Will Catalyst produce and sell more plastic miniature sets?

[Weirdo]

Where can I get these models?

http://www.ironwindmetals.com/store/index.php

[Colt Ward]

What you would be looking for would be the Mad Dog/Vulture Mk III which has the MW4 look . . . and I think shares it with the II?  The II was a GB Dominion build of the I, explaining the look/difference of the to be b/c it was built outside the homeworlds.  The Uziel 2S is also from MW4 along with the Thanatos, Chimera, Black Knight 5H (from MWDA stat-wise but the look comes from MW4).  Razorback, Sha Yu, Men Shen, Lao Hu, and Anubis appeared in MC2.

[Marc C]

http://www.ironwindmetals.com/store/index.php

Are these the MWO video game sculpts the other poster was talking about?

[Colt Ward]

No, no mini maker afaik has been legally allowed to make MWO scuplts- b/c Microsoft does not have the rights to mini production as I said.  They can do some stuff under merchandising agreements I think but that is not my area.  They DO have a pair of Shadow Hawk sculpts that were put out, one is a jumping Royal and the other is the -2H.

[Marc C]

Maybe Catalyst should do a Kickstarter to collect the funds to buy backache IP from Iron Wind... I wonder how much that would cost.  :thumbsup:

[Weirdo]

....what.

[Sartris]

I think he’s asking or much it would cost cgl to buy the minis rights from iwm

[Weirdo]

...I got nothing. Iron Wind Metals is one of the best things to ever happen to Battletech. To cut them out like that would be a despicable betrayal of the highest order. Moreover, getting rid of metal minis doesn't mean that plastics would suddenly happen. It would mean no minis at all, aside from the small number of plastics we're already getting now.

Is there a reason you don't want to use that vast amount of money to provide IWM with the equipment for plastics manufacturing?

[Cache]

Maybe Catalyst should do a Kickstarter to collect the funds to buy backache IP from Iron Wind... I wonder how much that would cost.  :thumbsup:

That wouldn't matter. Nobody can get the rights to produce the MWO designs unless they purchased both parts of the IP. Basically, it's so complicated that a billionaire would have to really want to see it happen. Good luck with that.

[Marc C]

Oh well, I see that I'm out of my depth on this topic. Forget what I wrote about the KS...  :-[

[Colt Ward]

Its not anything specific to you . . . its just it has been debated around quite a bit and you will see the policy about not displaying MWO 3D printed minis.  Its great to see the excitement but these are the unfortunate answers that have been found to be the case over the years.

[carlisimo]

I need clarification...

My understanding is that Microsoft has the rights to make video games, Catalyst (CGL) has the right to create books (and minis but only if they’re in starter boxes), and IronWind Metals has the rights to create miniatures based on CGL’s IP.

Is Microsoft obligated to make its mechs look different from the tabletop game’s source books?  Some have clear differences, like the Awesome, but I’d be hard-pressed to identify an MWO Catapult or Commando from the new CGL plastic minis.  Does anyone get in trouble if the designs converge like that?

What allowed CGL to sell lance packs?  I assume IWM sees CGL’s starter boxes as an opportunity to grow its market and is therefore not opposed to them, but the old lance packs look like direct competition.

I assume IWM needs CGL’s permission before releasing each mini based on CGL art.  Do they ever create their own designs or redesigns?  I guess they wouldn’t be able to use a Battletech mech name if they did. 

[NeonKnight]

I need clarification...

My understanding is that Microsoft has the rights to make video games, Catalyst (CGL) has the right to create books (and minis but only if they’re in starter boxes), and IronWind Metals has the rights to create miniatures based on CGL’s IP.

Is Microsoft obligated to make its mechs look different from the tabletop game’s source books?  Some have clear differences, like the Awesome, but I’d be hard-pressed to identify an MWO Catapult or Commando from the new CGL plastic minis.  Does anyone get in trouble if the designs converge like that?

What allowed CGL to sell lance packs?  I assume IWM sees CGL’s starter boxes as an opportunity to grow its market and is therefore not opposed to them, but the old lance packs look like direct competition.

I assume IWM needs CGL’s permission before releasing each mini based on CGL art.  Do they ever create their own designs or redesigns?  I guess they wouldn’t be able to use a Battletech mech name if they did.

Confused yet? ;)

[nckestrel]

My understanding is that IWM has ALL mini rights. CGL gets their permission to put minis in the starter boxes, or to make the lance packs.
As for MS, my understanding is that they have full video game rights to everything FASA did, but no rights to any later art.  So MS has no rights to the Reseen or new Classic artwork, but they have rights to use the old Awesome, etc from FASA times. And to make derivatives of such art for themselves.
Similarity, CGL (Topps) has no rights to art made by Piranha. Even if it’s derivative of old FASA art.
If I wrote something for BattleTech, it doesn’t give me any rights to BattleTech, and BattleTech only gets whatever rights to my work I give them (presumably in return for getting paid).   The same applies to art.
Of course, what’s legal has to be determined by lawyers and courts, and is often contested even then. But that appears to be the understanding everybody is operating under.

