Zeratil

Less leaked and more "(accidentally) put up on warhammer community and not taken down!" https://assets.warhammer-community.com/spa_14-pauplnh2m3-pxqy7b4mkt.pdf

Mods have always been in a tricky spot legally speaking - GW has always been quite hard on them historically and even recently they tend to have extensive agreements in place with studios about modding tools for their games and what content can be in them. Total War Warhammer is the best example of this - GW allow mods through CA, but they have agreements with CA that certain things aren't allowed on the steam workshop (IIRC all mods must use ingame art assets for example). 3rd party mods are slightly different in that they are probably infringing under the new and old policy but are not likely worth the trouble to go after legally - unlike youtube and social media modding has mostly flown under the radar for most companies. Much of it is technically infringing but the cost/benefit to going after it has never seemed to come up in favour of the investigation and enforcement (and the associated costs) for most companies. Clearly I'm no legal expert, but that seems a pretty big chilling effect on what we're allowed to say about GW, their practises and their products - including this very thread - with the implied threat of legal action to the forum or us as individuals these new terms make if you write anything that could harm their 'reputation'. And that puts even more pressure on B&C staff to just delete anything that even smells of criticism of GW - again, a harm that comes about whether they have any actual grounds for action or not. And this is already the most silent-delete-for-unexplained-reasons forum I'm part of by a long way. B&C is fine, this sort of language is fairly standard and people are taking it in isolation, rather than as part of the legal framework of IP protection and fair use that exists. There can be a chilling effect from such policies when they're wielded as a hammer - mostly as someone else said from the financial barrier to fight it. But review, comment and criticism are all well protected in E&W law (and most other western legal systems GW has bases in). If GW went back after someone for legitimate criticism of their product - by which I mean a criticism a reasonable person could make - they'd face an impossible barrier to enforce this policy in that way, the damages awarded to the defendant would likely be very high too - courts look very ill upon companies that try to bully people in this way in the very few attempts that ever reach court. GW is covering their bases against illegitimate criticism ("Games Workshop is a cult that is trying to indoctrinate children to turn themselves in cyborg killing machines") and people using their IP protected material in ways they don't approve of (that might otherwise be game for fair use) - so pornography, extreme political views etc.

Given how the England & Wales law works this is my bet. They want the legal tools in the shed so to speak - to be able to point at their IP Guidelines and say "we wrote these on this date, and x has violated them". It doesn't automatically follow that they'll go back to the heavy handed tactics they used to use. It may even be something as simple as a change in their legal dept and the new team wants to make their mark. Someone on twitter talked to an Ip lawyer. And the gist of his comments where as follows: Not uncommon for companies to make these things, but Gw’s seem to go above the UK law in places. He is not sure how they are gonna go about enforcing said rules. He also said that they probably wouldn’t go after everyone and everything. Lastly he said he wouldn’t have a patreon, Kickstarter, store etc containing GW ip stuff now Agreed - I would be wary of having a Warhammer-inspired patreon or other crowd-funded enterprise with any protected material on it after this until/unless GW clarifies what this means in practice. It's a risk and not worth the hassle of having GW come at you legally. Err, no. It means they don't want unofficial content masquerading as GW which supports specific political views or controversial topics. It's not saying "don't give a negative review of Dominion" - it's saying "don't produce an animation of Space Marines purging a pride parade". Exactly, people are reading a little too much into that section - it's fairly boilerplate legalese to cover abuse of the IP. Actively connecting GW IP with the alt-right/Nazis through artwork or other media is the target of this I thought most likely. It's not a statement that they'll come after reviews, commentary or legitimate criticism (i.e. reasonable criticism over, say, the price of their products or similar debates you could have about any IP or product).

I'm certain this change is in response to Warhammer +, and I'm equally certain that GW will continue to be as inconsistent as ever. Part of the problem (English law grad here) is that UK copyright and trademark law is very "wooly" when compared to, say, US law (where the 1st amendment sets a fairly solid bedrock for what is and is not allowed which other law builds on). In the UK most of what is being discussed here (say Emperor's Text-To-Speech*) would end up in a court, there isn't a cut-and-dried protection for all parody in UK copyright law although it does have some fair-dealing protection. Someone cited some case law up above and that it is what such a case would come down to, both sides citing E&W case law to support their position. Honestly even if GW policy has actively changed (as in they are planning or preparing to "go after" more targets theoretically covered by the new written policy) it's far more likely they'll pressure the hosts of such content in the case of animation. It's much easier to get Youtube to take stuff down citing their policy and UK law than it would be to go after an individual creator - especially if that creator was outside the UK in which case going after Youtube or similar is their only real course. GW have always (IMO) made too much of a deal over their copyrights. Unlike trademarks, copyright doesn't have to be actively defended in order to stay in full effect - GW could let an infringing piece of material circulate for years and they would still have the legal right to sue any individual who used it (although I'm certain a court wouldn't award much compensation in such a case). *My best-guess would be ETTS would be fine under UK law because it uses (IIRC) a lot of 3rd party artwork, and transforms what artwork it does use in an undoubtedly comedic fashion.

I would love for it to be true, and for it to be Magnus - it's a story idea I've liked for a long time. I don't think it could/will be a daemon primarch however as I don't see how a daemon primarch could survive turning their back on their patron god. Maybe as some sort of 'heroic' sacrifice and a middle finger to Chaos. For example how I would do Magnus' redemption would be him backstabbing Tzeentch (and most of his Legion - again) throwing himself on the Golden Throne/sacrificing his psychic essence at the very last minute during some final battle for Terra, giving the Emperor the chance to join the fight in some form and maaaybe win the day for the Imperium*. Outside of that Magnus is too far gone now, especially with the lore from the later HH/Ahriman/Dark Imperium books. *Indeed this is my 'head-canon' ending for the setting...

