PDA

View Full Version : Phil's statement re WADBAG intentions


Pillager
01-18-2012, 02:35 AM
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/30615

Libel or not?

I have been accused of making false statements about WADBAG intentions, so here
are their statements of intention from Fanaticus message 88, to which I refer
you.

[ http://fanaticus.org/discussion/showpost.php?p=138381&postcount=1 ]

They do not intend to continue promoting 2.2, but to produce a new set which
they call 2.2+. Membership of their group is by invitation and limited to
competition organisers, of whom they imply the majority are in favour. The rules
either do not yet exist or exist only as a first draft, and will not be open to
scrutiny by members of their GM list. At some presently unstated future date,
they will put out a beta test version for you to see.

So instead of the 2.2 rules you currently have, or the new 3.0 by the author of
DBA, which has been thoroughly tested by a world-wide panel over 2 years and
which you can already try for yourselves, they are going to try and force you to
use a set in competitions which is modified from a pirated 2.2 by a small group
of people with no rule-writing credentials, is untested and which you have have
no current access to.

They are not offering you continued 2.2.

They want to prevent you using 3.0; which will be available as a hard copy
publication this spring, is thought by testers to be a great improvement, and
will be accompanied by a hardback book available from Amazon intended mainly
for beginners that includes the full rules and army lists, photographically-
illustrated example games, chapters on painting, basing and terrain making and
extra background on the armies.

Phil Barker

Pillager
01-18-2012, 02:42 AM
And WADBAG's counterpoint, for which they created a different thread:

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/30721

pozanias
01-18-2012, 03:11 AM
Although I admit WADBAGs orginal message did not make it explicitly clear that a copy of 2.2 would be necessary to play 2.2+, I can assure evéryone that is indeed the case (and always has been). As soon as I joined the development group I realized this and posted as much on the 2.2+ announcement thread (go check it out if you don't believe me).

Anyone who has claimed otherwise, or has made accusations based on that misbelief, did so without a full understanding of the facts and should be ashamed of themselves.

Anyone that still believes 2.2+ violates copyright despite the fact that it is merely an add-on --- well, that's your perrogative. I can only disagree.

larryessick
01-18-2012, 06:52 AM
As, perhaps, the principle poster suggesting that WADBAG's original intent was to provide an embedded 2.2 in violation of copyright and intellectual property laws and having asserted that such is both illegal and immoral, I am satisfied that this is not their intent and that possession of 2.2 is currently meant to be a necessity.

I find Mark's acknowledgement that the original postings from WADBAG was not explicit in this regard refreshing.

It is probably time to move past these discussions.

Cromwell
01-18-2012, 06:57 AM
[It is probably time to move past these discussions.[/QUOTE]

Amen to that!

jacar
01-18-2012, 10:17 AM
I'll second that AMEN!

pozanias
01-18-2012, 11:47 AM
As, perhaps, the principle poster suggesting that WADBAG's original intent was to provide an embedded 2.2 in violation of copyright and intellectual property laws and having asserted that such is both illegal and immoral, I am satisfied that this is not their intent and that possession of 2.2 is currently meant to be a necessity.

I find Mark's acknowledgement that the original postings from WADBAG was not explicit in this regard refreshing.

It is probably time to move past these discussions.

Larry, if I could hug you right now I would.

larryessick
01-18-2012, 12:58 PM
Larry, if I could hug you right now I would.

Let's not be premature. I'm still observing a lot of unnecessary vitriol coming from some of the principles in the discussion. This is particularly so in the 2.2 thread itself.