| Mycenius | 08 Apr 2009 4:55 p.m. PST |
For those who may have missed the news story here on TMP, on the back of the success of World CrossFire Day ( TMP link ) Arty Conliffe has announced he is working on development of CrossFire II, and all going well it may be published as early as the end of this year (2009). You can read more at the TMP News Story ( TMP link ) and/or on the CrossFire Website ( crossfire.wargaming.info ). |
John Leahy  | 08 Apr 2009 5:29 p.m. PST |
Great idea! This set was a real leap forward. Thanks, John |
| Steve Holmes 11 | 12 Apr 2009 7:51 a.m. PST |
Looking forward to hearing more. I don't think there's much broken about the first set, at least nothing that's not cleared up by house rules. It's always interesting to hear what Arty's come up wth though. |
| By John 54 | 12 Apr 2009 8:41 a.m. PST |
Agreed, fantastic set of rules, like the 'company operations zone' idea, whatever that will be, and with expanded Armour, and A/T rules, can't wait! John |
| Weasel | 12 Apr 2009 8:27 p.m. PST |
I'll definately grab this one |
| John Leahy | 13 Apr 2009 1:14 p.m. PST |
Well, the vanilla infantry could be improved along with the armor rules. Thanks, John |
| GrossKaliefornja | 14 Apr 2009 9:50 a.m. PST |
|
| christot | 15 Apr 2009 10:23 a.m. PST |
I'll be fascinated to see what "improvements" High Lord Arty can come up with which havn't already been thought of.
Hope he doesn't infringe anyone else's IP rights. |
| MOOSE HEAD | 15 Apr 2009 4:09 p.m. PST |
Count me in. My favorite Game. |
| Monty1650 | 26 Apr 2009 12:05 p.m. PST |
Hello all, I loved Crossfire when it was out originally and remember excitedly purchasing the rules when they were published. Thought you may like to have a look at my short blog on the subject montysarmypainter.blogspot.com Best wishes, Monty |
| GrossKaliefornja | 26 Apr 2009 4:47 p.m. PST |
The more I think about this, the more scared I get. I hope it doesn't do to Crossfire what ASL did for Squad Leader |
| Weasel | 26 Apr 2009 8:07 p.m. PST |
How would he infringe anyones IP rights? |
| christot | 27 Apr 2009 7:23 a.m. PST |
sorry…a bit of an in-joke…Allegedly, Arty and his Acolytes can get a bit testy about IP…so, I just hope they haven't used anyone else's ideas or terminology without permission in this eagerly awaited set. |
| Mycenius | 27 Apr 2009 7:00 p.m. PST |
The IP thing is fair and reasonable – there have been a couple of cases where a large portion of an existing rule set (such as Spearhead & Modern Spearhead in one case) has been used as a base and either parts of other authors’ rules grafted onto it, or just existing parts slightly modified, and very little original material added before then being made available or published as a 'new' rule set. In another case CrossFire was reproduced in its entirety in PDF but with a small amount of additional text added (basically unnecessary complications added by someone who probably didn’t grasp what the rule set was trying to achieve), and they then went on to make it available for free on the web as "Advanced CrossFire" (effectively causing a major breach of Copyright and undermining commercial sales for the original publisher). Fighting this sort of thing is not an unreasonable act, especially when you have put huge efforts into developing the IP and then publishing it commercially, only to have someone else take it, put their name on it and then start distributing it as their own – even more so if they do so for free on the web when you or your publisher have invested a lot of money with the original publication. As a (albeit lesser) published author I know how I feel about it if it’s my original IP! It’s really easy for someone to take someone else’s ideas and say “I know better” and tinker with them and then publish them saying they are theirs; it’s much harder to actually come up with the original ideas from scratch to start with… |
| Mycenius | 27 Apr 2009 7:59 p.m. PST |
P.S. on a related note regarding World CrossFire Day many of the games now have reports online and there is a summary of the campaign also available at link |
| GrossKaliefornja | 28 Apr 2009 10:01 a.m. PST |
'Ideas' are not protected under copyright. 'Ideas' need to be developed into 'Inventions' which are protected under 'patents' which last '20 years' and cost 'much $'. Be careful what you are calling a crime, as you yourself can be guilty of copyfraud |
| Mycenius | 28 Apr 2009 9:18 p.m. PST |
Once published as a finite document it is copyrighted – end of story. When that text is subsequently reproduced verbatim or simply given minimal rewording (plagarised) it is breach of copyright – no ifs buts or maybes excuses it. |
| CptKremmen | 29 Apr 2009 4:50 a.m. PST |
It will indeed be interesting to see what Arty comes up with. I must say my own expectations are set quite low. I used to love Armatti, when Armatti II came out it was really just Armatti with a couple of minor tweaks, mostly provided I believe by fans rather than by arty himself. If the great God arty is coming out of retirement to do this himself, it might be interesting, but just complicating some rules with unneccessary detail is not the way to improve any set of rules. It is however what some seem to do. I'll probably buy a copy anyway :) |
| GrossKaliefornja | 30 Apr 2009 12:35 p.m. PST |
Mycenius, I was referring to 'Ideas'. You & some others mentioned the protection of ideas. 'Ideas' are not subject to copyright protection. Ideas & Mechanics are a patent problem. You can get all puffy & fluffy here, but you can really impress me by bringing a case before a judge. |
| Mycenius | 30 Apr 2009 3:23 p.m. PST |
Well perhaps 'ideas' was the wrong word to use (in hindsight) but I think (in fact am sure) GK you clearly know exactly what I was meaning – your own huffy and puffy statements aside the fact is (as I'm sure you also know and I have already pointed out above) it is breach of copyright to reproduce someone else’s publication in any form (i.e. whether verbatim, complete or in part, or plagiarised) without their express permission. It's really quite simple and I'd have thought it's not that hard to understand; and yet it occurs…? This is really hi-jacking this thread off topic which was about the announcement for CrossFire II's development. GK – If you really want to have a discussion about copyright can I suggest you maybe start another thread on it rather than use this one? |
| Aurelian | 01 May 2009 1:06 a.m. PST |
Actually, you can legally reproduce several hundred words of another person's work, so long as it is properly cited, without being liable for copyright. That said, you do have to make it explicitly clear that the words are not your own, that you are using them as a reference, etc. -A. |
| Mycenius | 01 May 2009 5:28 a.m. PST |
Hi Aurelian – I was hoping this discussion would move off this thread rather than ‘hi-jack’ it but in answer to your comment, yeah, I've seen that discussed before in detail – however there are some caveats – I think (IIRC) it's only permitted to be done in the USA, not in any other western country (i.e. UK, France, Germany, Australia/NZ, etc, do not permit any reproduction under their copyright laws), and I recall there are some conditions in how its done in the USA (in addition to acknowledging the source)… Wargamers just seem so determined to destroy any incentive for authors to publish their works – the irony is if it was a Games Workshop, FOW, or similar product being plagiarised or copied the offenders would be in court within 24 hours and sued until the cows come home and everyone would just say they deserved it; but when it’s a ‘non-corporate’ author, small business, or individual everyone seems to go out of their way to justify the actions of the culprits and stick it to the original author & publisher… Ironically, as fate would have it just yesterday one copyright breach from several years ago has resurfaced with the same 'author' and website involved who were the original culprits of one of the incidents I alluded to originally when responding to Christot's inappropriate comments about Arty getting testy over IP rights: TMP link |
