"Foundry 'Napoleon' rule's, have they copied my ITNOG rules" Topic

Hi All

I am not saying that Foundry have drawn insiration for their rules from mine as I do not actually have a set of their rules. However, I recently read a review of them and a lot of the rules appear to be simular to my own In the Name of Glory (ITNOG) rule's, which I give away for free at

groups.yahoo.com/group/itnog

Having not seen the rules I can not say that they have copied large chunks of my rules, will have to obtain a copy before coming to a proper conclusion, but the rule review did appear very simular to ITNOG.

So if you have a copy of Foundry's Napoleon rules, download a my free ITNOG rules and compaire the two sets. I will be interested in what people think.

Have they ripped-off my rules, or is this just a coincidence or have I got the wrong impression from the review.

Just a thought, but it might be better to find out for yourself first before doing the pointy finger.

I downloaded your rules ages ago FWIW, but I haven't read them. I hope they're better than Foundry's

Do you have a link to the review?

Hi Connard

Only read the review about half an hour ago and as I stated in my posting "will have to obtain a copy before coming to a proper conclusion", which I will do.

Even if they have copied my rules or parts of them, to be honest I don't really give a hoot! as I have written my rules for the fun of it and for others to enjoy, not for any commercial reason.

Just curious to see what others think.

Here is the link to the review I read

link

Even if they have copied my rules or parts of them, to be honest I don't really give a hoot! as I have written my rules for the fun of it and for others to enjoy, not for any commercial reason.

I'm sure that's true, however Foundry may take a different PoV.

Based on the review of the Napoleon rules, there are a lot of simularities between the two rules.

It would be interesting to see just how similar.

Until I have a copy of Foundry's rule's and place them side by side with ITNOG this is all pure conjecture, based upon a review I read. It will probably transpire that the only similarities between the two sets of rules are that they both cater for the Napoleonic period.

I'm curious about this, but only because of the subject matter. It's perfectly fine to 'lift' a gaming idea from someone else. You just shouldn't copy another person's writing.

Clay is right – you can't copyright a game mechanic, just the specific words used to describe it.

>>Until I have a copy of Foundry's rule's and place them side by side with ITNOG this is all pure conjecture, based upon a review I read. It will probably transpire that the only similarities between the two sets of rules are that they both cater for the Napoleonic period.<<

Errrm… then why did you start this thread at all? Unless you were just desperate for attention??

Gods, man, you don't accuse somebody of plagiarism based on absolutely no first-hand knowledge, and then just shrug half an hour later and say, "Eh, who knows, maybe not."

And by the way:

>>d a lot of the rules appear to be simular to my own In the Name of Glory (ITNOG) rule's, which I give away for free <<

If you've been giving away edition after bloody edition of your game for years, flogging them on the web for all to see, then who on God's Bloody Green Earth should be surprised that somebody picked up bits to use for himself?

>>download a my free ITNOG rules and compaire the two sets. I will be interested in what people think<<

And that's what you're up to with this thread. Gods man, there are better ways to get attention for yourself than to accuse people of plagiarism! That's bloody shameful.

"And that's what you're up to with this thread. Gods man, there are better ways to get attention for yourself than to accuse people of plagiarism! That's bloody shameful."

Actually he didnt accuse them of plagiarism. You did however just accuse him over "attention seeking".

Using words like "copied large chunks" and "ripped off" certainly implies an accusation, at least to my mind.

I mean, if *I* were the person on the receiving end of this thread, I'd probably read it the way that Terry read it, and be none too happy about the accusation, particularly if the accuser had not even seen my book.

Sam (Not working for Foundry!)

Who's Terry?

Poor Becks Dark, you seem to be a 'poor' man…
I think you never have created something on your own.Don't you ?
If you had, you would know it's always very disturbing to be copied by somebody else, even if your creation didn't have any commercial purpose.
If Foundry have copied DMarks, I really think it had been more fair and nice to ask him before if they can do it.
Perhaps they would even have to propose to DMarks to participate to the creation of the Foundry rules…
I really think that this last thing would have interested DMarks a lot… even for free !

If I had a dime for every time somebody copied one of my game ideas…

…then I'd have to pay them all back for all the times I'd copied other people's ideas!

