Well, what I will say in these lines reflect also my own opinion and of course you may not agree but what can I say that Shane did not wrote?
I totally agree.
I loved C&S1 and C&S2. I dislike C&S3 and I was a bit disappointed with C&S4. What happend to Tolkien's Elves, Dwarves & Hobbits? What happend to the magical secret societies and to the fighting orders? What happend to Black Magick?
I said in an old post the 5th went back to the basics with an old design. But could it be otherwise? C&S is definitively set in a medieval atmosphere. The old english font written very small reflect this atmosphere as if we have an ancient text in the hands. It's very far from the current products we find presently in rpg stores.
I am reading the new edition and comparing with 1st ed. I will continue to point out the differences and sent posts on this forum. At last I will express my feelings about the 5th. But C&S is designed for mature players and this last edition was written in this way. Like Shane, I'm not sure it will sell very well (in France FGU's products are quite impossible to find. Furthermore the majority of new players only buy games written in their native language... sic)
We here who are the REAL admirers and lovers of the game can come up with a 5th edition to suit what WE like and ignore the official stuff which has moved away from the traditional game as we know it.
Personally, I am all for sharing our own thoughts, styles, secrets and work we all have done on the game that has evolved over the years. I believe we are the true owners of the game no matter who holds the rights now.
Unless they return C&S to its traditional roots I have to admit I am not interested in any future additions to the official products. I would prefer to continue producing my own content and sharing it with anyone interested. I will try to begin uploading sections of what I have done for anyone interested (when I have the time) and discussing my ideas.
I am also especially interested in anything others have done even more. I remember on the old LOCS site speaking with Claymiere many times and file sharing our work, I think this is the way to go. Also, the information about this new Red Book version and its link to a 5th edition is truly on the right track. The information itself is a gold mine thanks to you Dom for showing and sharing with us.
I suggest we all discuss our ideas and work on the forum in the areas where we want to share information or want to find information and really help each other out. I have already asked a question about Sea encounters for 2nd edition so I hope someone would have done some work on this over the years...
P.S. I do not wish to criticize the current owners of the game but rather to let them know in very clear terms that the direction they have gone into is wrong and undermines the whole reason C&S was designed. Changing the original rules and mechanics and using new terminology is what turned people off the game and destroyed the faith we all had in the writers and owners. They have not yet understood this and until they do any new version of C&S will NOT sell.
I will try to begin uploading sections of what I have done for anyone interested (when I have the time) and discussing my ideas.
I must confess I have had no time to produce some stuff for C&S. My energy was directed to my fansite dedicated to Space Opera. So I will be very happy to read what you have done.
I have a C&S campaign that was published in France around 1985 but it was not translate in english. I will share if someone is ready to correct the translation errors of google.
Shane Devries wrote:
Changing the original rules and mechanics and using new terminology is what turned people off the game and destroyed the faith we all had in the writers and owners.
Ed, Wes Ives & John Vrapcenak passed away
Only Wilf Backhaus, Ron Gillies & Wayne Wittal remain as writers.
I don't know if they contributed to the new edition or if Scott Bizar asked for freelancers to keep the copyright of the game May be he used some old stuff the authors wrote but that what discarded when C&S2 was issue.
I had no idea Wes and John had passed also, that is sad.
With most of the writers of C&S gone it is no wonder C&S has lost its direction. I know Ed was responsible for the 3rd Edition and the direction it took. I personally think that Ed followed the wrong pathway for the game but I still respect his vision.
I will aim to put up ideas and work like I stated and hope that others will follow suite with me.
p.s. and Claymiere, if you wish to write up your old campaigns once again please contact me.
I have just finished to read the 5th.
Bellow my feeling but I encourage to look at the pdf to forge your own opinion.
To be very concise:
C&S5 = C&S1 + C&S2 + new stuff
In some way it's not very surprising. This edition is a FGU special reprint and the editor did not own the rights for C&S3 and 4. I found some articles of Ed when he was still alive but that were not published in the core rules.
So, is C&S5 a real new edition or not?
The answer is not so clear and simple.
No, if we consider the game mecanics are unchanged (or very slighty to be more complete and for a faster game play) from the 1st ed. The root system is a mix of C&S1 and C&S2 for characterisitics and clarifications.
Yes, if we consider the new stuff (almost 50% from the 1st ed.): new classes, new spells, additional text, new fighting and religious orders, new religion & cults, ...
