Lynx7725

Yeah, the basic EB Saber head isn't the best. The body is worth the effort spent in salvaging it though, as the joints and armour details are good enough. The restrictions in posability that Lolicon mentions is part of the tradeoff in making the figure looks good, so I'm ok with it.

I'll be quite honest and say if you're going for statues/ figures, Lily Saber is pretty much #1 on the list now (I haven't uncrate mine yet, but it looks that good in box...). I'd say Zero Saber is #2, wish I'd picked that one up. I like the loli-Alter Saber, but that's a bit hard to find now -- don't like the Griffon Saber, looks quite "hippy" from photos.

But if you're looking for semi-posable display pieces, EB Sabers (normal and Alter) are the best, even with that poor head. Next after that I'll have to say Figma's Saber and Saber Lily. Revoltech Sabers are a poor but fun 3rd.

And yes, Saber's face is quite hard to get right. Figma does a good job though, but Revoltech is quite far off, and EB defaults are not good. Saber Lily does the best as far as I can remember.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time Graham checked, Yamato had no intention of making the Spartan, much to many MW members' outrage...hence no "complete" set of Destroids.

Just scan back a few pages in this thread. The outrage is there.

TBH, I never expected the Spartan. It's just too one-off to justify the cost. The Monster, you can do it and jack the price and still break even.. if you are lucky. The Spartan? The odds are not good for it.

The best Saber. I can only hope that they'll do a second production.

I won't say that. It's very nice, but I prefer my ebCraft (modified) Saber and Alter Saber... mostly because of the posability though.

Of the former...

Crappy pic of the two together:

I meant something along these lines...

Ah ok, I see what you mean. To be honest though, straight torso swap is fairly meaningless (since the lower legs are, with one exception, identical). The arm swap is a bit more meaningful, but it might be a bit risky - the Destroids aren't exactly designed to be taken apart regularly.

I've pondered the price point myself. And the conclusion I've reached is that the Destroids DO have a gimmick like the Valkyries have, except its not transformation. The Destroids have the whole "modular mix-and-match" gimmick instead.

Except you can't. The torsos of the Defender and the Tomahawk aren't interchangable, and the arms are not easily detached from the Defender.

So, nothing for 2009? We can hope for early 2010 I suppose...

Sorry to do this to people's wallets, but how does this Japanese product compares?

Skip it, it's the same product. Here's more pics for you guys.

Mech Movie is back.

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/09/29/source-m...sners-tornante/

Uhm, needs work. It's not downright terrible, but...

To bring things back to a more rational discussion rather than wang-waving...

Why, for the love of Kerensky?

From what I understand, this extra stuff MekTek's adding is for multiplayer support. Did they say somewhere that they were changing the mech interface for MW4?

Well, it's more about the older mekpaks which would also be offered free (and necessary for online play). Yes, they did add support for multiplayer, but this is more because Microsoft took down the servers previously used for multiplayer -- more a continuation of support than a new feature.

The mekpaks don't just add mech chassis, they also add new weapons and functionalities. Directional jump jets (look up the Wasp video on it, quite... obscene, in a way), different sensor modes, tarcom improvements (IIRC) -- a LOT of nitty-gritty tech that changes the way you interact with the Mech. And because you want that multiplayer support, you don't have much of a choice but to accept all these.

Oy. B.A.T.T.L.E.T.E.C.H. thread.

To get back on topic: Some news.

MechWarrior free release update and MTX announced

For immediate release:

Its been awhile since we last updated you on the status of the free release of MechWarrior 4 so we felt the need to assure everyone that the time is nearing. We had hoped to release the free title the last weekend of summer but that unfortunately did not happen due to paperwork.

As previously mentioned, I indicated that there are still a number issues to resolve before the free release. Those issues are resolving thanks to the hard work of many at MekTek. From a development stand point the free release is near ready to go but we are still waiting to resolve some of the legalities associated with such a wide distribution. While we have not provided a set date for the release, we are still on target, and our partners are happy with the progress MekTek has been making.