That's the way it goes. Clay and Mark are right: you can't lock down game concepts; only the written words and/or images. (Like, if they'd copied a chart or table, or something like that, straight out of my book.)

But surely it's not a good idea to say (or even to imply by asking) that somebody else "copied large chunks" or "ripped off" your game – Before you've even read their work?

If Dave wanted people to visit his website and read his free rules, perhaps a better approach would have been something like: "I see from this Foundry review that Such-and-Such game concepts are getting popular… My game has been using these mechanics for years… Come check it out." In that case, if there really had been obvious copying, other people could have come to those conclusions, themselves.

best,
Sam

PS – Out of curiosity, Dave: Which specific rules mechanics do you suspect that they've copied?

Yeah Dave tell us ???

:)

I'm considering taking Grande Armee's command system with its turn sequencing (rolling the d4 and playing extra turns before replenishing command chits) and laying it over Snappy Nappy.

All I can add to this is that if I had written a set called "In the Name of Glory", I would write out that name every time I used it in the title of a thread.

It sounds "inspiring". Well, vaguely. It's the sort of thing Napoleonic rules are supposed to be named.

"ITNOG" sounds like a quickly-cancelled children's TV show about a loveable troll and his hapless antics.

Just a thought.

Aside from that, I concur with the general consensus of "Read the %^&*$# rules before you make accusations."

"Having not seen the rules…"

Accuse first, find out later.

I've seen this happen several times now on TMP – how about you accusers get the facts straight before posting anything? Or is that too logical? Hmm?

I have not read either one, so that puts me one up on those who have red only one of them.
In the spirit of this thread, I fully support all accusations.

Hi all

Well as I have stated throughout this thread, the review of the Foundry's rules that I have read (link provided) appeared to have similarities to my own rules.

At no time have I said that Foundry have taken my ideas, I simply posed the question "Have they ripped-off my rules, or is this just a coincidence or have I got the wrong impression from the review", probably the latter.

So I feel that some of your comments that have been made, have resulted from a misinterpreting of what I have written.

As I have said before "Until I have a copy of Foundry's rule's and place them side by side with ITNOG this is all pure conjecture, based upon a review I read. It will probably transpire that the only similarities between the two sets of rules are that they both cater for the Napoleonic period".

Please be clear that my comments about the similarities of our rules are based upon a third parties review of Foundry's rules, not the actual Napoleon rules them self.

I have not accused anyone of plagiarism and at no time have I said that you can copyright a game mechanic. What I did say was "Even if they have copied my rules or parts of them, to be honest I don't really give a hoot!"

Shelldarke said that "Based on the review of the Napoleon rules, there are a lot of similarities between the two rules". So what are the similarities? Well based upon the review, some of the similarities are as follows:

1. No figures are counted or removed during the game. No bases or elements are counted or removed during the game. The complete unit is either on the table or removed from the table. – ITNOG states: "No figure removal: Until a unit is reduced to zero morale point rating it retains all its figures and bases throughout the game. Once a unit is reduced to zero morale point rating then the unit as a whole (all four bases), is removed from the gaming table".

2. Casualties and fatigue are tracked by unit as a composite figure using casualty figures or counters of some variety – ITNOG states: Morale points (MPs) – These represent how well the unit is doing. The higher the number of morale points the better. The number of morale points a unit is given at the start of the game also reflect the unit's discipline, training and resolve to stand and fight. Once the morale rating of a unit has been reduced it may not be increased. Morale rating counter – A counter that indicates the commander's or unit's current morale point rating. To avoid confusion during play commander morale counters are headed COMMANDER and unit morale counters are headed MORALE. The morale rating of a unit is tracked throughout the game by the use of morale rating counters, although a roster or other tracking system may be used if preferred.

3. What this means is that though a basing regime and unit sizes are suggested in the rules they can be played with any basing regime or unit size. As long as all the units are similar it doesn't matter. – ITNOG states: "Basing: Not critical as long as all bases being used in the game have a similar frontage. If you already have an army painted and based then just keep them as they are. However, base sizes are given if required".