So what? IMHO this 5th edition is a great advanced since C&S2. It keep the pure essence and spirit oh the original game. It is a good compromise between the first 2 editions and go farther. When I first downloaded the pdf I was both excited and scared. Excited because I was waiting for a long time now for new C&S materials but scared because I was already disappointed by the last 2 editions. After these days (and nigths) in front of my computer, cross reading with C&S1 and C&S2, finally I am happy to find a game, if not perfect, that fit my needs. I will now switch to C&S5 and begin a new campaign with my group of players who are already enthousiam.
Well, maybe it's what we can call Magick isn't it?
I'm more confident in the future. Perhaps FGU will issue new material in the years to come as Scott Bizar said in the afterward of this big red book. Maybe the authors/editor will more willingly hear the fans and be ready for a 6th edition...
As a final note, I would say C&S is not dead but still alive. This 5th edition and all the people here are the proof. If we gather and be dynamic we can imagine to be heard by FGU.
I think the key issues you are raising fall under three key areas, which I will give my take on.
Nostalgia vs. Modernising
Using ďNostalgiaĒ is wrong, I know, and I donít mean it to come across as though I am suggesting those who yearn for a more 1st and 2nd ed. feel for 5th ed. are somehow seeking the ďgrass is always greenerĒ past and I am NOT saying, in opposition, ďit simply does not existĒ.
I loved and still love the feel and games that were 1st and 2nd ed. But I donít want to return wholesale to them either. Shane is right in that C&S will never compete against the ďsimpleĒ games that are DnD and the many doppelganger games, but the current audience for C&S is never going to be enough to keep it going.
One of the issues with C&S after 2nd ed. is that it took SUCH a long time to get a 3rd ed. (for all its faults) out there. Yes I know that DnD is only on its 4th ed. but DnD hasnít need refreshes quite so often, for it has always been a much bigger game, and always been supported with vast amounts of adventures and supplements.
If C&S is to progress then it MUST develop as a system, and it must been seen to be good enough to recruit fresh blood, otherwise the attrition of players and GMís that inevitably comes when a system does not continue to grow, is going to kill it off, no matter how eager and enthusiastic the 20 or so worldwide ultra-keen players are. Because that is what it will come down to. I can just see reviews of C&S 5, IF it is just a pulling together or 1 and 2 with a few amends:
- ďLiving in the pastĒ
- ďBased on a system over 30years oldĒ
Such reviews will be particularly damning if what these guys are doing is really just taking old pages and slotting new ones in. That will be REALLY bad. Because a new edition should be able repackaging too, and if they canít do that and if they canít make a proper stab at building a new game, then I would rather they not bother at all.
The guys who are building C&S 5 HAVE to rebuild the game from the ground up, even if they then end up incorporating most of the good things from 1st and 2nd ed. they canít just use old stuff. It will be seen as just an attempt to make a few more bucks out of the gullible C&S player/GM if they take 1 and 2 and just tart it up a bit, and they would be guilty of it too.
It will just NOT be good enough to take 1 and 2 and assume itíll be good no matter what they do. Steam trains were perfectly good enough and they werenít broke, but we didnít stay with them, did they. These guys need to build a proper system and a NEW system, and to that end, I am afraid they will HAVE to account to attracting new blood to the C&S fold, and that means change.
Magic and Miracles
This is one of the two great crimes of 3rd ed. for which an attempt was made to correct the grave error in 4th ed. But it just didnít get it. One of the truly GREAT things about 1st and 2nd ed. was the magic. It wasnít easy. It was rare, it was remarkable and it required dedication to master properly, both in and out of the game. Which is why it was so GOOD.
There is a standing joke amongst a group of players who I GM C&S for, and that is that only my brother plays the mage, because only he can. This is not because he is any brighter then the others players (although he probably is), but more that he has spent the time to read, meticulously, the magic rules, so he can do it properly and well. And often I have found myself stuck with what to do with magic, in game, and him coming up with the answer.
Anything worthwhile takes time and effort, and that is what 1st and 2nd ed. C&S magic was all about, and what made it so cool. So an almost wholesale reversion to 1st and 2nd ed. magic would, IMO, actually be a good thing, but even then it will need rewriting, reindexing and needs to be made generally easier to navigate. It will also need a hugely expanded list of spells. The Necromancer spells jumping from Level 7 to Level 11 just smacked of ďI canít be arsed to think of any moreĒ, and that is rubbish. Plus back to basics with Basic Magic would be just awesome!
What I do hope most profoundly is that nothing gets in the way of arming the GM build great baddies, and that has to include Black Magic. We live in a disgraceful world of political correctness, which has high-jacked simple decency and perverted it into a horrendous beast. I donít want C&S to prostrate itself before the corrupt feet of the Politically Correct Corps. It needs Black Magic, it needs nasty villains, it needs nasty magic, so go wild.
