Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Gale Force 9 Sues WotC [Updated]
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="NotAYakk" data-source="post: 8133135" data-attributes="member: 72555"><p>The previously done translations where approved. GF9 claims it has no or limited obligation to retroactively cure approved translations, and they have satisfied their obligations there.</p><p></p><p>The new translations should be judged on their own merits. If WotC has reason to increase standards, and they decided they shouldn't have approved old stuff, they are free to do so.</p><p></p><p>This lawsuit claims that this isn't what WotC did.</p><p></p><p>OTOH, if WOTC states "well, we don't like the old translations, so we'll punish you by not bothering to even review future translations and just say 'no' to everything without even reading it", that is behavior akin to what they are alleged to have done in the Dragonlance case: using the "we are allowed to do quality approval" and converting it into a de-facto "we can cancel the contract while bypassing the contract cancellation clauses".</p><p></p><p>It is akin to attempting to pull off a "commoner railgun" when the rules already contain text that says "a group of X people in a line can pass an object they can carry 30' per round".</p><p></p><p>The rules for passing objects from person A to B, and readying an action, are intended for purpose 1. There are already rules that cover the intended action. Your PC argues those rules exist (for passing objects), but they aren't using them, and instead using the readied action rules in order to bypass the limitation on speed.</p><p></p><p>This is what both the Dragonlance case, and the GF9 case, claim is going on. And if they are right, it is pretty scummy.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="NotAYakk, post: 8133135, member: 72555"] The previously done translations where approved. GF9 claims it has no or limited obligation to retroactively cure approved translations, and they have satisfied their obligations there. The new translations should be judged on their own merits. If WotC has reason to increase standards, and they decided they shouldn't have approved old stuff, they are free to do so. This lawsuit claims that this isn't what WotC did. OTOH, if WOTC states "well, we don't like the old translations, so we'll punish you by not bothering to even review future translations and just say 'no' to everything without even reading it", that is behavior akin to what they are alleged to have done in the Dragonlance case: using the "we are allowed to do quality approval" and converting it into a de-facto "we can cancel the contract while bypassing the contract cancellation clauses". It is akin to attempting to pull off a "commoner railgun" when the rules already contain text that says "a group of X people in a line can pass an object they can carry 30' per round". The rules for passing objects from person A to B, and readying an action, are intended for purpose 1. There are already rules that cover the intended action. Your PC argues those rules exist (for passing objects), but they aren't using them, and instead using the readied action rules in order to bypass the limitation on speed. This is what both the Dragonlance case, and the GF9 case, claim is going on. And if they are right, it is pretty scummy. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Gale Force 9 Sues WotC [Updated]
Top