Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Fantasy Adventures => Topic started by: Fortescue-Smythe on January 30, 2007, 09:33:45 AM
-
Just saw the announcement on CMON, thought this might be interesting.
http://www.wolfridergames.co.uk/index.html
Claes
-
:? Ģ30 for 10 not-really-that-great models?
They are going to get into trouble with "The Company That Shall Not Be Named" as well - Ork is a copyrighted name! :roll:
-
Crapola.
Cathay is a real historical term. Kathay is not. Is that what you meant?
-
They can't claim Ork any more than Orc, Tolkien used it before GW existed first so that's prior art.
I'm not sure where he got it from or if it's his own invention, so it could be even older. Does anyone have an earlier example than the Silmarillion?
-
Oh no, Kathay/Cathay wasn't what I meant
They claim Ork with a "K" is their copyright, and they defend their IP quite vigorously!
http://uk.games-workshop.com/legal/copyrights/
Tolkien used Orc from mythology but never (AFAIK) used "Ork".
-
Ork and Orc are both used in the Silmarillion, in some of the notes in the back is says that The Professor had decided he preferred Ork and wanted to change the Lord of The Rings but never got around to it.
I know that GW have claimed Ork as the new term for Space Orcs and that is the context in which they claim it.
Anyone can call fantasy Orcs, Orks, but the green space fungus berserker monsters that GW calls Orks are theirs.
-
Tolkien used Orc from mythology but never (AFAIK) used "Ork".
Hmm. In german translations of Tolkien it is 'Ork'. And these translations are older than GW's 'Ork'...
-
Anyone can call fantasy Orcs, Orks, but the green space fungus berserker monsters that GW calls Orks are theirs.
Yeah - that's a good point. :lol:
Hmm. In german translations of Tolkien it is 'Ork'. And these translations are older than GW's 'Ork'...
I did not know that! That's pretty cool actually. One in the eye for the big Gee-Dubya's lawyers!
:wink:
-
Actually, 'Ork' is already mentioned in the dictionary written by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, which was first published in 1852, iirc. 8)
-
But on the other Hand, TCTSNBN would claim copyright on life itself if only they would revive the old ones ;)
-
So back on topic:
These minis are crapola.
-
Yup, nothing good to say about them at all. Dull, uninspired sculpts in too many pieces that cost too much.
-
Definitely poor. Iīd prefer ANY historical manufacturer (Renegade, Newline, or even Dixon, IIRC) over those. Those weapons are ridiculous. I didnīt think you could beat Rackham for that, although on their figures, the bigblades look good... takes a Frenchie to design a good-looking, yet laughably large sword.
-
I thought the models themselves looked fine. I'm just not sure why they are in so many parts, that sounded crazy to me.
-
:oops: That's a very mixed echo, I'd say.
I posted the stuff because I sort of like the figgies, somehow, for the very reason that they are quite plain and a bit static. Which might be an overcompensation effect caused by painting too much Rackham and Privateer stuff... :lol:
Still, the prices are extraterrestrial, no diggety.
-
Apparently, they try to justify the pricing by hitting the same vein that GW does with their plastics (I assume the minis are plastic, or resin?)...
And having revisited, I feel that they donīt look "Asian" in the least...