On 4/19/2019 at 9:28 AM, Drasnighta said:

...Considering they didn’t even create some of it...

A shout-out to original creators might have gone nice 🙂

Do you mean fan-created images? Yeah sorry, we didn't look up the creators for every image that google spit out. I mean, to some extent thats just a part of the internet you have to accept, not every picture on pinterest e.g. has a artist credited. But we did credit armadashipyards for reusing a lot of his assets.

On 4/18/2019 at 10:26 AM, Green Knight said:

However, the document is full of badly phrased game text, meaningless abilities and plain old broken stuff. This greatly detracts from the overall value.

Could you give some more examples? Did you find any other game breaking formulations that create some unintentional sideeffects or something like that?

On 4/18/2019 at 10:26 AM, Green Knight said:

The uniqe tri-droid 101 has an ability that triggers from crits. Even if there were other cards that grant a non-bomber the ability to somehow resolve crits, its not a good ability.

Yeah that effect will either change or the cost will be decreased. Its not a very strong or useful effect, we are aware of that.

On 4/18/2019 at 10:26 AM, Green Knight said:

General Yoda commander. The fact that you can take all Yoda cards in the same fleet.

Will change. What exactly is wrong with Yoda Commander in your opinion?

On 4/18/2019 at 10:26 AM, Green Knight said:

San Hill, or anything that fiddles around with VP ar swapping stuff in and out of the fleet.

I agree that the VP stuff isnt the nicest but we are open for suggestions. I saw an idea of giving a CIS commander the ability to spend def tokens at speed 0? aka a blockade? Maybe thats an interesting alternative effect for Nute Gunray.

Regarding San Hill, i dont think that the swapping-out-upgrades effect is a problem. Maybe the extra added squadrons need to change, but i think that requires playtesting.

Okay, in general this is really exciting and it's clear a lot of good work went into this. You're contributing to the community in a really excellent way.

I'm gonna skip over pointing out all the stuff that goes right, apologies about that. I'm just gonna take a minute and scan for "bad rules text." By that, I mean stuff that's written in a way that it shouldn't. It's either inconsistent with how FFG writes their rules, or it's vague and open to interpretation, or it doesn't take into account certain potential eventualities, or it doesn't correspond to game terminology as the impartial rules read. I think it's clear what your intention is with these cards, but most tabletop gamers want the rules to serve as a neutral referee, so they really can't be left open to interpretation.

