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

Chuck Norris doesn't need no stinkin' rules….he makes them up as he goes….and you'll like them.

I was using dice in the later '50's as a young child for wargaming. Don't get me started.

Chuck Norris Naoleonic Rules: All figures know what is expected of them, and act accordingly. Or else.

Hey! I thought of the idea of Chuck Norris Napoleonics first! Do you think the OFM is ripping me off? Check out my website, download my free rules, and compare for yourself:

ChuckNorrisInGaiters.com

I'd just like to point out that Neither Foundry's nor ITNOG share any similarities with Port & Cigars.

Perhaps other Rule Authors might like to add their own rules to this thread in the context of whether they are similar or disimilar to the aforementioned rules?

:)

Tommiatkins,
Considering that my rules were copyrighted in 1981 and over 30 more sets of rules designed throughout the 1980s and 1990s as well as a few later, the idea of similarities is not something that can be altered. However since my rules are so old, i do not expect that many of the new 'whipper snappers ' designers would have even read them let alone intentionally copied specific rules.

Also let us not forget TSRs Tricolor or Empire I or II which were designed in the 1970s. Both of which had many of the current mechanics. Tricolor usedthe bucket of dice for combat while Empire adopted the other common matrix form of combat.

Colonial tea drowners questioning an Englishmans grammer,THE WORLD HAS GONE MAD.

Well Tommi spake false.

Number of figures per stand is irrelevant in P&G.

What has four legs, and trunk, and is grey is an elephant but I digress.

As long as we all are coming clean I freely admit I bogarted every single good (and bad) idea in all my home rules from someone else. Heck truth be told I have never had an original idea in my life. Maybe that is way I have about a dozen or so rules sets written and never published or posted to the web.
VR
James Mattes

I thought of the idea of Chuck Norris Napoleonics first! Do you think the OFM is ripping me off? Check out my website, download my free rules, and compare for yourself:

ChuckNorrisInGaiters.com

For some reason, the link seems to not be working.

What has four legs, and trunk, and is grey is an elephant but I digress.

But what is important in the Napoleonic context is whether the elephant is wearing a bricole or not!

From Phil Barker's "Wargames Rules 1685 – 1845", WRG July 1979.

"These rules are intended to replace those originally produced in January 1971 to cover the period 1750 to 1850. They are the latest of a number of experimental sets trying out new game mechanisms that we have been testing on or off for the last four years and incorporate new methods of play that are radically different to anything previously available.

"The biggest innovation is the introduction of an alternate play system developed from that used in our very successful World War Two and Modern Armour rules instead of the more recently fashionable simultaneous movement in accordance with detailed written orders. ….. The sequence of play we have devised eliminates the inherent disadvantages of more primitive alternate move as opposed to alternate play systems.

"The more innovatory a set of rules is, the more unfamiliar it is going to be to the players. Please don't write in blaming us for departing from accepted methods; after all it WAS us that invented them…..Our test games have made us confident that the new system is a winner and will probably become the wargaming standard."

Hi All

I must confess that I was surprised by "Milan Kundera Staubsauger" (who I assume is Sam Mustafa due to his comment about Grande Armee) openly accusing me of stealing other peoples ideas. Grande Armee rule's were copyrighted in 2002, the rule that is referred to was first published in ITNOG, first edition 1998 so is obviously not copied from Grande Armee. I also refute the other accusations that have been made.

However, after much berating, gnashing of teeth and personal insult to myself both Midpoint and Raylev3 have kindly answered my question by clearly stating that they have looked at both sets of rules and there is no similarity between them. Thanks very much Midpoint and Raylev3.

[I must confess that I was surprised by "Milan Kundera Staubsauger" (who I assume is Sam Mustafa due to his comment about Grande Armee) openly accusing me of stealing other peoples ideas.]

First of all, Dave, you started this whole kerfluffle by speculating upon whether or not Foundry had "copied large chunks" or "ripped off" your ideas – without the benefit of your even having read their book. That series of clacks and thuds you heard was our collective jaws dropping.

Second, if you're referring to my post on the previous page, I'm pointing out that every accusation you leveled against Foundry "copying" "your" ideas, could just as easily be leveled against you, me, and every other game writer on earth. There was nothing on your list of ITNOG's game mechanics that couldn't be found in dozens of other games. Simply put, none of those ideas is recognizably "yours," and if I wanted to make mischief, I could easily make a list (like I did), accusing you of having taken them from Games X, Y, and Z. Do I really think that you literally, deliberately took them from Games X, Y, and Z? No. But the game mechanics you describe are neither original, nor exclusive.

