GW and Army Builder files

[Spacker]

Not sure if this has already been posted elsewhere (I did search but didn't find anything), if it's in the wrong place can a mod please move it? Thought it would be handy before a slew "of Army Builder doesn't work any more" style posts.

Last week Rob at Lone Wolf announced that the hoster of the files for Army Builder had received a notification of infringement from GW. I've copied the post from the LW forums below, the original is here: http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=21779

A few days ago, we learned that www.datafilecentral.com, a hosting site for Army Builder data files, has been notified by Games Workshop that all GW-related files need to be taken down. This was completely unexpected, as the site has been operating for many years without complaint from Games Workshop (or anyone else). The AB user who manages the site informed us about this over the weekend, and he said that he has no choice but to comply with GW's demands.

We've already notified the data file authors for any games that are impacted, allowing them to migrate their files to new hosting sites. If all goes smoothly, nobody will even notice the change. However, given the number of game systems involved, it's possible that there will be a temporary hiccup with at least one of them. In the interests of transparency, we want to give everyone early warning of potential problems.

For those users who aren't already aware, it’s important to note that Army Builder data files for games are not part of the product itself, being instead created by independent data file authors who are not affiliated with us. Lone Wolf Development creates the Army Builder software, and dedicated gamers then create AB data files for their favorite games. The model is very similar to creating spreadsheets for Microsoft Excel, with game system data files being created, maintained, and distributed by volunteers who want to leverage AB themselves and enjoy sharing their work with the rest of the gaming community.

If there ends up being a problem with migrating the data files for a game you play, it means that the data files for that game will be temporarily unavailable for download through the updates mechanism. Once the files are removed from datafilecentral.com, they won't be available again until they are hosted on an alternate site and the author has updated Army Builder to know where they can now be found. Once that's done, the files will again be available.

Please note that if you already downloaded the data files for a game system, you won’t experience any interruption in your use of Army Builder for that game. Your saved rosters will also not be affected. You simply won’t be able to download the data files again until they’ve been re-hosted by the author.

The best way to safeguard against being inconvenienced by any potential hiccups with data files for any game system is to immediately grab all the data files you might need as a backup so that you won't need them during any temporary outage. If you then discover you need the files due to a system failure or upgrade, you can easily copy them from your backup, even if they are temporarily unavailable through AB. You can find a complete list of Army Builder data files on our web site here: http://www.wolflair.com/index.php?co...ntal_downloads

For new users seeking data files that have not yet been re-released, there will be no way to access the data files via AB. The only option for new users will be to obtain the data files from other users that have them.

As for what this means at GW, we know as much as you do. Army Builder has greatly enhanced the enjoyment of a vast range of miniatures games for 14 years now, GW's games included, and it's been a symbiotic relationship where everybody benefits. This could easily just be someone on the GW legal team doing a zealous sweep of anything that uses GW's IP, without any awareness of the long-standing allowance of AB data files. Or it could mean something has fundamentally changed in GW's philosophy towards AB. However, given that they have not contacted any of the data file authors themselves, including the high-profile 40K data file team, it seems to us that it's probably the former, and that's our working assumption right now. We're in the process of reaching out to GW to learn more, but we've heard nothing yet from GW ourselves.

Please note that the removal of data files from www.datafilecentral.com only applies to GW's games. All other games that are hosted there will remain, as other game publishers continue to view Army Builder and the fan-created data files as complementary assets that make their games easier and more enjoyable to play.

We apologize for any inconvenience caused by these events. Since we’re unable to work directly with the Army Builder data files for GW's games ourselves, they are unfortunately beyond our control. We’re doing everything we can to minimize the disruption caused by this to our users, and will continue to do so in the future.

Thanks in advance for everyone's patience and support as we work through this!

Sincerely,
The Lone Wolf Staff

The AB40k team have already put a workaround in place for the 40k files. For the other GW related files each group responsible needs to make alternative arrangements for file hosting.

[zoggin-eck]

Sounds fair enough to me.

[Sureshot05]

I suspect this is, in part, due to GW releasing digital products and wanting to make a better market place for their products.

[Lorcryst]

Hmmm ...

This does not affect me, I'm still using my old copy of Army Builder 2.2c, whose datafiles are managed by a great chap in a Yahoo Group ...