• Ship armaments that don't have any dice (can't attack) should have an armament of "–" rather than blank.
• Hyperdrive (might as well be a keyword) should read something like "When you activate during the first round, increase your speed by 2." Although, personally I'd prefer that the hyperdrive rules interact with deployment, so that you can deploy within distance 1-4 from a ship, rather than within distance 1-2. Think about whether that would break the game with hyperdrive/Strategic squadrons who could vacuum up objective tokens even more easily.
• Obi-Wan squadron would be a little tighter if it said "When you attack a squadron without Force Affinity or Droid..."
• N-1 Naboo fighters look kinda weak, and I think the Royal Escort ability isn't as interesting as it could be. The marginal benefit of Escort (a semi-weak ability to begin with) that only applies to one or two squads in your list is very much outweighed by the restriction on listbuilding. It's a whole ecosystem of Naboo squadrons that seem unlikely to see play because of how they only work in a certain way. Compare the N-1 (11 points) to a TIE Interceptor squad (11 points) and think about whether the N-1 even comes close.
• Palpatine squadron's ability "All other friendly squadrons within distance 1-2 gain +1 hull" is wonky. The game does not include any convenient method for keeping track of this ability, so it seems impossible to implement well. You have squadrons popping up and down in their maximum hull values according to their proximity to this one squadron, and the card doesn't explain how to resolve it. If my squadron is at 1 hull and it flies away from Palpatine, does it instantly die, or does it remain at 1 hull? If my squadron is at its maximum hull value and it moves within range, do I somehow set its hull dial past its maximum value? It's probably better to rework this ability. If it doesn't seem like it's not evil enough for Sidious, perhaps he could just restore hull like the station obstacle?
• The V.I.P. keyword for squadrons is wholly untested territory. I can't evaluate whether or not it messes the game up, but it's tricky to add something like this. If it continues to function as currently written, consider changing the wording. Perhaps the keyword needs a number in there, so that some units could have VIP 20 and some could have VIP 10, affecting the points "bounty." And look at the wording of the Most Wanted objective. "End of game" rather than "end of round 6" (not all games go to six rounds), and cleaner wording than a confusing direction about gaining points.
• Droid (activating): I'd split off the two rules. The rule for squadrons that can be activated as if 0.5 squadrons can be understood intuitively, but I don't think it holds up to a strict rules reading, which would break down over the undefined concept of "treated as 0.5 squadrons." Also, neatly doubling the number of squadrons activated seems like it will absolutely shred anything: A Providence-class Carrier can casually activate 8 droid squadrons with a single unimproved command, and that's way too good. Better to make it something like "Control Network: When a ship resolves a [Squadron] command, the first Control Network squadron that it activates does not count toward the number of squadrons it is allowed to activate." This way, it just adds one free squadron, so it's kind of like a free Expanded Hangar Bay for each command, but not a free EHB for each squadron. That's still good enough that you should reconsider some points costs.
• Droid (the "tribe" tag): I don't think you actually need "Droid" to be a keyword at all. As far as I can tell, it is only a rule in order to interact with Obi-Wan's ability (he can't Mind Trick droids) and the droid-buffing cards of the Droid upgrade slot. I wouldn't bother limiting Obi-Wan's ability like that. For one, other games don't do this such as Imperial Assault or Battlefront II. For another, you wouldn't be consistent unless you also bothered to prevent him from Mind Tricking IG-88, magna-guards, and a few individuals who resist the mind trick like Cad Bane and Mandalorians. But! For the purposes of the droid-buffing cards, you might as well just have them target squadrons with the word "Droid" in the name, just like the titles for 7th Fleet Star Destroyer and Mon Cal Exodus Fleet.
• "Activation range" isn't a term in the game, as it's used on the various droid-buffing upgrades. Other similar upgrades in the game just pick a range (medium), and you don't get bonus synergy if you boosted your activation range. If you want to gain the advantages of Boosted Comms, it would be better to have the upgrades work off of actual Squadron commands, rather than just a bubble around them.
• Nute Gunray squadron: "towards a friendly ship" is not a game term, and Armada does not give any objective way to resolve this instruction. For this ability, I would suggest saying that the movement must end with Nute in contact with a friendly ship's base, and forget the nonsense word "towards."
• Assajj Ventress squadron: "ignore 1 defense token" is not a game term, and Armada does not give any objective way to resolve this instruction. No rules in Armada instruct a player to "ignore" tokens, and it's not clear what it would mean if you were going to do this. Does it mean that the target cannot spend that token, or merely that the token (if spent) does nothing? Better, if not 100% equal in effect: "While attacking an enemy squadron with Force Affinity, before the Spend Defense Tokens step [so that you can't reroll], add one blue die to your dice pool and set it to a face with an [Accuracy] icon." You could tone it down a step by making it work like Captain Jonus, changing a die you already rolled to an Accuracy, rather than adding another die, but it's only a marginal difference given average rolls. Rolling 4 blue dice is already really strong against Force-users (who are all aces with defense tokens), making Assajj already pretty incredibly deadly at her job without making her number of accuracy symbols simply absurd.
