Lorcan Nagle
Mongoose
Yeah, notice how the people who do those Galactica knockoff minis use similar names, but no mention of anything remotely official
Response on Armageddon Posts
- Thread starter MongooseMatt
- Start date
yeah, but when did you ever see a Marathon, a Torotha, an Octurion etc in the TV show. Shurrely this could just be treated like any of the other models that have been released should Mongoose decide to make it an official part of the product range, after settling up any payments to the image designer, and the model builder and the mould maker as well.
thePirv said:
Depends what kind of court any hypothetical legal battle was fought in, really. The legal systems of certain countries allow the person with the really expensive lawyer to gain the advantage in grey areas, while a fair legal system would see the case purely on it's own legal merits
Locutus9956
Mongoose
thats not the issue, mongoose could legally sell the ship with as many b5 trademarks as they like, as they are legal licence holders for those trademarks
Lorcan Nagle
Mongoose
Exactly. If I was to start making Omega models and selling them, WB, Babylonian Productions and Mongoose could sue me to death for breaching their licence agreements (and any other company that held rights to make physical models of the ships).
If I was to start making new ships for ActA and selling them as such, then again I'm breaching Warners' copyright, and probably Mongoose's as well. By selling them as nondescript ships, legally I'd be in the clear, even if they're obviously B5-inspired (making direct B5 rips would be a messy legalbattle that could probably go either way) - as there's no direct admission of guilt.
If I was to start making new ships for ActA and selling them as such, then again I'm breaching Warners' copyright, and probably Mongoose's as well. By selling them as nondescript ships, legally I'd be in the clear, even if they're obviously B5-inspired (making direct B5 rips would be a messy legalbattle that could probably go either way) - as there's no direct admission of guilt.
Matt, thank you for your response.
I haven't picked up Armageddon yet. I plan to early next month, althouh I might sneak it in this month. Either way, i haven't played many games of ACTA, mainly because of the 'Fighter issue' and some personal frustration due to a miniatures quality issue you were involved in. While it was frustrating, I won't go into the mini issue here as it has been resolved.
Anyway, the main problems I see with the game as a whole are twofold: The high buy-in and the quality of the miniatures.
The high buy-in issue is that you have spread a lot of rules over three main books, and that's ignoring the 2nd tier stuff like the Dilgar, E-M war, etc. I considered trying to get my local gaming group to try a ACTA campaign, but a major issue is that players would likely need access to a lot of books in addition to counters or minis... The Revised rules, SFoS (for the deeper tournament rules and updated ship stats), and now Armageddon. I know the game is playable with only revised, but SFoS is almost a better buy if someone you game with has the core rules.
As for miniatures quality, I won't complain too much about the new designs, but they are worrisome. Especially, to me, is the Whitestar Fighter taken from the FA Whitestar. It does look like a 'placeholder' quality wise.
More importantly, however, is just quality of the castings. Maybe it's because of the age of the molds (which I've heard you've been working on) but I've had a lot of miscast models. Most of my Thunderbolts have slightly deformed thrusters and the wings have all been clipped so they can at least look uniform. And then there's my White Stars that all has part of the 'grin' filled in... I know the shapes are often complex, but there's a LOT of other companies putting out much nicer model lines that don't require nearly as much work and have equal or better detail.
Anyway, I'm sorry if those two comments are negative, but they are unfortunately true (in my opinion). I think they can be resolved, however.
If a 2nd edition is done, I'd like to see:
Thank you again for your comments, Matt.
I haven't picked up Armageddon yet. I plan to early next month, althouh I might sneak it in this month. Either way, i haven't played many games of ACTA, mainly because of the 'Fighter issue' and some personal frustration due to a miniatures quality issue you were involved in. While it was frustrating, I won't go into the mini issue here as it has been resolved.
Anyway, the main problems I see with the game as a whole are twofold: The high buy-in and the quality of the miniatures.
The high buy-in issue is that you have spread a lot of rules over three main books, and that's ignoring the 2nd tier stuff like the Dilgar, E-M war, etc. I considered trying to get my local gaming group to try a ACTA campaign, but a major issue is that players would likely need access to a lot of books in addition to counters or minis... The Revised rules, SFoS (for the deeper tournament rules and updated ship stats), and now Armageddon. I know the game is playable with only revised, but SFoS is almost a better buy if someone you game with has the core rules.
As for miniatures quality, I won't complain too much about the new designs, but they are worrisome. Especially, to me, is the Whitestar Fighter taken from the FA Whitestar. It does look like a 'placeholder' quality wise.
More importantly, however, is just quality of the castings. Maybe it's because of the age of the molds (which I've heard you've been working on) but I've had a lot of miscast models. Most of my Thunderbolts have slightly deformed thrusters and the wings have all been clipped so they can at least look uniform. And then there's my White Stars that all has part of the 'grin' filled in... I know the shapes are often complex, but there's a LOT of other companies putting out much nicer model lines that don't require nearly as much work and have equal or better detail.
Anyway, I'm sorry if those two comments are negative, but they are unfortunately true (in my opinion). I think they can be resolved, however.