Miracles were good too, although I donít have to objection to the level thing that Shane objects to, I do like keeping magic and miracles very separate. But they will have to make more of an effort to drum up differing religions rather than JUST sticking to Christianity. That work great if you are planning a Europe centric campaign based in the Middle-Ages, but what about other mythologies, possible much older, like Greek or Egyption. And I donít think it is good enough to simply rename all the miracles for the different mythologies, possibly move their order about a bit and present it as some dramatically cool and new thing, so we can all enjoy a variety of historical campaigns. They VERY much need to make more effort with expanding the religious sections to give mythologies such as Norse, Greek, Egyption, etc, a much more professional finish.
This is where Shane and I diverge again, I think. I donít have a huge issue with the Blows system, although my memory of it is fairly limited now (but it would come back if I have time to sit and reread the books).
The AP system is, IMO, MUCH more realistic in its fundamentals, with one round rolling into another, and a combat becoming a much more fluid process. One can argue about how many actions point a certain action should take, but the concept is, I believe, a much better one that Blows.
One of the Key problems with Blows, if I remember rightly, is that you could easily come across a situation where a fighter of a higher level could have a lot more blows than his inferior opponent (accentuated even MORE, if the better fighter is using a light weapon and the inferior fighter is using a Heavy weapon), which could easily result in a situation where the inferior fighter has used his blows with a couple of attack attempts, and the better fighter then proceeds to pound the crap out of the weaker fighter with a whole load of other blows before the weaker fighter gets another look in.
Yes one could argue that the better fighter could use Great and/or Ferocious Blows (which I donít think could be used with Light weapons, but you get the point) and use his remaining blow up more quickly. But the issue of practicality is still not dealt with, that the better fighter just gets loads more attacks than the weaker fighter.
This does not make instinctive sense to me. Strike better and more telling blows, for sure (which in 4th ed. is wrapped up in the overall chance to hit and the crit die), but a whole load more, before the weaker guy gets another chance? Nah, it just does not make sense.
OK itís JUST a game mechanic, but what I love about C&S is its realism, and if combat can be made more realistic by the use of APs then that is a good thing.
As far as criticals go, then I THINK it was Runequest that had a system of whatever you skill role was, then if your rolled one-twentieth of this value then it was a critical result. Something like this would work well, I feel, in representing good skills roles, without the need for a third die. And it would reflect the higher the skill the more chance for a critical, but I think one-twentieth is probably a bit tough.
Having said all that, the guys writing this cannot do so by committee. They need to get on with it and get a new system out is a quick a time as feasible, while ensuring they go through the necessary due diligence to make the new C&S system true to what the USERS of C&S expect. So whilst they need to account for our opinions (and I can think of no better place than this to garner such opinion), they still need to do it their way. Whatever they do, itíll get changed by individual groups around the world, and quite right too, but it would be good if they at least too notice, and acted upon, major trends of opinion.
The long and short of it is, if C&S 5 is just going to be a collection of C&S 1 and 2, then I wonít be buying it. Why bother? I already have 1 and 2 and before three was out, I was already playing my own version of C&S that it seems to me was exactly that 5 is going to be like if it does turn out to be a combination of 1 and 2.
The problem I see is that C&S, in any recognizable form, just is not commercially viable.
On the one hand, those of us that still play, even if we could get 100% agreement on a version, are not enough to sustain the system from a commercial point of view. Not a printed edition at any rate. PDF (with, hopefully a Lulu option) might work.
To gain new players, C&S would have to change into something that can compete. Given that D&D 3 & 3.5 were considered complicated rules by today's gamers, C&S in any existing format has to seem like rocket science. To make it viable for gaining new players, it would have to be dumbed down to 10 pages of rules, 20 pages of glossy pictures, 50 pages of fluff and a 20 page painting guide (thank you GW).
On the bright side, I have been noticing a resurgence of 'classic' games. Dragon Warriors just got republished, Traveller, Runequest...
Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:02 am Post subject: Additions
Well are not GM additions the point of true RPG's? It is the lack of complete standardization that sets C&S apart from the modern RPGs. So while I applaud the efforts of those holding rights to the C&S titles to continue to publish suggestions on how I can conduct my game, it is my right to chose to ignore specifics. As long as I hold two principles that Ed set forth, I feel I have the right to claim that my game derives from C&S.
His first principle is that the game should be about telling a story, not a place for ego tripping players or those that desire to create the best killing machine. (Please don't get me started on 4e.)