4. Commanders are assigned Command Ratings at the beginning of the game. These are assigned by country and year and can be modified up or down by a die roll. The commander morale table in ITNOG is as follows:

1 x D6
Dice Score.
See
Section
OP1 COMMANDER CLASS MORALE POINT RATING
Add the score of 1 x D6 to the appropriate figure below
France Austria 1792 – 12
Britain 1808 – 14

Austria 1813 – 15
Britain 1815
Confed. of Rhine
Prussia
America 1812 – 14
Kingdom of Italy
Russia
Spain 1813 – 14 Kingdom of Naples
Ottoman Empire
Spain up to 1813
Up to
1805
1805
to
1814 Peninsular
and
1815
6 A – Excellent 5 6 4 5 4 3 2
4 o 5 B – Good 3 4 2 3 2 1 0
2 or 3 C – Average 2 3 1 2 1 0 -1
1 D – Poor 1 2 0 1 0 -1 -2

5. The review talks about placing Commander Cards, although these cards have specific functions detailed on them ITNOG uses activation counters and the player declares what each unit is going to do before. ITNOG states: "Activation counters – These are counters that player's use to activate their units in their turn, see SECTION 11 to determine how many activation counters a player may use per turn, throughout the game. In their turn each player may use ALL, SOME or NONE of their activation counters to activate their units or commanders and bring them into play, up to the maximum number of activation counters they are permitted to play in their turn. A player may activate the same unit and/or commander a number of times in the same ‘go', by allocating any number of additional activation counters to the same unit and/or commander in the same ‘go'. However this may be limited when using rule OP16 – Limiting number of activation counter per ‘go'. NOTE: A player may not save or carry over any unused activation counters for use in the next or subsequent turns".

6. Skirmisher Fire resolution. As it says though there are some caveats as to when firing is possible. Organic light infantry companies from line units, light infantry battalions and rifle detachments are all catered for. Skirmish fire is considered simultaneous.

The oddity here is that the organic light infantry companies of line units are not represented on the table by figures but are assumed to be there. The rationale is that they just clutter the table too much. If this doesn't suit your taste of aesthetics then there is nothing to stop you putting your Voltigeurs etc on the table top.

ITNOG states: "Light infantry (Skirmishers): Not used in the game, although extreme musket range (X) represents skirmish fire".

7. Determining the winner. A mechanism is provided to determine the end of the game and the winner. Interestingly for the army losses portion of this calculation only infantry and infantry casualties are considered towards the win – loss decision. Cavalry and artillery are considered support units.

ITNOG states: The player whose army exceeds its allotted number of broken units (Army breakpoint), has lost the battle. In addition to this any army that loses all its activation counters (as a result of commanders being killed) will also have lost the game, due to their command structure being destroyed. At the start of the game each player determines the maximum number of broken units that their army will tolerate before it quits the field. This is done by allocating one point for each infantry unit, each cavalry unit and each artillery base. NOTE: Do not include commanders (all types) in this total. Add these points together then apply the appropriate nation's percentage, as given below, to work out the maximum percentage losses that each army will tolerate (See also Appendix F – Army breakpoint and activation counter ready reckoner). NOTE: When working out percentages always round ‘down' to the nearest whole number.

Example: British army consisting of 12 infantry units, 5 cavalry units and 2 artillery bases will have a total value of 19 (12 + 5 + 2). The British will tolerate 40% losses, therefore 40% of 19 = 7.6 (round down to 7). Thus, the tabled British army will have lost the game after more than 7 units are classed as BROKEN units.

The following are classed as broken unit(s):
Each infantry/ cavalry unit or artillery base that has either been reduced to BROKEN status or ROUTED off the gaming table or surrendered en masse.
The loss of the C-in-C if killed or routed off the gaming table.
The loss of each corps commander if killed or routed off the gaming table.

8. Because of the way this works and the way the accumulated casualties and fatigue points interact with the Morale Checks it pays to remove battered units from the frontline if possible.

In ITNOG because units that are reduced to zero morale rating are classed as a BROKEN unit, and the number of broken units count towards loosing the game (as detailed above), it pays to remove battered units from the frontline if possible.

These are some of the similarities that I noticed from the review.

Sadly Item 4, commander rating table did not come out too well, but what I wanted to show is that I had produced a table which gives a base figure for various commanders of different nations at different times of the war, to which you add the score of 1D6 to get the total commander rating.

