Re: [NetEpic ML] NetEpic Future

From: cibernyam <cibernyam_at_...>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 15:19:21 +0200

> As far as fluff and balance go, It seems to me that fluff has
> frequently been invented as a response to manufacturing and sales
> limitations. The Horus Heresy is a great example. GW only had
> enough money for one Titan model, so they created a scenario where it
> was believable that Imperial Titans would be fighting one another.
> Balance is trickier, but the folks at NetEpic have been creating new
> units for some time now, and I am confident that this problem can be
> overcome if sufficient brains and effort are applied to it.
> The current packages reflect the latest fluff. Deathstrikes are
> becoming increasingly rare on the battlefield. The Imperial Guard
> uses Chimeras, etc. The fluff is evolving, and I think that there is
> room in NetEpic for people who prefer the newer fluff to the Rogue
> Trader fluff that forms the foundation of NetEpic. A foundation of
> fluff... what a terrible metaphor!
>

Following fluff is always a problem since fluff changes with each
manufacturing wave. Nevertheless, IIRC Netepic fluff took one point from GW
fluff and made it static even when later on GW changed it in some manner.
From that point, a consistent timeline was made and some small changes were
done. Luckily, Netepic has kept its own timeline with some borrowing from GW
and thus the Squats keep rocking. I hope we keep adding newer fluff without
having to change anything important in the core fluff; therefore I agree
with you in trying to keep with the newer fluff but to a degree... Always
with the golden rule of balance and maintaining old units.

> I'm not too worked up about GW's prices, personally. I enjoy their
> products, but they fall into the category of "discretionary
> spending," so if they raise the prices, I just buy less. It's not
> like I don't have enough unpainted miniatures already to keep me busy
> till doomsday.
> With the discontinuation of the archive service, however, it may be
> important to maintain a database of proxy miniatures for units that
> have been discontinued. I've had very little luck finding some of the
> new NetEpic Squat minis that were from manufacturers other than GW.
>
I have to agree with that. Proxy finding may require to be upgraded in the
priority list of NetEpic, should GW keep their price increase and lack of
support politics.

> I guess that part of my argument in favor of encouraging people to
> by Citadel minis was to lessen the likelyhood of GW taking legal
> action against NetEpic at some point in the future. If we're helping
> them out with sales, they'll be unlikely to mess with us, but if we
> start advertising for their competitors, they may suddenly become
> possessive of their intellectual property (i. e., their ruleset and
> trademarked names).

I'm afraid we are not so important for them nor we can reach the level of
annoyment to GW to take legal actions.
From another side, while we keep being a group without profit intentions or
producing minis for their fluff, we shouldn't worry.
And in the worst case, I don't think they have anything for bringing us to
court, as long as we make clear that their trademarks and registered names
belong to them and are used without permission. And of course we don't use
any copyrighted material.

Albert

A Note: Although I know Space Marine is a registered trademark of GW in the
UK and probably in US, the idea and name of Space marines, an elite troop
who fight extraterrstrial bugs out in the universe is not from them
(probably from R.A. Heinlein or other Sci-Fi writers). I would like to know
how does this legal matters affect us. Anyone knows it? please no magister
class in law, just plain and easy explanation, thanks.
Received on Fri Sep 03 2004 - 13:19:21 UTC