• General Grievous: You can attack twice, wait what? This needs to be better defined, as nothing gets to simply "attack twice." Can I shoot twice at Obi-Wan? Can I shoot once at Obi-Wan and once at Anakin? In either case, that's so, so strong! (Prior to this, only Jendon or Adar Tallon could allow this to happen, and they were both harder and more expensive to implement than this.) Perhaps: "Before attacking, you may choose to remove one die from your anti-squadron armament until the end of your activation. If you do, after your first attack is resolved against a squadron with Force Affinity, you can perform a second attack against a squadron with Force Affinity." This would make Grievous shred generics with black dice, and flail at Jedi in an annoying but not very efficient way (good at wasting tokens, bad at sticking damage). Pretty on-brand for Grievous.
• Wulff Yularen: Unclear if this "you" means that Yularen's flagship gains command tokens, or the ship that discarded its dial gains command tokens. This is Strategic Adviser all over again.
• Colburn: The way Armada is written, this commander should refer to spending two accuracy symbols to target defense tokens, not to block them, since the rules don't use the word "block."
• Kilian:
  • Yaw: The rules should increase the yaw value rather than gain an additional yaw value .
  • Once Per Game: No other rules let you track a "once per game" ability in your head, without physically representing it somehow. That's the reason for the discard or exhaust effect. I think this will have to either be a discard effect, an exhaust effect, or an effect where you place a token on the card.
  • Half-Health: Armada uses very specific terminology here, and the phrase "half or less hull points (rounded down)" is against the rules, and also unclear. (On a 7-hull Acclamator, does this trigger if I have three damage cards because it's less than half my maximum hull value, or four or more damage cards because you're indirectly trying to get at the idea of having low health?) Hull value , not hull points . Hull value isn't like hit points that go up and down, rather the rules only ever refer to the number of damage cards carried by a ship. So: "...if you have a number of damage cards equal to or greater than half your maximum hull value (rounded down)" is more valid for the game's rules, and it eliminates the ambiguity caused by imprecise terminology.
  • It should say unequip and re-equip. See the Profundity title. He ain't no Kaminoan.
• Obi-Wan commander: Resolve Damage step should probably be capitalized, as well as in other rules like the officers at the end of the document.
• Anakin commander: I think it's a mistake to introduce the game's most expensive commander ever, and have him be hyper-focused on winning dogfights that at best contribute indirectly to victory. Though, for Anakin, maybe that's spot-on. But I'm not sure he's worth the price. A lot of fleets already get his benefits in other ways, and they don't even have the limitation on rerolling the same die more than once.
• I notice a general trend toward Republic commanders having multiple abilities, which breaks with how the designers write commanders who aren't named Sloane (and her several abilities are more thematically linked, while a lot of these are multiple unrelated abilities).
• San Hill: Very unclear. (The concept of -25 victory points is grokkable from an intuitive perspective, but I don't know if it will mesh well with established rules.) Do I get to pick any legal upgrades at all, and bring 425 points to my 400-point game? In his second ability, it seems unclear whether I can only rearrange my upgrades within my fleet, or if I get to swap from any upgrades in the game at all, or if I get to just slap 15 points of additional upgrades onto my already equipped ships.
• Shu Mai: If I increase my maximum shield value, and then those hull zones take damage, can I recover shields back up to 6? Because the card doesn't spell it out.
• Wat Tambor: Same question as Shu Mai. Plus, this looks like each of my Large-base ships get to increase all of their hull zones' shield values by 3, which is pants-on-head nutso broken (compare to Motti). I hope that's not it, but it's not clear what exactly he does.
• Count Dooku: I think you could simplify his ability by just saying "You must choose ships with Force Affinity, if able." Being able to mind control enemy ships and make them shoot each other is probably too good, broken. But this card also opens up a bunch of questions, like: "You said that Dooku gets to choose the targets of this ship's attacks. Well, I decline to declare any attacks, as is my prerogative, so Dooku doesn't get to shoot anything!" Plus, he's another once-per-game ability that doesn't ask you to track his usage. He should be a discard, even though we've never had a discardable commander.
• Barriss: Is Medical Team that doesn't ever get discarded and has unlimited potential uses per game. That means she can potentially negate an unlimited amount of damage, depending on how many Crew crits come up. There's probably a price point at which she'd be balanced, but I think she needs to be an Exhaust ability, and I think she needs to be more than 2 points. Also, this is potentially ambiguous if the card dealt would destroy Barriss' ship. Medical Teams has a crucial difference in timing-- before rather than whenever --which means that the Crew crit never touches you ship, so you'd live. With Barriss, it looks like you would take the card, then discard it, but you'd never get the chance to discard it if that Crew crit is enough to blow up Barriss' ship.

