Jump to content

yukishiro1

Members
  • Posts

    667
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

yukishiro1 last won the day on September 24

yukishiro1 had the most liked content!

About yukishiro1

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

yukishiro1's Achievements

Lord Castellant

Lord Castellant (8/10)

1.5k

Reputation

  1. And yet you've just judged someone you don't even know the identity of - simply declaring that you think he's doing it for selfish reasons, to get a better deal. This is why people are having trouble taking what you're saying seriously here - you're accusing others of doing what you have done to the n-th degree just a few posts previously. I have never said a single word about what I think the leaker's motivations are, BTW - as far as I can tell, you're the only one in this entire thread to speculate on that. The reason I haven't is because A) I couldn't possibly know, just like you couldn't possibly know and B) it doesn't really matter, I'm glad he brought this out there, no matter what his motivations were. I'm not really interested in deifying or vilifying him personally, we really shouldn't be talking about him at all and wouldn't be if NQA hadn't had a total meltdown.
  2. I mean let's suppose for a minute that was true, putting aside that you have zero evidence of that (and have just been making arguments about how we shouldn't assume it's real because there is not enough evidence - yet here you are speculating about someone who you don't even know the identity of, much less know anything about). Based on your view of the world...wouldn't that be totally legitimate? Just like it's legitimate for GW to try to get him to sign their very one-sided contract? You can't really wave away GW doing things for its own benefit with a "that's how the world works" and then criticize someone else for allegedly doing the exact same thing. If everybody's just out to make a buck for themselves and morality is for suckers, what goes for the goose also goes for the gander.
  3. No, I'm not doing that at all. Feel free to point out anywhere in this entire thread I said anything remotely even suggesting that. Please don't distort what people say to make it easier to argue against them. It's a waste of everyone's time.
  4. My comment was premised on "if you sign the NDA..." If your response to "you can't give honest reviews if you sign the NDA" is "don't sign it," that's making my point re: how a principled youtuber who does reviews couldn't sign that NDA.
  5. Bits of it are flat-out inappropriate period - e.g. defining Restricted Customers to be the entire GW customer base, and the no-fault indemnity provision. The stuff about not doing or saying anything that would result in lower sales for GW, and not selling to GW customers, would make sense for an actual employee of Games Workshop. Like if you were say a GW sculptor getting a salary from GW, it would make sense that you would agree not to give GW products bad reviews, or to sell your own products to GW customers without permission. But the 36 month term is too long for an employee for a non-compete. It would be ok to put a 36-month restriction on using any of the confidential information after separation, but no court is going to uphold a provision that says that if you quit working for GW, you can't sell any products to any GW customers without prior written approval from GW for 3 years, even if what you're doing has nothing to do with the confidential info you got.
  6. Again, this is wrong. If you sign that NDA, you agree not to do anything that would result in lower GW sales to any customer, for a period of 36 months after you get any confidential information. You can't just go buy a copy of a specific battletome yourself then give it a bad review.
  7. I think this is largely correct. Which is why the terms in that NDA seem so unnecessarily punitive. They shouldn't need to force people to agree to never do anything that could result in any GW customer anywhere in the world buying less GW product. They already have the stick of just terminating the agreement and not giving them advance copies in the future. Most of these overreaches in the NDA don't seem to even serve GW's interests. GW isn't going to sue someone who didn't do anything wrong, so why include a provision for indemnity without fault? GW doesn't need to get people to sign in blood that they don't do leave bad reviews, because people won't leave bad reviews anyway if they want to continue to get free GW product. GW doesn't need to get people to agree not to sell T-shirts to their fans without GW's advance permission, because why would GW actually care about that? That's largely what made me question whether it was real in the first place. This is both an oppressively one-sided agreement...and one where the oppressive one-sidedness doesn't seem to even benefit GW much in practical application.
  8. No youtube reviewer with principles would sign and follow an agreement that they agree not to do anything that would result in any GW customer anywhere in the world buying less of any GW product. That makes it impossible to do an honest review, if you get a bad product your only choice is not to put out a review at all. One of the biggest fallouts from this is that all youtubers who get advance copies are now going to be under a cloud unless GW comes forward and makes clear that the NDAs they signed don't include these provisions.
  9. They don't have to mark it as a paid advertisement or sponsored, but they do have to disclose that they got the product for free. The standard formula these days seems to be "thank you GW for sending us this free review copy!" which is language that is clearly specifically engineered to put a positive spin on what's happening. And even if they did, that's a bit different from disclosing you signed an NDA that prohibits you from saying or doing anything that leads to GW customers anywhere in the world buying less of any GW product.
  10. Well, except that it does - 1.1 (ii) clearly states that the fact that you signed an NDA is itself confidential information that you are not allowed to reveal. Which is yet another problematic part of the agreement.
  11. I don't think that sort of inflammatory language is particularly useful. Getting into the fanbois vs haters things never leads anywhere productive, it just stirs people up. If people don't want to care they won't care no matter how much you try to shame them for it.
  12. Lots of people have an attitude toward business that pretty much anything goes, and that if someone gets into trouble, that's their own fault for not protecting themselves sufficiently. It's basically the Milton Friedman argument that corporations have no responsibility to do anything other than make the maximum amount of profit. I don't agree with it personally, but I don't think it's that hard to understand, especially when it's a convenient position to take because you are favorably inclined to whatever corporation is being accused of sharp practices.
  13. They're not the best, they're the most consistent, reliable, "know what you are getting" manufacturer that produces a complete line. They (mostly) all fit with one another, they're scaled similarly, the level of quality is roughly equal in the modern era, etc. You know you're going to get a coherent army. There are plenty of other sculptors out there who produce individual models on a par or better than GW's. But none of them produce whole coherent ranges on a par or better than GW. This is GW's big strength - they have their own complete ecosystem of models. It's an easy one-stop shop where you know that pretty much everything you'll get will fit with everything else and it'll all be an 8/10 or better. You can find 9/10 or 10/10 stuff elsewhere that compares favorably to individual products in the GW shop, but you won't find another shop full of 9/10 and 10/10 equivalents to each thing that's in the GW shop, so most people aren't going to consider it a good use of their time to go elsewhere.
  14. The issue is when models are removed, which is what triggers when you use the ability. The rules do explicitly say that no models are removed until all wounds to the unit are allocated and all attacks in that inflicted damage have been resolved. So you only get to rezzing the model after all the damage has been applied. There's nothing left to apply to the model a second time because by definition it isn't removed until after that process is done.
  15. Yeah, Pjestki is right here about how the rules technically interact. The model isn't rezzed by cycle of the storm until all wounds are allocated. What this does mean is that all the other models still die. He's not saying you can cycle of the storm the first model to take damage and that negates all the wounds against all the other models. Per the current way the rule are set up, If you take 10 damage on a 3-man unit with 2 wounds each, all 3 die, then you can choose one not to die using cycle of the storm, then the remaining 4 wounds have already been negated so they don't come back to kill the rezzed guy. It does break the core rules though in that if you take 5 damage on that same unit, you lose 2, one's left on 1 wound, and then you rez another...and you now have two models left on 1 wound. Which is not supposed to ever happen.
×
×
  • Create New...