[Sartris]

I need clarification...

welcome to the humble club

My understanding is that Microsoft has the rights to make video games, Catalyst (CGL) has the right to create books (and minis but only if they’re in starter boxes), and IronWind Metals has the rights to create miniatures based on CGL’s IP.

that checks out.

Is Microsoft obligated to make its mechs look different from the tabletop game’s source books?  Some have clear differences, like the Awesome, but I’d be hard-pressed to identify an MWO Catapult or Commando from the new CGL plastic minis.  Does anyone get in trouble if the designs converge like that?

historically, it doesn't seem so. MechCommander and MechWarrior 4 definitely had some very CBT-looking mechs (eg the Osiris in MW4). I think each just wants to maintain its own artistic aesthetic. 

What allowed CGL to sell lance packs?  I assume IWM sees CGL’s starter boxes as an opportunity to grow its market and is therefore not opposed to them, but the old lance packs look like direct competition.

my guess is that they're considered mini box sets in their own right. they come with ancillary materials (and also a direct upsell to IWM minis in the 5th mech card). what you'll probably never see is just an Atlas in a baggie like Bones minis.

I assume IWM needs CGL’s permission before releasing each mini based on CGL art.  Do they ever create their own designs or redesigns?  I guess they wouldn’t be able to use a Battletech mech name if they did. 

Some of the IWM sculptors wade around in our muck and can probably answer directly, but the IWM release schedule is a bit of a mystery. there have been some resculpts in the past few years like the chimera, hellspawn, and highlander - but i'm not sure if that art came from somewhere or it was artist's licence.

[worktroll]

As for MS, my understanding is that they have full video game rights to everything FASA did, but no rights to any later art. 

Slight expansion - Microsoft have the rights for any and all computer expression of the Battletech IP. This means not only games, but design programs, electronic record sheets, etc. Rick Raisley of HeavyMetal fame used to have to pay licencing fees to MS back in the day (I suspect he may not be doing so now, due to low volumes).

Sites like Sarna, and teams like MegaMek, could technically be hit by MS lawyers, but MS is unlikely to do so as there's no money, and they're not competing with MS per se. Pihrana had to licence from MS, then Harebrained licenced from them -  or vice versa, not quite remembering - but then it's pretty much as above.

Some of the IWM sculptors wade around in our muck and can probably answer directly, but the IWM release schedule is a bit of a mystery. there have been some resculpts in the past few years like the chimera, hellspawn, and highlander - but i'm not sure if that art came from somewhere or it was artist's licence.

I do know that a new IWM mini can't be made without genuine BT art, but this could be old or new art. Many of the new minis are, I believed, inspired by dissatisfaction with the old sculpts, enthusiasm of the sculptors, a dash of fan funding. and the continued enthusiasm of IWM for our game ;)

[nckestrel]

I don’t know how much of those are legal requirements and how much is tradition/understanding. I’m not sure even Topps/Microsoft know for sure. Making claims of legality without ha jog seem the actual legal documentation is always bound to be wrong.

[TS_Hawk]

Maybe Catalyst should do a Kickstarter to collect the funds to buy backache IP from Iron Wind... I wonder how much that would cost.  :thumbsup:

Catalyst has said no to kickstarters so that won't happen. However if you scroll down to the miniature section of the forums you will see that IWM offers a special type of crowd funding to produce new sculpts and iwm gives us a voucher for what we donate to purchase later on after the sculpt is released

[TS_Hawk]

The miniatures have needed a kick in the ass reboot for the longest time. With that said the mini's in the box sets is exactly what we need. A lot of the people who have played it in the past in my area love the new look and are talking about getting back into the game.  I can only hope now that IWM &c GL would get together to get the new sculpts taken care of in have it re design for everything pre clan era

[Elmoth]

The thing with the minis in the boxed sets is that we need continuity. otherwise it will be a summer snow event.

And IWM needs a new webpage. When the people making MWOnline nonlicenced miniatures have way better webpages than the official line, you have a problem above and beyond them doing illegal things.

[Paul]

historically, it doesn't seem so. MechCommander and MechWarrior 4 definitely had some very CBT-looking mechs (eg the Osiris in MW4). I think each just wants to maintain its own artistic aesthetic. 

You may already know, but Dave White made those for MW4, and they got added to the paper BT universe after the fact. He has also been one of the main artists as a result of his work on all that.

[Sartris]

i had forgotten that the osiris was one of those actually

[Alex Keller]

IWM is the only reason I'm still into Battletech after all these years. And I know I'm not the only one.

They kept me going when nothing else was going well in this game.

[nckestrel]

Slight expansion - Microsoft have the rights for any and all computer expression of the Battletech IP. This means not only games, but design programs, electronic record sheets, etc.