Whew! That was a lot. I'll give some more feedback later.

@Nostromoid That's A LOT of good feedback! Thank you very much! I will respond to it in detail later!

On ‎4‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 12:53 PM, >kkj said:

PS: Big shoutout to @DiabloAzul and his awesome project armadashipyards, a lot of the images, ship bases and graphic designs are his creations. Without his pioneer work this project would have been much harder to accomplish, so thank you very much!

Did you also take ideas from this site? Because some of these are awfully similar to the older ones. Like, eerily similar. Also, if would be good to credit them in the document itself, not just here.

On 4/22/2019 at 9:53 AM, >kkj said:

Do you mean fan-created images? Yeah sorry, we didn't look up the creators for every image that google spit out. I mean, to some extent thats just a part of the internet you have to accept, not every picture on pinterest e.g. has a artist credited. But we did credit armadashipyards for reusing a lot of his assets.

...wat? I just looked a bit at the actual content. Most of the ships appear to have slight changes (such as the different nav charts and the extra side red die on the Acclamator), but others are effectively straight rips.

Compare, for example, the commanders Obi-Wan:

Vs

It's probably not strictly plagiarism as you do credit the source somewhat, but what you've shared is incredibly derivative of their work from a few years ago.

This isn't "ps thanks for the assets," so much as "DA et al. should be listed as co-creators."

This would be like a collaborator letting me see their data, running a couple more experiments, and scooping their story with a slightly different one- only to mention them in passing in the acknowledgements. Your attribution borders on misleading. By all appearances, the folks at Armada Shipyards put substantially more work into their project. Then you folks came along, swapped out some numbers and upgrade slots and called it your own.

Yes, you had permission to use that work, and maybe they should have been clearer about what kind of attribution they expected, but your citation is completely and wholly inadequate in the face of the scale of the "reused assets." They ABSOLUTELY should be listed in the document itself as contributors, ideally with a specific breakdown somewhere of what you used and how. The way you phrase it, it sounds like they had a handful of screenshots they said you could use, which is not at all what appears to have happened.

For some additional clarity and a more convenient link on the Obi-Wan commander: https://armadashipyards.wordpress.com/2015/10/10/obi-wan-kenobi/

14 minutes ago, elanmorintedronai said:

...wat? I just looked a bit at the actual content. Most of the ships appear to have slight changes (such as the different nav charts and the extra side red die on the Acclamator), but others are effectively straight rips.

Compare, for example, the commanders Obi-Wan:

Vs

It's probably not strictly plagiarism as you do credit the source somewhat, but what you've shared is incredibly derivative of their work from a few years ago.

This isn't "ps thanks for the assets," so much as "DA et al. should be listed as co-creators."

This would be like a collaborator letting me see their data, running a couple more experiments, and scooping their story with a slightly different one- only to mention them in passing in the acknowledgements. Your attribution borders on misleading. By all appearances, the folks at Armada Shipyards put substantially more work into their project. Then you folks came along, swapped out some numbers and upgrade slots and called it your own.

Yes, you had permission to use that work, and maybe they should have been clearer about what kind of attribution they expected, but your citation is completely and wholly inadequate in the face of the scale of the "reused assets." They ABSOLUTELY should be listed in the document itself as contributors, ideally with a specific breakdown somewhere of what you used and how. The way you phrase it, it sounds like they had a handful of screenshots they said you could use, which is not at all what appears to have happened.

Here is a source bud. https://armadashipyards.wordpress.com/2015/10/10/obi-wan-kenobi/

14 minutes ago, TallGiraffe said:

Here is a source bud. https://armadashipyards.wordpress.com/2015/10/10/obi-wan-kenobi/

Thanks, added that one for clarity.

This upgrade should cost like 6 points at least. Since it works on everything. Auto include as much as Demo.

57 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

Did you also take ideas from this site? Because some of these are awfully similar to the older ones. Like, eerily similar. Also, if would be good to credit them in the document itself, not just here.

56 minutes ago, elanmorintedronai said:

...wat? I just looked a bit at the actual content. Most of the ships appear to have slight changes (such as the different nav charts and the extra side red die on the Acclamator), but others are effectively straight rips.

Compare, for example, the commanders Obi-Wan:

Vs

It's probably not strictly plagiarism as you do credit the source somewhat, but what you've shared is incredibly derivative of their work from a few years ago.

This isn't "ps thanks for the assets," so much as "DA et al. should be listed as co-creators." 

This would be like a collaborator letting me see their data, running a couple more experiments, and scooping their story with a slightly different one- only to mention them in passing in the acknowledgements. Your attribution borders on misleading. By all appearances, the folks at Armada Shipyards put substantially more work into their project. Then you folks came along, swapped out some numbers and upgrade slots and called it your own.

Yes, you had permission to use that work, and maybe they should have been clearer about what kind of attribution they expected, but your citation is completely and wholly inadequate in the face of the scale of the "reused assets." They ABSOLUTELY should be listed in the document itself as contributors, ideally with a specific breakdown somewhere of what you used and how. The way you phrase it, it sounds like they had a handful of screenshots they said you could use, which is not at all what appears to have happened.