Never really liked V3 to be honest, way too much time between GW books and AB file updates.

[Trasvi]

Agreed - might we soon be seeing a GW digital army builder now?

[Inquisitor Engel]

Maybe now LoneWolf will actually make their product visually attractive? They make a huge huff and puff about making a Mac version (way, way more of an issue that it needed to be, especially since the switch to Intel 6 years ago) and they didn't even bother to update the visuals! It STILL looks like the buttons and textures were created in 1996!

Also, LW's "licensing" model is pure and simple crap.

[Lord Cedric]

Personally, It doesn't matter to me how the product looks as long as it's organized, easy to read and navigate. It does a really good job for what I want it to do and I even like the individual unit cards you can print. I have one downloaded version 3.x and I just bought a physical copy, new, of another 3.x off of ebay for only $15. I slapped that one on our guest computer so two of us can create lists and mod them on the fly if we need to at the same time. As long as I only keep one up to date on the license, should be able to copy current files over to the other pc.

At one time, I thought GW was going to (or did) create their own AB, but it was a failure (seems like I read this elsewhere on WarSeer.. but not positive). So not sure if they would re-evaluate doing that again or not. I'm also not surprised that GW did this to LW as much as they have been protecting their IP and, imo, being over zealous about it as well as restrictions on overseas indies. But it's their right to do so and a completely different subject.

As much as I like LW's product, primarily because imo it's currenlty the best one out there that is supported and "complete", I'd be in-favor of an official licensed GW one if they were to go that route again. I don't really like using the word purist though that's what it basically comes down to I guess for me. Basically If I play a game that I enjoy I would rather support that IP if possible. I'm not against others using models form different systems. This is more of a "me" thing.

It will be interesting to see where LW will be 5 years from now.. or even a couple years in terms with GW. I know that it's a different topic and situation, but I also wonder how the Chapterhouse verdict (whenever that will be) will affect off-brand supplement support in the future.

- Lord Cedric

[Chapters Unwritten]

I agree in full with Lord Cedric, and additionally feel that this is unfortunate for the file authors.

You see, AB made a lot of it's initial money off of the 40k datafiles. It was THE way to make a digital army list on the quick and easy. I would go so far as to posit that without the 40k datafiles the project might not have taken off at all.

Meanwhile, the people making these datafiles get nothing while the folks who make AB rake in the cash. I hacked AB and created a virtual machine version to distribute to my club because of how much I loathe Lone Wolf's licensing policies. They have made me pay for the program innumerable times through various situational issues I've had, but ultimately it bothered me a great deal at how much of their slice of money was built on the backs of the good folks who produce the 40k datafiles.

Hopefully, this means GW is going to put something out. They are long overdue for it, honestly. It's not even all that hard to produce; I have been confused for a long time about it; it's an easy-to-produce good that would hugely amplify their bottom lines. I'm sure that in the grand scheme of things tens of thousands of players worldwide use AB, or alternatively use some other computerized means of their own devising; it's a cash cow they have just totally ignored for years.

[Lorcryst]

A long, long time ago, back in the 2nd ed era of 40K, I bought the "digital codex" for the Imperial Space Marines ... back then, there was two versions, Imperial and Chaos, and they only allowed space marines armies, with a kinda visual Force Organisation Chart ...

That bit of software was utter crap, clumsy to use, never updated, really limited, and the printed output was barely legible ...

I hope that IF (very big if) GW does that again, it will be viable ... until then, I'll use my very old copy of AB 2.2c, or the tried and tested method of pen and paper.

[Sean_OBrien]

While it isn't a perfect comparison - it would be nice to see LW actually stand up on this issue as opposed to rolling over. There is actually precedence for it as well from the various Fantasy sports cases which have come in the past decade. In every one of them, the statistics of the players (comparable to the stat lines and points values) were deemed to be not protectable under various copyright and trademark laws.

Since GW made the first move - LW needs to get with a lawyer and request a declaratory judgement in order to continue operating as they had in the past.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...en&as_sdt=2002

Plenty of case law in the courts opinion to help support the issue.

After that - if GW wants to create their own software...more power to them. However, considering their past track record with such things - I wouldn't get my hopes up.