We don't know that.  Remember legality is rarely known until a court case settles it. Especially when the current people involved were not the ones that made the agreement and the agreement is old.  We know that the various parties have acted one way. If you had asked what book rights were 20 years ago, you'd get a definitive answer.  Then digital publishing hit and we got all sorts of answers on how those rights were affected by long standing agreements.  Sometimes writer kept digital rights, because they were stipulated in the agreement.  Sometimes the writing was given to the company, but the artwork was not given (for digital use). It threw everyting in the air. What was true 20 years ago re: Microsoft's rights may be interpreted very differently now, where some sort of digital technology is heavily involved in many tabletop games.  Clearly MS's rights don't limit CGL having a BattleTech website.  Does it affect the master unit list?  Does it affect the MUL having AS unit cards available? Does it affect the MUL allowing players to select units and make a list to print?  Does it affect the MUL allowing players to construct their own units, using the in print game rules, and print their own AS unit card for it? Would you give the same answer for other games?  Does Warmachine having a computer game make Privateer Press unable to make digital aids for its own game?  Can you think of any other tabletop game that then has a computer game, where the tabletop game is then unable to make digital aids for its own games?
Of course, there could be something in writing from FASA saying otherwise, but I'm not sure anybody has seen it (including CGL).  it's all guesswork and how much does CGL want to push back.  Oh wait, push back against Microsoft... There's the last puzzle.  Legality goes to the one with the best lawyers..

Rick Raisley of HeavyMetal fame used to have to pay licencing fees to MS back in the day (I suspect he may not be doing so now, due to low volumes).

As far as I know, it was a one time fee. And no term limit. 

Sites like Sarna, and teams like MegaMek, could technically be hit by MS lawyers, but MS is unlikely to do so as there's no money, and they're not competing with MS per se. Pihrana had to license from MS, then Harebrained licensed from them -  or vice versa, not quite remembering - but then it's pretty much as above.

I don't know of a single court case where a tabletop game has had to stop making digital aids because the computer game rights are with another company. Of course, there may be a specific agreement for BattleTech, but considering when that agreement would have had to be made (at or before FASA Interactive split), I don't think anybody was going to specifically refer to digital aids for a tabletop game. MegaMek is on pretty shaky waters, I agree I don't see anything saving that but MS not caring.  But Sarna? I don't think MS could go anywhere near it.  Topps on the other hand?  The probably could.

Final note, I took a class in Business Law.  So I am dangerously ignorant.

TLDR: We don't know what is legally binding on anybody. We have some idea how it has worked out in the past.

[GRUD]

Having just gotten my box of stompy robots today, I certainly hope CGL is able to produce more plastic miniatures.

Heck, if IWM said "We're investing in plastic injection machinery and going to make molds for the top 10 best-sellers, here's our Kickstarter page." I'd be all over that.

In MY opinion, that would be a Dark Day for IWM.  I have at least 1 friend that has said he'll never buy a plastic mini, and if IWM was to somehow "Switch Over" to plastics, he'd never buy another IWM mini.


While I LOVE the new Classics we've gotten in the new Box Sets, I'm NOT a big fan of plastic minis.   :-\  I was happy enough with the last Box Set also, but never bought a single AS Lance Pack.  Why?  Plastic.   xp 


"Give me Metal or give me Death!"   :D

[abou]

I just don't think there are enough BattleTech players out there to justify the switch to plastics. The start up costs and molds are astronomical considering what IWM can do. You could argue a chicken & egg thing: would new miniatures generate enough interest in the game to sell all those new plastic minis? Maybe, but I don't really need to buy any new miniatures as I have a solid collection of the 'mechs from the eras I play. But how representative am I?

If there are people like me who are long time players who have most of the miniatures one would want, then you are relying on players with smaller collections or new to the game. I don't know if BattleTech could have enough velocity to justify the cost of switching to plastic. Newer metal sculpts are more realistic. Despite the cost of metal minis, at least the quality and sharpness of detail are superior. I like the overall designs in the new box sets, but have been disappointed with some of the quality of the plastic. But it is what it is. I see both sides of the argument.

[Kilderkin]

For me the best way to get more plastic minis out there is for expansion box sets.

Would be ace to have a Tales of the Black Widows expansion box set that comes with a Warhammer, Marauder, Crusader, Rifleman, Griffin, Wasp and a pair of Stingers. Players could than field these mechs in linked scenarios against the forces from the core set.

Put in a novella,  maps,  scenario pack and pilot cards. Maybe faction dice too?

You could roll expansion box sets for different merc forces or house forces.

[Kit deSummersville]

Slight expansion - Microsoft have the rights for any and all computer expression of the Battletech IP.

Close. The exception being location based computer versions of BattleTech which is owned by Virtual World Entertainment.

So BattleTech has three owners: VWE, MS and Topps. MS and Topps farm out their IPs to multiple different parties making a whole mess of fun.

[Sartris]

can Randall forge the One Ring equivalent for battletech?

... or is that just a number with a bunch of commas on a check?

[Kit deSummersville]

Randall ran out of his comma allotment for the year on his first three sentences alone.