1. No figures are counted or removed during the game. No bases or elements are counted or removed during the game. The complete unit is either on the table or removed from the table. – ITNOG states: "No figure removal: Until a unit is reduced to zero morale point rating it retains all its figures and bases throughout the game. Once a unit is reduced to zero morale point rating then the unit as a whole (all four bases), is removed from the gaming table".

With respect, and before we go any further, that's hardly unique to ITNOG or Napoleon is it?

To be honest there is nothing there that you couldn't find in a dozen other rules sets – in fact even some of the examples given above only have a passing similarity based on what is written.

At least one of those systems – or something similar – is part of my Rank & File rules and another is very close to part of a set that I was working on for 10mm battles – and I've never read your rules.

I'm guessing if we went back far enough ITNOG (the friendly troll) would have similarities to other rules that came before yours.

I think there are only so many game mechanics around that actually work well and the fact that a set has some the same as yours doesnt really mean much.

Just pointing out simularities, not what is unique.

At no time have I said that Foundry have taken my ideas, I simply posed the question "Have they ripped-off my rules,

Oh, that is so much nicer phrasing. Where I come from "rip off" is pretty strong language.

For the love of God, someone take that shovel away from him.

This is an awfully sticky question.

However, I think its intellectually dishonest to publish a set of rules without some acknowledgement or kind words to your sources and inspiration.

Sure, you can get away with it legally, it's easy to do, and it's not a capital offense. But I have a hard time seeing how it isn't a case of plagiarism. Parading others ideas as your own is ungenerous, dishonest, and dishonorable, whether in a university classroom or in a rules set, and should be frowned on most severely. In academia, you can be expelled, of course.

But, oh yeah, it's not illegal, so you should just help yourself. Probably best if you do so from a photocopied set of rules.

I would also say that acknowledging your inspirations would spread a world of good will for the hobby.

In terms of gaming design, I'd like to thank again James Arnold's Generalship Napoleonics and his article on the variable length bound in the Courier, Jean Lochet's EE&L rules (particulary in the way Jean viewed history and gaming as inextricably linked, one informs the other, but history rules), George Jeffries, and, of course, the Empire Series by Scott Bowden and Jim Getz.

My thoughts,

Matt DeLaMater

Please don't take my shovel away. I feel sure I will need it to dig myself out of this mess.

3. What this means is that though a basing regime and unit sizes are suggested in the rules they can be played with any basing regime or unit size. As long as all the units are similar it doesn't matter. – ITNOG states: "Basing: Not critical as long as all bases being used in the game have a similar frontage. If you already have an army painted and based then just keep them as they are. However, base sizes are given if required".

Don't half of the games out there (or possibly even more) state the same thing?

Don't half of the games out there (or possibly even more) state the same thing?

Not sure? Can you name any rules that use this system to support your comment.

yes grief,

Even way back in 1980 we used similar statements about basing for several sets of our rules.

Have I ever thought that some of my concepts were adopted by other designers after i had used them? Yes, several times.

I agree with what Sam stated in his post. As may have been implied, designers want to use the best concepts available for their rules set. If a new idea is seen, either from another set, a set many decades old or from a board game of the 1970s-80s, many designers will modify the basic concept to match their overall scheme and vision.

DMarks, So many rules and even napoleonic rules have been written over the past decades. There is also always the case that some boardgame or rule designers who have been around for decades could look at some of your rules and say that they had used the same or similar mechanics before.

Hi Rudy

Fair comment.

So if I have unwittingly copied any boardgame or rule designers rules in any way, please let me know and I will galdly add an acknowlegment in my rules, or if need be remove or change the rule as applicable.

I have both ITNOG and Napoleon. A short inspection of each leads me to conclude that there are no significant or surprising similarities in rule structure or game sequence/process. Naturally thare are SOME similarities – e.g the toy soldiers move and shoot and melee and suffer morale issues. Quite right too.

The Napoleon QRS is freely available for download and I would argue represents a reasonable 'summary' of such things. I see little resemblance to the ITNOG equivalent.

Perhaps a Turnitin report would be conclusive?*

Michael.

* That was a joke.

Damn! Looks like I'm missing a really good excuse for ordering a pizza for this thread.