[Skaven13]

While it isn't a perfect comparison - it would be nice to see LW actually stand up on this issue as opposed to rolling over. There is actually precedence for it as well from the various Fantasy sports cases which have come in the past decade. In every one of them, the statistics of the players (comparable to the stat lines and points values) were deemed to be not protectable under various copyright and trademark laws.

Since GW made the first move - LW needs to get with a lawyer and request a declaratory judgement in order to continue operating as they had in the past.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...en&as_sdt=2002

Plenty of case law in the courts opinion to help support the issue.

After that - if GW wants to create their own software...more power to them. However, considering their past track record with such things - I wouldn't get my hopes up.

Eh, I'm not sure that precedent would fly, comparing stats of players to statlines GW created. First off, stats for players were not created by the contractors, they were created by the players. They are the product, per se, not their stats. GW created these statlines themselves. It is their work, and they want that work protected. Second, stats for players are readily available public knowledge that anyone can have access to, for free. The statlines GW creates are (supposed to be) only available in their printed materials, and need to be (or are supposed to be) purchased. Plus there is the whole "do not reproduce or photocopy" issue GW may reach for as well. To me, comparing stats for sports players to statlines in GW books seems to be a stretch, even for someone as cynically biased against GWs policies as I am.

[Spacker]

This does not affect me, I'm still using my old copy of Army Builder 2.2c, whose datafiles are managed by a great chap in a Yahoo Group ...

If that's Homer, he's also one of the maintainers for the v3 files on our site too

[Spacker]

While it isn't a perfect comparison - it would be nice to see LW actually stand up on this issue as opposed to rolling over. There is actually precedence for it as well from the various Fantasy sports cases which have come in the past decade. In every one of them, the statistics of the players (comparable to the stat lines and points values) were deemed to be not protectable under various copyright and trademark laws.

Since GW made the first move - LW needs to get with a lawyer and request a declaratory judgement in order to continue operating as they had in the past.

If you read the article from LW, GW have not approached LW in any way - they have asked the owner of DataFileCentral.com to remove the files, which is not part of LW. DFC simply provided a place to host the files for AB to keep them wholly separate from LW. This move doesn't stop AB from working, it requires the file authors to find new alternative hosting and to update the URLs provided in the AB update mechanism to the new location. Until this is done, the lists will not be available from the updates system inside AB.

The AB40k team were given enough notice about this to get alternative hosting in place, but it's possible that some of the other GW related files won't work for the time being if the authors haven't updated the file locations in the AB metadata at LW.

As to the references to GW's IAL, I had both of them - they were incredibly unwieldly, had more bugs than the AB40k files, and lagged way behind codex releases. Unfortunately couldn't get a refund though I'd be very wary of any GW list building product at least until other people had reviewed it favourably and it had been out and receiving updates for at least 6 months (same as I do for Windows Service Packs at work )

[Inquisitor Engel]

A long, long time ago, back in the 2nd ed era of 40K, I bought the "digital codex" for the Imperial Space Marines ... back then, there was two versions, Imperial and Chaos, and they only allowed space marines armies, with a kinda visual Force Organisation Chart ...

Are you sure you're not thinking of the "Enemies of the Imperium" and "Armies of the Imperium" ones that were released in 3rd Edition-ish? 2nd Edition seems very early for GW to be dabbling in digital...

Perhaps we'll see army-builder files and Apps built in with the iBooks Codex offerings. Tab a '+' in the army list to have it added to the roster, then go to the roster to adjust options. I've only played with iBooks Author (what the digital Codex seems to be made with) but this seems quite doable with some minor coding. This would also make it worth it for me to buy the digital version of a Codex over the physical.

[Charax]

Indeed, there was no IAL in 2nd edition. There was barely even a GW website in 2nd edition.

Incidentally, why does nobody else seem to remember the first IAL?
Everyone remembers Armies and Enemies of the Imperium, but nobody recalls that they were based on a previous IAL. It had user-editable data files and GW distributed some through their own site.

Anyway, to the issue at hand: Lone Wolf aren't going to lawyer up because this is nothing to do with them (how can people still, after all this time not realise the distinction?), if they leap to DFCs aid they're putting themselves in the firing line unnecessarily.

