sooner or later someone will show up with a bad clone...

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 12:09 am

Okay several things:

1) I was very interested by what Andy had to say and was sorry to see Toby launch into his old rant that locked the thread. Thought about it today and decided to unlock the thread and delete all the sidetrack comments that got the thread locked. Not trying to supercede Voyagers here at all ... I'm just VERY VERY interested in this thread.

2) Having done this I'm hoping that Andy Hall will return and give us some idea of WHAT happens in a situation like this and could give us some details generically .... or EVEN better if he could use the thread to give us minor updates on what GW is doing to the company to date. This is one of the areas that we "hear" about ... the awesome power of GW legal, but I'd like to hear how it works in a clear case like this one where there is IP infrigement. So Andy I'm hoping you come back and enlighten us some on what will happen and then hopefully what is happening.

Galak

Pink Horror · Post by **Pink Horror** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 12:42 am

I hope the GW legal department tears Alchemy a new one. "Bloody Bowl"! What are they thinking!

At least Blizzard changed "Warhammer" to "Warcraft". By the time they made a futuristic game, the names weren't even close.

Really, if you want to make a new fantasy sports game, say you were inspired by Mutant League Football. It's perfectly acceptable to rip off other video games.

Toby, you might be the type of little kid or weird old man who worships Starcraft, but many people think that game's an outdated, shallow piece of garbage. I hate Starcraft. I'd rather play Dark Reign, Myth, or Ground Control anytime.

I love Blood Bowl so much because of how different it is from many mainstream games, and how much more mature the average Blood Bowl player is compared to the average Starcraft, Age of Kings, Everquest, or Counterstrike player. Blood Bowl, to me, is a relaxed, light-hearted, strategical game with plenty of room for characterizing your team. Starcraft is a click-fest that has to be taken way too seriously to be able to compete.

Yes, it appears that these faster pace, intense games like Starcraft are more popular than games like Blood Bowl. But I say so what! I don't care if what I enjoy is popular, and I doubt many of the others here care either. Blood Bowl fills a certain niche for GW that they don't want to abandon. Why try to get more people hooked on Blood Bowl when you can target them with more lucrative products like 40K or Warhammer Online?

So, when you tell us all you have a great idea that could make the game more popular, no one here gives a darn (to put it lightly). We don't want to move to Korea and play for cash. We don't want to interact with Battle.net kiddies. We don't want to sacrifice charm for the illusion of balance. And, most importantly, even a mean old bastard like myself respects the designers and the company enough to support their rights to protect their intellectual property. If they don't want to make an online game, they don't have to. It's not their fault when some losers void of any creativity try to make a rip-off game called Bloody Bowl.

Pink Horror

Anthony_TBBF · Post by **Anthony_TBBF** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 1:30 am

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I don't want a video game version of BB. It'll never be as good as playing in person with my cool miniatures. Starcraft is a weak game that attracts people with short attention spans and little sense of real strategy. I play video games often, I have never found one that has held my attention more than about a week and a half (excluding a very sad and nerdy stretch of Civilization while I was in school

) Compare that to playing BB in the TBBF every week for about 4 years now...

Sure video games are more popular, but in the miniature gaming world GW has done an amazing job of bringing this previously niche and underground hobby to the mainstream. Most people I know who aren't gamers have heard of Warhammer or Games Workshop (or "that place in the mall with all those little men"). This hobby will never attract the numbers that video games do, but i dare you to name one game that has a legacy like 40K, Warhammer or BB.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 2:49 am

Quick footnote:

Please don't return the thread to the reason for BB being a great board game vs the computer era.

Anthony and PH both stated very well the opinion of most the folks of the board. I don't want this to return to a flaming contest. I unlocked the thread in hopes that Andy could give us more insight as to what happens in cases like this and what is happening (hopefully).

If we sink back to a TalkBB vs Toby war (and yes I state it this way, because Toby is the only person I've ever seen suggest the board games are antiquated on a board game forum ... kinda like screaming fire in a crowded theater (which by the way is illegal in the USA)). I'll have to conceed that Voyagers was right to lock the thread and return it to that state.

Galak

Pink Horror · Post by **Pink Horror** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 3:05 am

I'd also like to see the GW legal team go after Alchemy, but chances are they'll send one letter and Alchemy will back down.

Pink Horror

Pantera · Post by **Pantera** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 7:33 am

They may back down on the name thing, but I don't see a possiblity to stop a clone being made as long as its not to close to the original. So if they change the name to "Fantasy Monster Rugby" or something like that, and don't make the game look to much like BB, it would be hard to stop.

I would love a licenced modern Blood Bowl computer game, even if were realtime.

Also, some people comment very negative on Starcraft here, but I strongly disagree. Starcraft is a great game, even if I suck at it compared to the masters playing it on Battle.net. It is one of those game that still holds up after 4-5 years of time. But I have now gone on to Warcraft III which is a great RTS game. It's not original at all, but its really wellmade and polished and fun. I'm at the last part of the single player campaign now, and it has been a great campaign so far.