I agree on the authors thing to a certain extent, but outside of the FW books there's not a huge amount to form an opinion with about the Legions, cutting the BL books out removes a good amount of lore about various legions. Although the BL stuff also causes confusion/conflict. Take Prospero for example, there are deliberate contradictions between the various sources for the battle, and a lot of questions about the inner thinking of various characters. What 'side' you pick as the most reliable will sway your thinking on that legions. It's be an interesting exercise to say 'which is your least favourite legions using the FW as the only source' though...

Yeah Chris Wraight is an excellent BL author. I didn't care for Battle for the Fang but his HH stuff is excellent. Path of Heaven has a permanent place on my phone.

I don't think there are any legions I actually dislike, there are (and I'm massively generalising here) some legion's fanbases I think could do with calming down on the wider internet but that's neither here nor there. I don't want that to effect my opinions of the legions themselves. One thing the Heresy Series has done for me is massively improve my opinions of Legions I previously didn't care for. First Heretic and Betrayer made me like the Word Bearers and World Eaters a lot (although Lotarra Sarrin deserves her own Legion). Whereas before they'd always been also-rans for me amongst the Chaos lot. The various FW books really connected me with some of the legions, my first HH force was Iron Warriors solely on the strength of HH Book 2(?) The biggest change is the Wolves, I really don't care for the SW aesthetic and theme in 40k, Abnett's Wolves are much more appealing to me. I think the only HH depictions I haven't enjoyed so far have been the Blood Angels and Dark Angels. Blood Angels admittedly haven't seen an amazing amount of screen time but I didn't enjoy Fear to Tread very much. Dark Angels likewise I've not really enjoyed the BL HH fiction about them, it doesn't tell the stories about them I'm interested in. Of course whenever they appear in FW books I might well change my mind.

I think Marshal is right, part of the issue is that we don't see much of Fulgrim before the Blade of Lear and the EC fall to chaos very hard and very early in the heresy.

There's a lot of critique to be levelled at Russ (and the wolves, and any Primarch, and any Legion) but I don't think he'd be the least successful leader of the heresy by a long shot. I think Russ would be like that guy you know at the office/sports team/whatever. You don't really like him that much but you have to admit he throws himself 110% into everything he does. He'd get some of his brothers onside at least, even ones that weren't personally that fond of him. I've also always considered Russ the Primarch most loyal to the Emperor (with Dorn taking the position of most loyal to the Imperium/Mankind).

Oooooh. Good name. Also an excellent route of debate, what would each <Primarch> heresy be called?

I think the Mortation Heresy would be alot like the Angron Heresy. He might not get many of his brothers on side but he could probably swing a massive amount of support from 'kill all the psykers'. Maybe less so from the legions but certainly the average psychic-hating imperial citizen or soldier (many of whom will have seen numerous friends killed by wibbly psychic xenos or humans)

Quad-mortars, the Scorpius and the Typhon are all excellent choices, although I think all are far too good for their cost. Be warned phosphex quad mortars lead to fewer friends!

I like this, but I definitely percieve it as a mix of 7th and 8th, not one or the other with changes. I can take or leave templates because I don't think the 7th edition rules make them feel like explosions either (models in a circle with nothing in the centre should not be the best way to space-efficiently avoid blast weapons, nor should an artillery piece be the best sniper weapon). I also like that 8th ed's blasts are quicker to resolve and don't suffer from things like parallaxing or other time consuming issues. On the other hand I do feel that 8th ed blasts are rather lacklustre. I also think that 8th handles vehicles and health much better, multi damage weapons are good, vehicle HP and armour is better than the current system which favours MCs. Rather than changing the toughness of the vehicle though I would change the armour value. You could have front/rear or front/side rear but a basic principle that the rear has worse armour by 0-2 (depending on vehicle). Definitely with you that Heresy should have weapon line of sight for vehicles combined with multi-target firing. Other considerations: Can a unit charge something it can't see? Can it still charge if all the models that can see die to overwatch? It'll be board dependent but being able to charge anything within range with the potential for zero overwatch fire is very strong with these changes. I'd also say with multi-damage weapons you'll need the 8th scale of wounds for things like characters. If there's no look out sir then barrage sniping will be even worse with 7th ed blast rules. Normal sniping also needs to be considered - there's a fine balance to be had between making sniping effective and no-one ever taking any sarge equipment ever again. How would wound allocation work in general? Closest model? One player picks? With look out sir removed should a deep striking terminator unit be allowed to drop down and unload 10 combi-plas into your HQ/Primarch? I agree with you on look-out sir not being amazing, but it does address some genuine issues, especially with the abundance of zero scatter deep strike in heresy. Excellent post and good luck. Also FW if you're watching then something like this is needed, I'd have started from 8th and worked backward to make an 'expert' 8th ed ruleset for Heresy but the principles and criticisms are broadly the same.

I think Angron is a very strong contender, just because so many of his brothers dismiss or belittle him as a savage. That being said if he started a rebellion based off of arguing that the Emperor was a tyrant (#IAmSpartacus) he might get a lot of popular support from conquered worlds or even sections of the Mechanicum. He'd lose, but I think he could make a fight of it