The files will live on, they each have groups working on them so the loss of DFC isn't going to be a massive hindrance. It was probably just a strongarm move advised by the new company managing their digital output

[Wintermute]

Incidentally, why does nobody else seem to remember the first IAL?

I remember it and the numerous updates for the Dark Angel list which the entry for allies which flip flopped between the DA being able to take Inquisition allies and not being able to and back again.

As for the topic at hand, I wouldn't expect any less from GW and I doubt it has anything to do with any forthcoming release.

[Lorcryst]

If that's Homer, he's also one of the maintainers for the v3 files on our site too

Nope, I was talking about Harry at the Arromanche Yahoo group for the Warhammer Battle files ...

Are you sure you're not thinking of the "Enemies of the Imperium" and "Armies of the Imperium" ones that were released in 3rd Edition-ish? 2nd Edition seems very early for GW to be dabbling in digital...

Indeed, there was no IAL in 2nd edition. There was barely even a GW website in 2nd edition.

Incidentally, why does nobody else seem to remember the first IAL?

Errrm, yes, sorry, I mixed my editions ... I was talking about the very first IAL, at the very start of 3rd ed ... that's when I stopped playing 40K, so my memory is a bit hazy ... maybe 6th ed will rekindle my enthusiam, but I'm not willing to pay €65 just to read the rules to see if I find them palatable ...

[Sean_OBrien]

if they leap to DFCs aid they're putting themselves in the firing line unnecessarily.

Not really. By existing they are potentially within the firing line of GW - it just depends on what GW plans on doing. Should GW plan on releasing a new army builder package of their own in the future, they will likely end up cracking down hard on all the various sources of the army files which are used with the software produced by companies like LW or freely available like Warfoundry. Without those various army files - the software itself has limited use. Sure - you will still be able to find them through torrents and on various Chinese and Russian file servers, but that makes it much more difficult to market the software.

A perfect comparison is hard to find - but it would be a lot like someone trying to sell a car in a country where gas was illegal. Sure - the car might look nice, but without the gas it is pretty much worthless. Should GW start to send out C&D letters to more host sites and if those host sites continue to comply - eventually there will not be any army files that are readily available for GW games. That will impact LW directly - even without them actually being the ones creating or distributing the army files.

[Navar]

Not really. By existing they are potentially within the firing line of GW - it just depends on what GW plans on doing. Should GW plan on releasing a new army builder package of their own in the future, they will likely end up cracking down hard on all the various sources of the army files which are used with the software produced by companies like LW or freely available like Warfoundry. Without those various army files - the software itself has limited use. Sure - you will still be able to find them through torrents and on various Chinese and Russian file servers, but that makes it much more difficult to market the software.

A perfect comparison is hard to find - but it would be a lot like someone trying to sell a car in a country where gas was illegal. Sure - the car might look nice, but without the gas it is pretty much worthless. Should GW start to send out C&D letters to more host sites and if those host sites continue to comply - eventually there will not be any army files that are readily available for GW games. That will impact LW directly - even without them actually being the ones creating or distributing the army files.

I can edit the files though (and often do to add in extra detail that is more than "Look to CSM page 96" or what have you.)

I just hope that we get 1 data file for 6th because that will be the lion's share of the work.

[loveless]

Not really. By existing they are potentially within the firing line of GW - it just depends on what GW plans on doing. Should GW plan on releasing a new army builder package of their own in the future, they will likely end up cracking down hard on all the various sources of the army files which are used with the software produced by companies like LW or freely available like Warfoundry. Without those various army files - the software itself has limited use. Sure - you will still be able to find them through torrents and on various Chinese and Russian file servers, but that makes it much more difficult to market the software.

A perfect comparison is hard to find - but it would be a lot like someone trying to sell a car in a country where gas was illegal. Sure - the car might look nice, but without the gas it is pretty much worthless. Should GW start to send out C&D letters to more host sites and if those host sites continue to comply - eventually there will not be any army files that are readily available for GW games. That will impact LW directly - even without them actually being the ones creating or distributing the army files.

Next up, GW takes on Microsoft and Google for providing nefarious "Spreadsheet software" that can be used to create army lists.
The folks at Open Office are also on the chopping block.

Writing utensil and paper companies have, thus far, been spared.