Third, as Terry pointed out, if you're going to give away your ideas for free on the web, then it seems absurd to begin a quest to learn whether or not somebody else "copied" them. If you want to protect your intellectual property, then the first step is to not treat it like shareware.

Sam

["The more innovatory a set of rules is, the more unfamiliar it is going to be to the players. Please don't write in blaming us for departing from accepted methods; after all it WAS us that invented them…]

"Innovatory" is a word?

And did he really write "us… invented them" ??

"Innovatory" would appear to be a word; it is in my antique "Pocket Oxford Dictionary" 4th Ed. May 1942.

And "us… invented them", yes indeedy, he did write that and that really was telling them wasn`t it now?

This is a simple case in intellectual property, orginality, percentages and in rights commonly understood mechanisms. EG, you can't patent a wheel, you can't own a common principle, how much is yours versus theirs – 51% – 49%. Can anything be proved as Original? It is also wise to check facts before throwing stones as it becomes vexatious…

"However, after much berating, gnashing of teeth and personal insult to myself both Midpoint and Raylev3 have kindly answered my question by clearly stating that they have looked at both sets of rules and there is no similarity between them."

But still no apology for the 'Foundry is ripping me off' comment.

I personally believe that because of your unjustified attack on Foundry, you should be denied access to TMP for a good while. It may serve as an example of how not to do things, but I doubt it.

"Innovatory" would appear to be a word; it is in my antique "Pocket Oxford Dictionary" 4th Ed. May 1942.

I can also find it from a dictionary that is around, telling that it means the same thing as "innovative".

Wargames Rule Writer rule #23: "Why pick a completely understandable word, when an obscure one will make you look more scholarly?"

Wargames Rule Writer rule #24: "Why pick a perfectly understandable word, when an obscure one will make you look more scholarly?"

:)

Empire V – "When Empire 3rd edition was published it offered many revolutionary concepts."

Napoleon's Battles – "At no time in history have so many persons played miniatures wargames, and at no time in history have there been so many manufacturers producing such a wide variety of figures. Today, there are dozens of different sets of miniatures rules or modifications of miniatures rules played throughout the world."

Volley & Bayonet – "It was the lack of a set of rules which accomplished this to our satisfaction, as well as a genuine desire to fight historic battles out on this scale, which prompted the effort in the first place."

Legacy of Glory – "The first then, it seemed to us, was to cut down the 'mile high' general a good ways. To be a legitimate simulation, we had to begin to take away the absurd amount of control most games allowed."

Houserules Napoleonics – "When I wrote the first edition of Houserules Napoleonics over five years ago I was certain that I had completed the most accurate and playable set of rules that had been written to recreate Napoleonic period battles in miniatures."

From Valmy to Waterloo – "While doing my research I discovered that other games had been missing some of the essentials of the Napoleonic period and were focusing more on game mechanics than representing some of the fundamental aspects of the period."

Shako – "…a SHAKO French army is doctrinally different than the British (or other powers), without applying artificial and highly theoretical mechanics such as increased melee ability for the French and firing advantages for the British. Such traditional modes of simulation over-simplify these fighting systems and mislead gamers."

Grande Armee – "Many games prefer to fudge historical OBs until they resemble the game. Battalions become standardized to equal numbers of figures, in increments conveniently divisible by the game's figure-per-base ratio. (Ever notice how French battalions always seem to have either 9 or 12 figures, no matter how many men were actually in them?) Rather than do that, Grande Armee uses actual historical OBs, then applies the term 'brigade' as a generic multi-battalion or multi-squadron entity….

"Unlike most games that try to depict process, Grande Armee asks you to concentrate on outcomes."

Age of Eagles – "Many battalion level miniature rules of the Napoleonic era designate the player as a corps commander, yet mandate he maneuver and fight with individual battalions and skirmish companies."

Le Feu Sacre' – "These rules are the end product of more than 20 years of Napoleonic Wargaming; the purchase, play testing and ultimate abandonment of nearly every set of commercial rules published during that time. Why? Well, mostly because the wargame didn't feel or look right (and in too many cases did not give historically accurate results)."

Shako II – "There are a lot of war game rule sets that try to capture this flavor, but none compare."

Snappy Nappy – "Most Napoleonic miniatures rules concentrated on the tactical level. The grand sweeps so often mentioned in books were limited to shoulder to shoulder formations of battalions inching across the terrain.

"And that's just fine if you're in the mood for such company and battalion-level situations. But Napoleon and his marshals didn't fiddle with a company of skirmishers."