Andy Hall · Post by **Andy Hall** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 9:14 am

Galak walks over to the sandy floor and starts to draw out the pentagram in chalk, whilst muttering foul incarnations. Once complete he picks up the ancient Grimoire, which is bound in human skin and begins to read the text.

"Come foul Daemon, he who haveth bought Greater Daemons into the Game, he who cannot get the Claw skill Description right despite three versions of the LRB, I summon thee, I summon thee Speccy Daemon!"

Galak stumbles back as a great ball of fire appears in the Pentagram and from the withering flames the Hall Daemon emerges:

"Who summons me..."

The Legal Dept have sent an immediate Cease and Desist order against them but that is all I can say. As you can imagine we have to keep matters with a legal perspective close to our chests.

I like the way you have termed legal dept as having ‘awesome power’ but they really have no more power than any other companies. What we do have to do though is protect our copyrights and IPs. If we don't we can have them taken off us this is why the legal dept is often seen as aggressive. But even then compared to the big boys we are nice. Try and broadcast a cartoon with a black and white mouse called Mike to really see what a highly paid group of lawyers can really do

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 9:56 am

The Claw was right in LRB 1.1 or 1.2, IIRC, but was changed again...

Even if the GW legal dep is no more effective than others, at least they've been busy registering trademarks...

I'm not an expert at IP laws (not even a novise, I'm afraid...), so I'd like to ask a few questions about GW trademarks:

List found at: http://www.games-workshop.com/Legal/ippolicy.htm

-Valhalla?
Isn't that part of Viking mythos, so how can it be a trademark? Or was the Viking one called Walhalla?

-Succubus? Raider? Marauder? Fire Dragon? Falcon?
Aren't these too simply common words - or does the context they are used in define when they infringe GW's IP rights?
I.e. if I make a miniature (grav) tank that's called Falcon, then I'm infringing the TM, but if I make something totally different and name it Falcon, then I'm not?

or Warhammer for example: I couldn't make a wargame and call it Warhammer, but I can still have warhammers in my games, obviously. Right?

Just out of curiosity, if anyone happens to know.

Norse · Post by **Norse** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 10:01 am

Interesting point..

I like to play devils advocate here, so I'll ask a pretty straigt-forward question..

Long before GW got the rights to make the LOTR game, they had a range of models called Orcs, which were, to all intents and purposes, based upon the Orcs of Tolkein..

Now Trolls are a comon feature of many countries mythology, as are gnomes, goblins, fairies etc etc. Orcs as far as I know were purely a product of Tolkein's imagination, so why was GW able to utilise the term without infringing Tolkein's IP??

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 10:08 am

Norse wrote:Orcs as far as I know were purely a product of Tolkein's imagination, so why was GW able to utilise the term without infringing Tolkein's IP??

And how could they then trademark 'Ork'?

Sounds pretty much like Orc, doesn't it? If you can do that, why couldn't you register a Bloody Bowl? Or War'ammer?

Toby · Post by **Toby** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 10:36 am

Puh difficult:

severral issues...
first of all i wasn't saying that alchemy has any right to steal GW IP.
However, my oppinion is their project is a "just cause" BECAUSE BB is such a great Game and BECAUSE Online would be soooo cool, so i think its courageous to say "if GW isn't doing it, then we are"
In this context, i would like to cite Bioware designers "if someone shows up with a better game than we are, we hire them, and everybody is happy"
PC Gamers have a tradition of "Mod-ifications", Counter Strike started as a fan project. Instead of shuting them down, Sierra Entertainment hired them and made a lot of money...

"Board games suck" was a direct reply to Thandrins question why the Starcraft Players i know are not interested in BB unless its PC based.
My opinion is that Board games are by nature limited and inferior to pc games BUT a great board game is OF COURSE way better than a bad PC game, so BB would become even better.
I have the feeling some people WANT to get me wrong.

Starcraft/Warcraft and Blood Bowl have quite some things in common, nevertheless the gameplay is uncomparable (realtime vs turnbased, military vs sports).

I have 2 points: the electronic plattform, Battle.net ore something similar would fit Blood Bowl as perfect as Diablo or Star/Warcraft.
The reason Gamers play Starcraft would apply to Blood Bowl as well (if it was EVEN BETTER balanced, and protected from hacks.) With the introduction of Player trades, another attraction that succeded Online would apply to Blood Bowl. Compare Player trades to Item Trades in diablo.

In diablo, the #1 Battle.nete Game you play to complete your Character with Items.
In Starcraft, the #2 Battle.net Game you play to win because your strategy is superior to your opponents, not because of luck or design flaws.
Blood Bowl could mix these two features, complete your team with players you need for the strategies you designed, and Blood Bowl already has the "Heroes" (developing units) of Warcraft 3.

In short, it would be BRILLIANT.