For some additional clarity and a more convenient link on the Obi-Wan commander: https://armadashipyards.wordpress.com/2015/10/10/obi-wan-kenobi/

I literally asked DiabloAzul from armadashipyards if its okay for him if we reuse content from his page and he gave me full permission to reuse any ideas or files that were on armadashipyards. Cool down man, we didn't reuse some of those ideas because we were too lazy to create our own but rather because we really liked some of those ideas. And you DO KNOW that the source material for clone wars era armada content is the same, right? Its obvious that there are gonna be similarities. 95% of the Officers and Commanders are completely our creations. All the titles except the general idea behind "Force of Commerce" too. The Freight slot is inspired by AS's Cargo slot, yes. So what? All the squadrons (which make up half of our content) are our own take on the source material and not derivative of armadashipyards. The Acclamator and Munificent are pretty similiar yes, but we just liked some of the armdashipyards designs and adjusted them to fit our own ideas. I dont see a problem with that. Just because you found 2 examples in an set of over 180 cards that are similiar to existing content doesnt mean we are plagiarising. Maybe take a look at ALL the material next time before you start ranting and putting down all the work we put into this set.

4 minutes ago, >kkj said:

I literally asked DiabloAzul from armadashipyards if its okay for him if we reuse content from his page and he gave me full permission to reuse any ideas or files that were on armadashipyards. Cool down man, we didn't reuse some of those ideas because we were too lazy to create our own but rather because we really liked some of those ideas. And you DO KNOW that the source material for clone wars era armada content is the same, right? Its obvious that there are gonna be similarities. 95% of the Officers and Commanders are completely our creations. All the titles except the general idea behind "Force of Commerce" too. The Freight slot is inspired by AS's Cargo slot, yes. So what? All the squadrons (which make up half of our content) are our own take on the source material and not derivative of armadashipyards. The Acclamator and Munificent are pretty similiar yes, but we just liked some of the armdashipyards designs and adjusted them to fit our own ideas. I dont see a problem with that. Just because you found 2 examples in an set of over 180 cards that are similiar to existing content doesnt mean we are plagiarising. Maybe take a look at ALL the material next time before you start ranting and putting down all the work we put into this set.

So maybe credit the ideas that are from that site? If its only 5% as you suggest, it shouldn't be too hard. If it's more than that (and FWIW, it certainly looks like that from my perspective - a lot of things [Including squadrons, notably the V-wing] are way too similar for coincidence) then credit them earlier - or even in the document at all. As for the "so what" accreditation is important in something like this, because it helps maintain goodwill. Taking the content [or even just the general idea of it] and then getting defensive when people call you on it does precisely the opposite. We don't want full MLA / APA / Chicago Citations, just a short shoutout to the people that inspired you in the document.

Let's say I'm a musician, and I sit in a studio, and have lets say never ever in the history of ever heard Deep Purple's "Smoke on the Water".

So lets say in the course of my noodling I hit on that classic riff, bum bum bum, bum bum bumbum and think it's cool, so I put it in an original song. Does it mean that it's not plagiarism? I've never heard it. I came upon it myself.

It doesn't matter. Of course it's plagiarism. It doesn't matter if I haven't ever heard of it - I wasn't the first to publish it.

I think you are losing perspective here just because you don't FEEL like you copied someone elses stuff and are taking these comments as personal attacks on you. They aren't. You of your own free will put something on the internet that, perhaps completely innocently but none the less, is a derivative of something that came before. You can do the classy thing and just reference that the fact that your work is remarkably similar to something that pre-existed and give credit to those people, or you can continue to make this thread more about how unique and not like those other cards your ideas are and drag it off topic. I'd suggest the first because you *have* done a lot of work so that people can enjoy a full set of cards and I'd hate to see your thread turn into a flame war and all that work both from DA, GP, and others years ago and by you now get lost in that shuffle.

16 minutes ago, >kkj said:

I literally asked DiabloAzul from armadashipyards if its okay for him if we reuse content from his page and he gave me full permission to reuse any ideas or files that were on armadashipyards. Cool down man, we didn't reuse some of those ideas because we were too lazy to create our own but rather because we really liked some of those ideas. And you DO KNOW that the source material for clone wars era armada content is the same, right? Its obvious that there are gonna be similarities. 95% of the Officers and Commanders are completely our creations. All the titles except the general idea behind "Force of Commerce" too. The Freight slot is inspired by AS's Cargo slot, yes. So what? All the squadrons (which make up half of our content) are our own take on the source material and not derivative of armadashipyards. The Acclamator and Munificent are pretty similiar yes, but we just liked some of the armdashipyards designs and adjusted them to fit our own ideas. I dont see a problem with that. Just because you found 2 examples in an set of over 180 cards that are similiar to existing content doesnt mean we are plagiarising. Maybe take a look at ALL the material next time before you start ranting and putting down all the work we put into this set.