Our focus on the strongfree/strong release has been revamping our match making service MekMatch in order to accommodate many more users. In addition to the work being conducted on the MechWarrior 4 strongfree/strong release, we are also working on a community software distribution and patching application which we have been alluding to on our forums. This software is known as MekTek X (or simply MTX). X stands for the last decade of service to the MechWarrior community.

MTX was developed out the need for a centralized distribution and patching point for all of MekTek’s software currently being developed and planned to be released including MekPak4 for the free release, Single Player Campaigns from MechWarrior 4: Vengeance and Black Knight, Assault Tech1: BattleTech, and much more. This software has been in development by Studio MekTek since the announcement of the free release and successfully reached beta testing status two weeks ago. MTX is a free desktop product which has been thoroughly tested and will connect you with MekTek.net’s community as well BattleTech.com and the rest of our partners.

MTX will be the central point of distribution for the launch of the free release. This application boasts some of the following features:

* Bootstrap Installations

* Incremental Delta Auto-Patching

* Torrent or HTTP Downloading from an exclusive MekTek Tracker

* Custom Web Browser

* News Updates from MekTek and Partners

* Online Help

* Community Chat Lobbies

* Network Diagnostic Tools

Stay tuned on BattleTech.com and MekTek.net for more information.

To be honest, I'm quite concerned about the MekTek direction. It's turning the MW4 from a playable arcade-ish game into a full blown sim of a 'Mech. Complexity's not always a good thing to have.

I also didn't expect the cockpits to actually be inside the head in some of the humanoid mechs (page 36). I always thought they were in the chest area.

Btech has always placed their cockpit in the head (or a protrusion from the torso known as a "head"). It's only in later years that torso-mounted cockpits became an option -- most "book" mechs are still using head cockpits.

So no, quite dissimilar from Valks, which is a torso cockpit. Closer to Destroids though.

No, the VMI 'mechs were only there for the first version of the 3055 book. Subsequent reprints removed them. I'm not sure why, but possibly due to "derivative works".

Agreed on that, but I feel their way of doing it just leaves no room for any negotiation and thus any benefits to them, a newcomer, and us consumers. However we are drifting off topic, so I think it's best not to go there in this thread.

I love that everyone is letting their blind hatred of HG completely eclipse the fact that the rights owners of Battletech are entirely in the wrong. I don't care what you think about Robotech, ripping off someone else designs you didn't have the rights to is worse than whatever complaints you could lodge against HG for what they did with Robotech.

Ah, herein lies the difference. The situation at first use by FASA was IIRC unclear, then HG C&D'ed; I can't remember if there was a subsequent lawsuit, but FASA eventually withdrew the designs. Even though there is a fan demand for it, FASA didn't bring it out again -- they stuck with the agreement they had. Even later, when Catalyst came out with the Phoenix Reseens, they tried hard to make them look different so that they can satisfy fan demands but yet not violate the agreements. Even this current spate is because Catalyst didn't know of the details of the (closed door) resolution of the case.

Whereas HG had a semi-questionable claim that wasn't resolved until recently, and even then resolved behind closed door such that others (such as Catalyst) didn't know any of the results. Moreover, for decade HG refused to be transparent about the situation while treating any potential cases with immediate semi-hostile actions (A C&D isn't exactly the friendliest sort of thing).

That HG had a legitimate rock to stand on is one thing; their behaviour and treatment of others using that legitimate rock is, IMO, rather shameful. Legal yes, but essentially bullying. They might not have a choice in the matter, but it's the equivalent of a warning shot across the bow on first meeting -- mightily unfriendly folks.

Can BT make the new Warhammer different enough to qualify as new work but have enough homages to the original Warhammer? I don't know as I too am not a copyright lawyer.

