigel mean about PP not being as inclusive for players because of painting? Was that comment because of Iron Gauntlet? I've never felt like

As a TO I've okayed Extreme Warpwolf Stalkers and Darius conversions that used the Battle Mechanic Officer as a base. I don't see this policy changing that. I don't see this policy changing my stance that as long as its recognizable its okay with me.

carnage4u

  • Epic Warcaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1798
  • Liked: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Muse on Minis: MOM# 173
« Reply #29 on: May 15, 2014, 01:35:07 PM »
If I am nitpicking the formation ruling with a new player, I am doing a great disservice to the new player.

No matter what you are doing, if you are being an ass, then you are doing a disservice to your opponent regardless of their experience, since this is a game and we are supposed to be having fun.

If you are helping a new player understand the rules, and doing so in a respectful manner. than you are not doing a disservice to the new player. In fact, you are doing the opposite.

exactly.   
Yea, its an odd day to me that Crippled System were the POSITIVE PODCAST