Allow me to chime in with an alternative perspective.

I have no doubt that you asked Diablo's permission and I have no doubt that he gave it to you. He loved this game far too much to hold onto things he thought would give other people joy, and I am doing my best to honor that intention in how I approach your work.

However, as one of the leads on much of the Clone Wars content we created, this tone makes that intention very difficult to see through. That is my General Kenobi design presented by @elanmorintedronai . Let's not beat around the bush. Your version is a slightly cleaner wording of my mechanic, with a reduced cost. You do not acknowledge me or my work *anywhere* on your IMGUR album. Only DA is acknowledged (which he should also be as the one who actually made the card from my concept) on this thread. No alternative work is acknowledged in the IMGUR album as you claim here:

On 4/19/2019 at 5:46 AM, >kkj said:

Which we did, literally on the Frontpage of the FAQ.

No page in the IMGUR album does anything to even suggest that some of the work is based on someone else's. You say you saw the idea for a Separatist commander that allowed defense tokens at Speed 0 somewhere. That was our Nute Gunray. Regardless of whether that card was in the chain that led you to hearing/seeing that idea, it is still plagiarism to repost the card without searching for it and crediting it if you do find it.

I will consider the matter closed if you accede to my two, I believe reasonable, requests.

Request 1: Add an Acknowledgements section to the IMGUR document. In lieu of attempting to identify everyone who contributed to that project (I can think of eight people off the top of my head, not all of which are still involved here but all of which should be credited nonetheless ) you will acknowledge the Armada Shipyards team and include a link to the thread here on the FFG forum for those that want to see the original work.

Request 2: You will not misrepresent the role that Armada Shipyards and the work therein played in future communications on the subject. You have made significant efforts and engaged with many things that we either never did or did not publish as such. You are welcome to proudly display that work, so long as you continue to acknowledge the role that the older creations played in your own.

Are my terms reasonable and acceptable to you both @>kkj @M0N0LITH ? I would like to avoid a flame war as well, and am genuinely excited for the arrival of Clone Wars to Armada as much as you clearly are. This is a simple, clean way to end the dispute.

3 minutes ago, >kkj said:

I literally asked DiabloAzul from armadashipyards if its okay for him if we reuse content from his page and he gave me full permission to reuse any ideas or files that were on armadashipyards. Cool down man, we didn't reuse some of those ideas because we were too lazy to create our own but rather because we really liked some of those ideas. And you DO KNOW that the source material for clone wars era armada content is the same, right? Its obvious that there are gonna be similarities. 95% of the Officers and Commanders are completely our creations. All the titles except the general idea behind "Force of Commerce" too. The Freight slot is inspired by AS's Cargo slot, yes. So what? All the squadrons (which make up half of our content) are our own take on the source material and not derivative of armadashipyards. The Acclamator and Munificent are pretty similiar yes, but we just liked some of the armdashipyards designs and adjusted them to fit our own ideas. I dont see a problem with that. Just because you found 2 examples in an set of over 180 cards that are similiar to existing content doesnt mean we are plagiarising. Maybe take a look at ALL the material next time before you start ranting and putting down all the work we put into this set.

As you quoted, I explicitly said it's not plagiarism- rather, that you did not adequately credit those you "draw inspiration from." Obi-Wan is less "similar to existing content" than "functionally identical with a different points cost." When you've already seen someone else's work and implement something almost identical, like with the cargo slot, it's hard to argue it's trivially inspired. There are lawsuits over stuff like this all the time in the music industry where someone releases a song with similar beats/chord progressions and there are battles over whether or not the earlier release is entitled to royalties.

What you, apparently, completely and utterly fail to understand is that not all references or citations are created equal. You have a brief mention in a forum post publicizing your project thanking the lead person on a previous effort for a similar project when there are frequent major similarities between the end results. There is no mention of them in the actual documentation, which only attributes the work to you and Monolyth. Given the degree of similarity and amount of work involved (and since you evidently thought it proper to mention their contributions in the forum post), it is more than appropriate to mention DiabloAzul and the overall Armada Shipyards project (which involved more people than just him) in your 'history of the project' section.