Dave, you've got to be kidding. Are you seriously arguing that all of those concepts are original to you, AND that anybody who uses them might have "ripped you off" ?!

Look how easy it is to play this game….

[ITNOG states: The player whose army exceeds its allotted number of broken units (Army breakpoint), has lost the battle. ]

Ah, now see, you copied that from Arty Conliffe in Tactica…

[ITNOG states: "No figure removal: Until a unit is reduced to zero morale point rating it retains all its figures and bases throughout the game.]

Ah, I think you copied that from me, in Grande Armée and Might & Reason…

[ITNOG states: Morale points (MPs) – These represent how well the unit is doing. The higher the number of morale points the better. ]

You definitely copied that from "Shako"…

[ITNOG uses activation counters and the player declares what each unit is going to do before.]

Ah, you copied that from Frank Chadwick's "Command Decision"….

[ITNOG states: "Light infantry (Skirmishers): Not used in the game, although extreme musket range (X) represents skirmish fire".]

Ah, you copied that from "Napoleon's Battles"…

[ITNOG states: "Basing: Not critical as long as all bases being used in the game have a similar frontage.]

As Rudy points out, you copied that from pretty much every game in the past 20 years. And let's not even get started on how many games use card activations.

Come on, Dave. What's the point of this thread? I'm beginning to agree that you're simply using the high-profile of the Foundry game to hitch a ride for some attention.

I hope I'm not insulting Dave, but from his phrasing I'm wondering if he's a native English speaker? Maybe that explains the poor choice of wordsl "ripped-off."

As I think about it, I think I'm going to rip-off one of Sam Mustafa's silly screen names.

I'm wondering if he's a native English speaker

Checking his profile, he seems to be from "United Kingdom, England, Essex".

I have never been to Essex, but I am under the impression that they most likely speak some form of English there.

They speak Essglish. Dialect of English.

I have been to Essex too, and not all of them speak english – really

Dave, I've got both sets of rules. I would not say they were the same at all. For example, your C2 mechanic is very different than Napoleon, I think your C2 mechanic is unique and a key element of your game.

At the same time, a key aspect of Napoleon is the "engagement zone." You don't have anything similar.

As for the other concepts you outlined above, they can be found in numerous other games.

BTW..I think ITNOG are a great set of rules because of the way you use C2 to differentiate between different nationalities.

Checking his profile, he seems to be from "United Kingdom, England, Essex".

What, they only let native English speakers live in Essex?

Dave,
First let me say that I own your rules – I even paid for them when they were avaiable for retail – and I like them very much. My copy of Napoleon will be ariving in a few days so I'm interested in making the comparison. However on first glance, I can see where you might find similarities, but I thiknnit's because you're fitting square pegs into rectangle holes.
I really haven't seen anything in Napoleon that's unique to your rules alone. no casualty removal and removing the entire unit when it reaches a certain fatigue/disorder/break point can be found not only in Sam's great games, but also in Volley and Bayonet and others. The use of tokens or more specifically casualty figures to represent moral status can be found in Fire and Fury – counters in Napoleon's Battles (where I first saw the expression that base size isn't so important as long as they're teh same). All of these rules (with the exception of Sams)date at least 15 years or so back.

"Please don't take my shovel away. I feel sure I will need it to dig myself out of this mess."

Even Chuck Norris couldn't get you out of the mess you've made!

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means
•to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
•to use (another's production) without crediting the source
•to commit literary theft
•to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.
In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward.

I remain unconvinced that any plagiarism has occurred here. But I am curious as to what the author sees as his oringinal contribution to the hobby?

Rumor has it that both use dice too…… very dastardly on the part of Foundry. We should look deep into this ;)

I share the sentiment that David Marks has fired off his concern prematurely but if he is correct and ideas have been derived from his or anyone else's rules then some attribution/acknowledgement would be a desirable courtesy.

As I'm perfectly happy with Shako for my 15mm Napoleonics, I don't see myself investing (?) ibn the Foundry set to check it all out.

Even Chuck Norris couldn't get you out of the mess you've made!

This is a bit unfair – if Chuck Norris had authored a set of Napoleonic rules, then there would have been no need for anybody else to write any new Napoleonic rules after that!