yukishiro1

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Throwing up your hands is a convenient take for someone whose position the whole time has been that it's fake, and if it's not fake, it's normal, and if it isn't normal, it doesn't matter because it's their own fault for signing it. Which is fine, that's up to you, nobody can or should force you to care. But it's not going to be particularly convincing to people who do care.

Yeah, it has the potential to end up with a unit with two models that are missing wounds, something that isn't supposed to be possible the way the rules are set up. It's a bit of a mess for sure.

RAW that seems right re: it stopping something from dying during that particular application of damage, whether it's from an attack sequence, a spell, a stomp, etc, In terms of whether that's intended...who knows? It seems odd they would have intended the change to make the ability so much better, but by the same token, it was complete junk before, so maybe it would make sense to have it, well, actually do something? The interaction with the guy who heals all wounds at the end of the every phase if he kills anything strikes me as a good clue it probably isn't intended, though. Unless they actually intended that combo to work...but that seems unlikely given the way each thing is pointed. I don't think it's nearly as gamebreaking as allowing movement after translocate, and I'm shocked by how many people think that's the way it should be played.

That was borderline incomprehensible. I certainly don't see anything in there approaching any sort of fact-based assertion, much less proof, that the NDA in question is fake. Unless dramatic sighs count as proof, then it's established beyond a shadow of a doubt.

People sign things all the time without paying much attention to them, sadly. It's also possible - and I hope for his sake this is the case - that although he signed it, he didn't send it back to them before checking in with Miscast, and so maybe he's not in any legal trouble now if he just rips up the document (though obviously he'll get put on GW's red list of people not to do anything with in the future).

Oh, for sure. It was their arguments for why it couldn't be real, not mine. I think we can all cite many examples of GW's sloppy drafting. You would like to think it didn't extend to their legal department, but it doesn't surprise me that it does. Arch is a ****** and I wouldn't trust his take on anything, but the stuff he posted there is legit (as far as I know, anyway). If you want to see NQA admitting it's real and that she was wrong about it being fake, it's there at 11:32.

Her original position was it had to be fake because it's so sloppily drafted. GW not being a defined term, the address not being complete, etc. When someone then actually came forward to her saying he got the document from GW, and gave her the unedited version of the document that contained his info, I can see why she might change her mind and say "ok, hmm, maybe it is real." It could obviously still be a hoax - the guy in question could be perpetrating it, someone other than GW could have sent it to him and he could have been fooled, etc. But I do think it raises the chance of it being real to have someone who came forward (privately, until that privacy was betrayed) to make clear that no, it was really something he had gotten.

Yep. That and the bit about agreeing to pay GW's legal fees and indemnify GW even without any showing of fault on your part.

The original one was edited to removed his personal information so it wouldn't be clear who was leaking it. The version he sent to NQA was the unedited version, to prove he had really been sent it. There are screenshots floating around of her twitter from before it was banned where she doxes him and then responds to someone saying "does this mean it's real?" by saying "this one [the unedited one] is." I'm not going to post them because I don't want to spread the info around further than it already has been. It is odd, but then doxxing someone like that is an odd, irrational thing to do. People behaving irrationally often behave, well, irrationally.

There's probably a difference in general, but not for purposes of the NDA. It's not limited in any way - there's nothing that says it's ok to sell non-hobby related stuff to GW customers. It's all banned by the agreement without getting GW's prior written approval. If you meant just more generally...it gets fuzzy at the edges, but I'm sure there's people you could say are not a hobby business. Creators who don't do anything besides post videos, for example. Then there's people like AOW40k that do a youtube channel with 40k batreps, but they also offer paid coaching services. Is that a hobby business? I'd say yes, but I guess some people might say no since it's just selling services, not products. Then there's someone like Byron at Artis Opus, who is clearly both a hobby business and a content creator.

The tl;dr is that NQA was originally one of the "this has to be fake! there's no way this is real!" people. Then the guy who actually got asked to sign the NDA sent the unedited version (i.e. with his name on it, not edited out like the one that was originally leaked) to her to prove it was real, at which point she (1) admitted it was real and (2) doxxed the guy at the same time. The fact that she now seems to think it's real doesn't necessarily mean it is - it still could be some elaborate hoax I guess - but at least to me, it substantially raises the chance of it being real that one of the doubters has changed her position because she got actual proof with an actual name attached.

What Duncan did with his paint line is 100% prohibited by this NDA. He'd have to get GW's written permission for every product he wanted to sell that GW customers might buy, and he'd also have to get a written variation on the clause that prohibits you doing anything that encourages people to buy less GW product, because telling people to buy his paint line would obviously result in them buying less GW paints too. Content creators almost all sell stuff to GW customers, whether it's swag, coaching services, or whatever. Does GW care if a youtuber sells t-shirts to GW customers? Probably not. But it's technically a violation of the NDA to do so without getting written permission first. Nobody with any sense is going to sign something like that that prevents them from earning a livelihood without getting GW's advance permission first. Even a Patreon arguably violates the NDA without advance written permission. Again, does GW likely care? No. But who knows what it might do in the future. Entrusting your livelihood to GW doesn't seem like a very smart business move.

At this point, if it is somehow some elaborate fake, GW really needs to come out with a statement that it is fake. Anything short of that and people are reasonably going to look at the situation - particularly NQA flip-flopping from claiming it's fake to admitting it's real after getting an unedited version - and conclude that yeah, on balance, it looks like it's real.

The internet enables the worst kind of bullying, because when you don't have to look at the face of the person you're abusing, you don't have to recognize they're a human being, and therefore you have no need to show any sort of mercy or compassion. This can be applied both to what NQA did and what is now being done to her.

If it's the new NDA for playtesters, they're going to have tremendous trouble getting people to sign up. Having to forgo selling anything to any GW customers for 3 years after you receive your last playtesting info without getting GW's written permission rules out basically any content creator, and that's not even getting into why anyone would possibly sign a no-fault indemnity provision. Asking people to be free labor and at the same time give up any right to make money in any other way that touches on GW customers and to pay GW no-fault indemnity in the event of any sort of leak strikes me as truly absurd, and frankly, I wouldn't trust the playtesting judgment of anyone who was willing to take that "deal." It's almost as if they should be using professional playtesters who they pay a living wage, not trying to utilize free labor from the community...

The only thing I'd add to that is we still have multiple other content creators saying that isn't the NDA that they personally signed. So it seems it is either a new one GW just started sending around, or they have several different ones they send to different groups. If it really is real, as it now seems to be...it's pretty worrying and embarrassing that GW legal is producing documents that sloppy, not even getting into the oppressively one-sided substantive provisions. I mean the people on the "this is fake" side were even pointing to the sloppiness as a reason why it couldn't be real...

So does that mean it is real? NQA seemed to indicate as much in saying the first one was edited (to remove names) but this one was real, even as she behaved appallingly badly in some deluded attempt to...well...who even knows, honestly. Just sad. Talk about having a meltdown.

I really do think it's probably bad for GW's bottom line, too. When you can see the scroll right there on the store page, that's a lot more convenient than having to open up your phone and page through 10 levels of menus and scroll down through several dozen warscrolls and/or type in some Copyrightable Doublename to find the one you're looking for. How many people are going to just lose interest in that time, not bother to look at the scroll, and then not buy the product? Is it really going to be outweighed by people who are grudgingly nudged into subscribing to the app? I kind-of doubt it.