At the end of the day, this stuff can't be sold so nobody is being harmed financially. It's not the end of the world- but your doubling down on your inadequate crediting of their work is wholly inappropriate. It's really not hard- grow up and rewrite the history of the project section to directly credit the Armada Shipyards team (even as a group) and their contributions or inspirations or what have you. Include a link to their Wordpress so folks can look up their work if they want. Note how their own 'about' page explicitly credits different people for the work they put into the project. Your own work is clearly heavily inspired by them at times and a downright copy in others. They absolutely have a right to be credited for their work.

https://armadashipyards.wordpress.com/about/

You didn't break any laws, but what you did is still wrong. They deserve proper citation.

21 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

So maybe credit the ideas that are from that site? If its only 5% as you suggest, it shouldn't be too hard. If it's more than that (and FWIW, it certainly looks like that from my perspective - a lot of things [Including squadrons, notably the V-wing] are way too similar for coincidence) then credit them earlier - or even in the document at all. As for the "so what" accreditation is important in something like this, because it helps maintain goodwill. Taking the content [or even just the general idea of it] and then getting defensive when people call you on it does precisely the opposite. We don't want full MLA / APA / Chicago Citations, just a short shoutout to the people that inspired you in the document.

I dont wanna get too defensive about this matter but it annoys me that people assume us ripping off others creations just because they are somewhat similiar. Some ideas like the Munificent, Acclamator and Obiwan Commanders effect are translated pretty similiar into our set yes. There are reasons for that. I designed the V-Wing (and many other ships and squadrons) after the information provided by the "Incredible Cross Sections" Books for the most part, a source that armadashipyards (and wookieepedia too for that matter) seemed to have used quite much too. I just felt that armadashipyards already hit the nail pretty deadone on some of those designs (and did comment just that as "Chris" on the armadashipyards website years ago) and not so much on others. I dont really like the direction this discussion is taking, of me having to justify design decisions that me and M0N0LITH simply agreed on because we felt that they capture the essence of certain ships or squadrons. This is a fanmade project. We are not a company that needs to distinguish all products from existing material in order to sell it. The driving factor for us was authenticity to the lore. We will glady add credits whereever they are due, since it was never our intention to "claim fame" for something that wasn't only our creation. Im sorry that the imgur FAQ is missing these credits so far.

Then add the citation to the IMGUR album and be done with it. All great work is done on the foundations of what came before it; there is no shame, only pride to be had in recognizing trailblazers who came first and who allowed you to achieve greatness. The bulk of the posting on this subject has been for the reason that you are reluctant to add that citation to the IMGUR album. Fix it and this can all go away.

2 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

Then add the citation to the IMGUR album and be done with it. All great work is done on the foundations of what came before it; there is no shame, only pride to be had in recognizing trailblazers who came first and who allowed you to achieve greatness. The bulk of the posting on this subject has been for the reason that you are reluctant to add that citation to the IMGUR album. Fix it and this can all go away.

Will do. I wasnt really reluctant to add those citations, it was more a matter of simply having forgot to add them to the document too. I though adding them in the post was enough. Dumb decision by me. I didn't even know that you were the one that designed the OG Commander Obi-Wan. I knew you were involved with the project but not to what extent. Oviously you have more insight into who created what at armadashipyards. Do you have any suggestions or specifics how you and others want to be credited? Since you mentioned others that were involved with the project too. I will gladly credit everyone who was involved.

30 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

@elanmorintedronai No alternative work is acknowledged in the IMGUR album as you claim here: 

Let me just add that the quote you quoted was not me stating there would be souch creditation in the document. That quote was a response about the concern of this project getting copyright-striked by Disney or Lucasfilm. Just wanna make sure there is no misunderstanding of me supposedly stating misinformation.

18 minutes ago, >kkj said:

Will do. I wasnt really reluctant  to add those citations, it was more a matter of simply having forgot to add them to the document too. I though adding them in the post was enough. Dumb decision by me. I didn't even know that you were the one that designed the OG Commander Obi-Wan. I knew you were involved with the project but not to what extent. Oviously you have more insight into who created what at armadashipyards. Do you have any suggestions or specifics how you and others want to be credited? Since you mentioned others that were involved with the project too. I will gladly credit everyone who was involved.      

Thank you, I appreciate it. Regarding my involvement, I was the one driving for a lot of the Clone Wars era effort, I cared about it more than either DA or Wes Janson. If you would like more insight on why we did what we did, get back to me in two weeks when my schedule is much clearer.