I suggest anybody who has no Idea about online Games, eSports, and Pro Gaming to just listen and learn.

martynq · Post by **martynq** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 11:10 am

I can appreciate that for you, Toby, the idea of there being an online version of Blood Bowl is great. Equally, perhaps all the Starcraft players would love it too. I have to say that before you started going on about it, I'd never heard of Starcraft, so I've no idea if there are a dozen or millions of Starcraft players out there. I'm not really into playing games online - from home I have to pay for the phonecall when I'm using the Internet, so it would be rather expensive to play a game which involved me being logged on. PBEM works out as much cheaper, since I only need to log to send and receive the game file. I equally suspect that my wife would not be happy if I spent lots of time logged onto the Internet playing games. (Please note this point, it is important and I will return later.) Having said all that, I'm sure that you and lots of others do enjoy playing Starcraft and presumably lots of other games over the Internet.

On the other hand, you should try to appreciate that for lots of people on this list, they enjoy playing with others face-to-face. OK, Galak runs PBEM leagues, but that (as far as I understand) is mainly because he does not have time to play face-to-face any longer through pressures of real-life (see my comment about wives above - and Galak please correct me if I'm wrong and I'll edit). Even though I am a member of these leagues, I feel that the social experience of meeting with friends and playing face-to-face is much more enjoyable. It is for a similar reason that I am extremely happy that I am now playing Dungeons & Dragons with a local group of people rather than playing it over the Internet which was one thing I considered.

There is, however, a third group of people. We have addressed those that like playing games over the Internet and those that like meeting in groups to play miniature-based games and roleplaying games. Both would probably be classified as Gamers, though I've mostly seen that description applied to the second group. The third category contains people who don't really play either sort. They would often use the derogatory term "geek" to describe both categories and I guess for many of us, our wives and girlfriends fall into this category. Toby, you say that "board games suck". I wouldn't be surprised if my wife would feel very similar about games such as Starcraft, because she is someone who likes to be around human company and socialize. The concept of playing a game over the Internet would be very alien to her, but she can appreciate that meeting with friends and playing a game like Blood Bowl, Warhammer, or D&D is something that some might enjoy. She does, however, like the game Settlers of Catan. So, what I'm saying is that this third category of people probably enjoy mainstream board games much more than Starcraft or Blood Bowl.

Hmmm, quite a long message in the end. What I guess I'm trying to say is that people are different and you should try to appreciate that Toby. The majority of people on this board are not like you, we are miniature gamer "geeks" primarily, not Internet-gamer "geeks" (as my wife would probably say

)

Cheers,
Martyn

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 11:32 am

Martyn nails it on the head for me.

My life doesn't allow me the sit down time for any online gaming. Plus I'd gladly take the social interaction of board game play over internet play any day of the week. I have quite the collection of board games .... Drakkon, Titan, Magic & Malice, Settlers, etc. in addition to BB. My oldest son is only old enough to play Drakkon so far (fanasy based dungeon building game), but I look forward to teaching him the others in time.

Also, appears I scuffed the pentagram ... since I work with a lot of lawyers ... I knew that Andy couldn't give us the blow by blow ... but man I was hoping that we'd get more out of him.

As for what will happen well my guess is that the company has a small problem. At a MINIMUM, they'll need to erase all mentions of Blood Bowl AND Bloody Bowl from the game. Since other sites are already talking about Bloody Bowl this makes the mission more diifficult. The Races are unique named so they should be okay there and I'm not sure if the image of a what is clearly a Dwarven Deathroller (even if renamed) counts as IP infringement or not. I don't think they'll get shut down .... but I'll be interested to watch the website and she what GW legal can do.

Galak

Pantera · Post by **Pantera** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 11:49 am

A bit off-topic, do you play much SC/D2/WC3 on battle.net Toby? I'm pretty bad at the RTS games, but I do enjoy Diablo 2 much. Even though it has become an itemhunt game now, but I hope the 1.10 patch with the separate ladder economy will fix that.

Toby · Post by **Toby** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 11:53 am

Again its NOT my opinion that board games suck;
Its the oppinion of most PC Gamers; so i was saing if you cant bring PC Gamers to to Blood Bowl, you have to bring Blood Bowl to the PC.

My oppinion is, when designers take full advantage of the possibilities, and the Game concept is good, the electronic plattform is superior to board/tabletop especially for games with more than 2 players.

The cost of internet connection and hardware for 3D graphics is the major downside - its relativated that most multiplayer pc games have rather low hardware demmands because they want to reach as big as an audience possible. Internet cost - in germany we have the possibility of a DSL flatrate that costs 50€ per month and supplies the whole house/family/company with internet connection sharing. the only additional cost is phonecalls. I dont know about GB, word is that in the US internet costs almost nothing (?).

Board vs. PC ... well, the major point i have is, blood bowl is not an quick and easy game you can learn and play in an hour. Its a hobby that takes some time. So, you have to find people who share that hobby, for example this board. Wouldnt it be great if we could actually play ? even chat with voice over ip ?
Blood Bowl is to specific to define my social contacts with. My social contacs is my (ice)Hockey Team and friends, wich share anothe rhobby: computers ! that closes the circle. I can win one, two or three people to have a look at Blood Bowl, but compare that to be able to play any Team Rating or Race Team you want at any Time you want !