For the purpose of full disclosure, my own rules have the following in the introduction:

"Finally, this is also the section where rules designers might mention about how all other rules suck and these are the best rules ever made. For extra flavor I should talk about the size of my personal library, which is certainly larger than yours. Or not. Does it really matter?"

The library comment is a reference to another comment of Phil Barker's, defending his army lists.

Also, check out this

link

I love the 1962 entry: "Graham Biddle suggests use of points for picking armies which are then unbalanced in numbers but balanced in points."

I don't see his name in all of these tournament rules!

And where did you getyour ideas from????? ALL rules are taken either from somewhere……

Hi Sam

You are right, I did start this whole kerfluffle by speculating upon the similarities of Foundry's rules and mine, based upon a review, but it was just that speculation. After all someone else on this thread thought their were similarities between the rules based upon that the review, so I was not alone.

Many people have accused me of saying that Foundry have ripped-off my rules, which is just not true. At no time have I said that Foundry have done wrong, all I did was pose the question "Have they ripped-off my rules, or is this just a coincidence or have I got the wrong impression from the review." On reflection I could have used better wording in my question, but it does not alter the fact that I am being berated for things that I did not say and sadly the mob mentality has taken hold on this thread.

As it turns out Midpoint and Raylev3 actually read what I had written and kindly answered the question I posed.

I accept that your post was merely pointing out that accusations could just as easily be levelled against you, me, and every other game writer on earth. I also agree with much of what you say. However, unlike myself, you directly accused me of copying other people's ideas, sighting your own rules as an example which we know is not true.

Regarding Terry's point that if you want to protect your intellectual property, then the first step is to not treat it like shareware. Please be aware that every Edition of my rules are lodged with an independent copyright vault and issued with a legal certificate that clearly defines the date of submittal. This certificate is internationally recognised under the Berne Convention, so if I have to go to court I can independently prove what was written and when.

So, just because I give my rules away and ask in return that people consider donating money to a charity of their choice, this does not mean that my rules are necessarily less protected than a commercial set.

Anyway none of this really matters now as Chuck Norris and this team have contacted me and have told me that they are now taking control of the rules and are damn well going to make sure that ITNOG share similarities with Port & Cigars.

Many people have accused me of saying that Foundry have ripped-off my rules, which is just not true. At no time have I said that Foundry have done wrong, all I did was pose the question "Have they ripped-off my rules, or is this just a coincidence or have I got the wrong impression from the review."

Er. Am I missing something bloody obvious here?

Connard

I think that you have to agree that their is a difference between the statement "They have ripped-off my rules" and the question "have they ripped-off my rules".

I am sure you and others on this thread can distinguish the difference between at statement and a question.

Is Dave Marks desperately trying to get attention by implying that somebody else's book release is actually a copy of his free rules?

It's just a question; not a statement.

I am sure you and others on this thread can distinguish the difference between at statement and a question.

I'm sure we can, it's you that appears to be having difficulties

I accept that your post was merely pointing out that accusations could just as easily be levelled against you, me, and every other game writer on earth. I also agree with much of what you say. However, unlike myself, you directly accused me of copying other people's ideas, sighting your own rules as an example which we know is not true.

Whilst I'm sure Sam can defend himself, I'm sure you can see the difference between an example used to illustrate a point and a direct accusation?

There's only one person here throwing accusations around, Like I said, put down the shovel…

'citing' BTW

DMarks

The whole premise of your thread is insane. You cannot copyright gaming mechanisms, or GW and WOTC would have killed the rule-writing aspect of the hobby years ago!

You also totally mis-interpreted Sam M's comments as accusation rather than examples of interpretation.

I can only conclude from reading your paranoid ramblings, that you are a bit of a pillock.

I don't know DMarks and, in fact, I don't believe I've ever met him, but after reading this thread, I'm wondering if he is a complete & utter twa@t with personal hygene problems.

Just a question.

Okay, *now* we've reached the "mob" part of the thread.

Shall we all agree to let this long-suffering thread meet its overdue end?

Shall we all agree to let this long-suffering thread meet its overdue end?

It ain't over till the fat lady sings!

Well, she's yodeling at the very least.

No way. I put some work into my recent posts and want to seem some feedback!

YouTube link

It's OVER!!!!!

Sure is… YouTube link

Chuck Norris and Aretha Franklin…umpires declare the innings it as over and batting ended due to failing light and the abundance of unimpeachable celebreties..who did Gwen Stefani play for? Hampshire? Mosman?

NO WAY!!!…… you mean it's "OVER"!!!!
(as DWW would say) – Slish!