For credits, just do "the Armada Shipyards team". If you would like to add my name feel free, but the level of contribution varied wildly across the lifetime of the project. Trying to come up with meaningful rankings of contributors is a project I'd rather not embark on, inevitably people will be offended and that's a can of worms no one wants to open. As far as I'm concerned, the team citation, a note about what we did, and a link to our thread is all that should be required.

Updated Version is out: https://imgur.com/a/MzbcwoZ

For what it's worth, I did give @>kkj full permission to reuse any of "my" materials as he saw fit, without restriction or expectation. I have no problem with inspiration/adaptation/copying/whatever.

Having said that... as @GiledPallaeon rightly (and very politely) points out, some things were not mine to give. My sincere apologies to him: he was definitely the driving force behind the Clone Wars Set for ArmadaShipyards, and others contributed significantly also. As the set never materialised, I never had the opportunity to give them their due credit, at least not in the manner I intended. And I likewise failed to consult them before agreeing to hand over the work-in-progress. This is my failure alone and I hope it is not too late to set things right.

Thats very kind of you to point out @DiabloAzul but i have to admit that it was not very nice of us (me specifically, since it was me who wrote the document) to not give credit to armadashipyards in the document and only in the post.

I want to apologize for my a tid salty initial reaction, since i have to say that the accusation specifically of us (CoruscantConstructions) just beeing "some folks who came along, changed some numbers and called it their own" pissed me off quite much.

We worked 8 months on this project and created hundreds of cards throughout the different iterations of the set. This set has been a serious effort, even if armadashipyards did much more than us. While there are some contents that were translated quite literally into our set, most of it (>90%) are our own mechanics. Our Acclamator and Munificent are very similiar, the V-Wing and Consular took some inspiration from their work and Obi-Wan Kenobi (Commander) and Rigged Detonators are the only cards in the whole set that literally copy a effect originally created by Armadashipyards.

There might be a few other cases were we, maybe even unconsciously took some inspiration from their work but all the rest of the 178 cards in the set are for the biggest part our creations. For example, we created over 60 squadrons, while armadashipyards only had a handful per faction available on their website. Same goes for all the Commanders, Officers and Upgradecards we did.

We did however re-use the ship, shipbase and upgradecard templates from Armadashipyards for our cards.

So the statement we were just copying a bunch of stuff and changing up some details just to call it our own is just factually wrong.

I did not knew that @Gilad Pellaeon was the driving factor behind the Clone Wars material and i thought things would be fine if i asked @DiabloAzul for permission to reuse material, since i assumed it was his creations.

Of course, i totally understand @Gilad Pellaeon s reaction when he saw us re-using his designs without asking him for permission and i am sorry for that - i would feel the same way if it would happen to me. And that's why i want to apologize for my salty initial reaction and just give some insight into why i was pissed off a tad. Not giving credit where it's due was of course wrong and there's no denying that.

Armadashipyards is now credited in our document as both a source for inspiration as well as the orginal creators of all the templates and some of the designs. I hope this settles this matter and no hard feelings remain.

As @>kkj already mentioned, of course we‘d like to give honour to whom honour is due for what has been created before. So please accept my appologies as well that we didn‘t mention the entire team of Armada shipyards in the document before...

As hopefully everyone is happy now 😉 I‘d like to jump back to topic with asking for your opinion on our little Nubian „fleet within the fleet“?

The idea pretty much developed bit by bit as we both loved the 50‘s chrome/hodrod designs of the Nubian ships (really lloking forward to have one or two of these chrome babies in play) but with sticking to lore we had to come up with an alternative idea for ships with no weapons! This was the moment our „Diplomat“ Keyword was born.

Of course we know that especially our „Royal Escort“ Keyword is limiting the use of the Naboo Starfighter but as it was only seen during the battle of Naboo and as an escort of the Nubian starships, we thought it would be a nice idea to bring a little more tactics into play if you‘d like to use these squadrons with their unique anti-squadron armament (and yes I know that Lando is coming with something similar 😜 ).

And as already mentioned in some of the comments, I totally agree on the Naboo Starfighter could use another hull as it had shields...

Looking forward to your feedback!

One thing that just came to my mind we should probably rename "Senator Amidala" to "Padme Amidala" for futureproofing - maybe one day there will be a "Padme Amidala" officer card or something.

So now as the two new sizable ships have been announced I‘m curious about the first Clone Wars announcement and how it’ll differ from our set...