If a 2nd edition is done, I'd like to see:
A rough plan to 'refresh' models as needed. Possibly combined with plastics. I'd even go so far as to say that if there's a model that's considered "ugly" by the playerbase and studio, and a suitable replacement is made for it, then swap it out. of course, for show-canon ships this is a bit harder, but in that case it would need to simply be a better Omega model, etc.
Plastics wouldn't hurt, either.
Additionally, make sure sketches are released so we at least have a chance to express opinions before it's too late.
Serious thought into how to organize books for sale. Not completely annoying the veterans while making it easy for new players to get started is the goal.
More proofreading!
Thank you again for your comments, Matt.
That is a fair response and to be honest I would not expect to see them moved before 2nd edition. However having said that, please do consider moving them back to War PL for 2E. Current I feel that the EA fleet suffers from the lack of a fighty War level ship. The Omega CD and Poseidon are both niche vessels rather than ships of the line.msprange said:
If the warlock needs something extra removed to balance it at War PL, maybe return it to SFOS stats and remove the Command +1. This then gives a clear choice between the command upgrade of the Omega CD or the firepower of a Warlock.
On a side note. Is there any chance you could stop writing ships that have lower crew ratings than damage? It rather reduces the damage stat to something only used in campaigns. I know that ACTA has a strong campaign theme but the problem with my gaming group is that it is somewhat irregular and people prefer one-off games.
angelus2000
Mongoose
For all of our pissing and moaning about the rules of the game here on the forum, I beleive all of us are generally satisfied about them and can patiently wait for 2nd Ed to come out.
However, I'll will admit I'm in the"Need new Minis" camp and honestly believe its the most pressing issue that needs to get fixed for 2nd. When your trying to get someone new to play a tabletop minis game, the vast majority of the first time question is "What do the mini's look like?", both out of the box and nice and painted. By all means continue including the counters as thats what I used for many moons until I could get enough cash together to buy my first ships. Having clean, straight, shiny(what the hell are those smudge marks that were on my G'Quans anyways?) straight form the box(note: putting some kind of foam padding, even those stupid foam peanuts, would help a bit) to show the new intrepid player that spending a 100$ on a fleet box is a good deal would go a long way towards expanding the player base.
However, I'll will admit I'm in the"Need new Minis" camp and honestly believe its the most pressing issue that needs to get fixed for 2nd. When your trying to get someone new to play a tabletop minis game, the vast majority of the first time question is "What do the mini's look like?", both out of the box and nice and painted. By all means continue including the counters as thats what I used for many moons until I could get enough cash together to buy my first ships. Having clean, straight, shiny(what the hell are those smudge marks that were on my G'Quans anyways?) straight form the box(note: putting some kind of foam padding, even those stupid foam peanuts, would help a bit) to show the new intrepid player that spending a 100$ on a fleet box is a good deal would go a long way towards expanding the player base.
Goldritter
Mongoose
There is the possibility, that in one of the S&P next months the Warlock will be printed with these Stats.
I´ve nothing againts a Warlock Variant at Armageddon (like a Warlock Gunship or Warlock Command) which can be on Armageddon.
I think this will be a elegant way to go around this Problem.
Call the Warlock in the Armageddon book "Warlock Advanced Command Destroyer " and have the standart Warlock at War level and print this standart Warlock in one of the S&Ps.
The standart Warlock was good at War-Level. The only thing what was bad (in my opninion) was the 4 AD for the Heavy Particle Cannon. It should be 6 like the tournament version.
I´ve nothing againts a Warlock Variant at Armageddon (like a Warlock Gunship or Warlock Command) which can be on Armageddon.
I think this will be a elegant way to go around this Problem.
Call the Warlock in the Armageddon book "Warlock Advanced Command Destroyer " and have the standart Warlock at War level and print this standart Warlock in one of the S&Ps.
The standart Warlock was good at War-Level. The only thing what was bad (in my opninion) was the 4 AD for the Heavy Particle Cannon. It should be 6 like the tournament version.
animus said:
I have been giving some thought to this. . .
wargame_insomniac
Mongoose
Maybe that is what Mongoose should think about doing? Issue new material in S&P. This will allow it be be read & used by a wider gaming audience that a narrow circle of playtesters. This will allow the mass of players to get over the initial "OMG this ship is broken"/"OMG this ship is useless" threads that seem to abound. Then 3-6 months down the line you will get more accuarte feedback. Which you can then absorb, fine tune through yet more playtesting, and then release as a more balanced and polished product to the paying public.msprange said:
This will also allow you time to properly proofread the new publication as well!!
Matt- you explained at Salute that Armageddon took you 95% of the way you wanted to go and that 2nd edition took you the remaining 5%. Two comments I would make:
1) After seeing the mass of critical comments about Armageddon (even allowing for the fact that most comments come from small minority and that gamers have tendancy to complain at absolutely anything) do you still believe that Armageddon is as much of a forward step as you claimed it would be.
2) After the amount I have spent on the game in terms of minatures and rulebooks I quite frankly expect something that is 100% finished not just 95%.
Kind regards
James