I believe the Phoenix Reseens are sufficiently different. Heck, WE want to disown the thing...

What percentage does he say would it have to be because as I said it's easily 10%. I'm thinking more along the lines of 20-25% difference.

Eh, let me look it up. Actually there were two persons, one apparently a copyrights lawyer, the other someone who works the business.

The lawyer's commentory:

Ummm, I'm a copyright lawyer in real life. In the U.S., the test is "substantial similarity" not direct copy.

And deriving the new work from an old one doesn't help. Derivative works are also covered by the original copyright holder's rights.

Interesting issue . . ..

The other forumite's (B) initial response:

If its a derivative work then it remains a copyright breach. The idea that you can take an original and change it by a magical X percent, is an urban myth, one propogated an awful lot on the internet sadly.

The apparently lawyer responded in immediate response:

That is correct. A derivative work (at least in the US) remains a infringement. For example, if I take an existing building and merely change the roof (even if I replace the entire thing with a brand new work), I have still infringed the original copyright.

(Context was miniature buildings, not actual buildings.)

Of course, this is the interwebs and I don't profess to be an expert.

Personally, I think that 10% thing came about from the uni days, when we are too poor to afford textbooks. The rule-of-thumb is to photocopy no more than 10% of each book at a go, as that is the "magic %" before official-type people will make noise about copyright infringements. That's a direct reproduction of IP though, not derivative work, so there's probably differences in treatment.

Assuming we go along with the above line of thought, is the Rewind 'Hammer a Tomahawk derivative? I got to say sufficiently similar in shape, size and geometry to fail the test. After all, we all went ga-ga and said it's an old-style Warhammer (i.e., Tomahawk).

The Phoenix Reseens are redesigned heavily to be quite different although a few are still very borderline. But if I have to say, I'll say the Reseens are sufficiently different to constitute new designs, and hence pass the test. They're also butt-ugly, but that's not the point.

I hope they take HG to court over this. Just rewatched the full HD trailer and the arms and shoulders are designed differently. The chest and cockpit area are definitely boxier then the Tomahawk and the legs are different as well. IMO the difference is easily over 10% which I believe constitutes it as a new design. It's like the TV-SDF1 vs DYRL SDF1.

Actually, I've been told that the 10% rule isn't as valid as we would like to think. From a guy who has to design and build scale miniatures for a living, but it's over the Internet, so take it for what it's worth.

I've actually now have the 4 books of Catalyst Labs' re-released CBT. TBH, I've come to realise I'm not a big fan of the direction the board game is taking.

Mechwarrior 5 Runs Into Legal Trouble

My question is what plans does HG have with those trademarks? Toys? They're not doing anything with them, unless this is all for money.

Shrug. It's not as if HG is in the big leagues or anything. Macross-related stuff may just comprise a significant percentage of their earnings, and they may rather not set a precedence in allowing others to "get away with it". They are fairly predictably annoying in the way they protect their assets though.

At any rate, anyone knows anything more about the freeware MW4? Been waiting for it, seems like vapourware.

So, did Roy get his yet? My CF-1J has just been uncrated. Good looking lass, but a wee bit off somehow.

Hmm. That drum doesn't look very promising for accessories. Feels like the missiles might end up being too long to fit into that space.

Anyone heard about this?

Russian Sukhoi Su-27 crashes

And while we are at it, how about a canopy-less ride?

In the movie, Machete (Trejo), a former Mexican Federales, is hired to assassinate a corrupt senator (De Niro). But then he is double-crossed and pursued by a government agent (Alba).

Uh, I think it's safe to say most people, if pursued by Alba, will let her catch you.....

All this does throw the Mechwarrior:Rewind game into some confusion. Is that a Warhammer... or not?

So, about those Unseens becoming Reseen again... (this time can we avoid the flamebaiting?)

Unfortunately, we can't avoid the flamebaiting.

FWIW, she appears to have surrendered to the police.

News Article