The second principle, easy actions "cost" less than hard actions, whatever "cost" may mean in a given situation. That characters should derive more benefit from attempting hard actions should they succeed And of course, there should be consequences for failures. Again, note how this differs greatly from the most popular form of "RPG" (using the term loosely), that most people play.
So to address Padster's point about continued development, I would like to point out my soon to be released Vassal module for C&S play. Those of you that have followed other discussions know that I have modified the specific combat rules greatly. What I have not done is altered the second principle.
I believe that this C&S module, if others find it playable, will be a major change for tabletop RPG's. Unlike WoW, which is pseudo real time, this application will be turn based. Unlike White Wolf RPGs, truly detailed combat is made available. Unlike D&D, the detailed combat should be realistic, while the number of rules will be relatively few. And it should be easier to play, provide graphics, and allow one or more remote players in a tactical encounter (Especially if a large tabletop (horizontal) graphics screen with a touch sensitive screen is used. Yes Virginia, this devoice was demostrated at Comdex last summer.)
I am hoping to play test parts of the module in August. (Vassal 3.2 has been delayed until September, so certain calculations will still be handled manually.) Turn sequencing and action selection should work. I will attempt to get complete graphics for a reach of 8 cubits (up to 4 hexes reach) completed, but may limit this alpha test version to 4-6 cubits (2-3 hexes reach.) Again a feature in Vassal 3.2 would make the graphics much easier to document, and thereby modify in the future.
Though I am certain that parts of how this module actually work will need fine tuning, I'm convinced that it should simulate C&S combat systems fairly accurately, even though there are major changes in the specifics.
The To Hit matrix is now based on relative PCF and situational factors (flanking, rear, multiple opponents, defensive tactics) The matrix is oriented around a 50% chance of hitting for characters of equal PCF.
Critical hits are reduced to 1%. Critical hits are also achieved by first hitting your opponent , and then overcoming the characters' armour. This number is a calculation based on weapon speed and type. Edged weapons biting force(edge pressure) is conditionally reduced by a strike angle die roll. Weapon speed is dependent on the amount of time the stroke takes, with higher speeds occurring later in the swing and by characters of greater strength. Thrusts depend on speed (relative movement) and weight behind the strike (character size and weight carried.) Rotating weapons, though costing fatigue continuously, can be moving at high speed in the first strike hex. Arrows have very high speeds at close range, or when raining down.
Armour is location specific.
Fatigue costs and time to complete an action is highly dependent on how encumbered a character is.
So as I see it, C&S is developing. In fact, it is developing much more rapidly than D&D from my perspective. The current D&D Vassal modules and computer aids from other sites are not nearly as advanced. Though Fantasy Grounds II does have a neat dice roller.
To return to the point made by Padster regarding the older 1st and 2nd system of Blows I agree, that with regards to extremes, yes this is true but with regards to the norms or average not so.
With regards to extreme situations. We found that if you have a situation where a very experienced fighter with a high PCF was up against a very weak adversary with but a couple or a few blows at best, the experienced fighter usually vanquished or killed the weaker opponent in the first 2-3 blows anyway. The need to get into the 4th or 5th or even the 6th blow where the experienced fighter reins supreme was fairly rare.
However, when facing a situation where both adversaries were more equal or the disparity was less then the situation might be greatly different. You might still have a situation where the weaker opponent has 3-4 blows and the experienced opponent might have 5-6 blows but this disparity was usually no more than 2-3 blows between them, "at most".
Now when you have a more "average" situation where the opponents are closer in ability as written above and the number of blows difference is only 2 or 3 blows then the weaker opponent has the advantage. He can use the two blows that his enemy has to swing, strike or fire to use in pure defense "free". Ed and his crew knew that PCF and the differing numbers of available blows between opponents would create situations like Padster describes but introduced this extra defense into the game to reduce the disparity. I like it and so does my group, they know that even when facing an opponent that has more blows than them they can count on their shield to protect them when needed.
In the case where one is facing an adversary who is clearly superior and you do not have a shield is a problem and one I have not really fixed as yet but I felt that the same rule could apply for shields, you gain two free FULL Dodges to allow you to defend against incoming blows even if you run out of attacking options.
Yes, I will agree, that the Blows system has its flaws and when you do have those situations where an combatant has 3 blows and his opponent has 6, 7 or even 8 blows problems are going to cause the weaker opponent a great deal of worry but like I said, C&S combat is lethal when used correctly and such a fight usually ends in the first few blows anyway. The closer the two adversaries are the shorter the disparity in blows which cancels the argument out to an extent.
I will admit these situations do occur where one foe has 32-3 blows and the other 5-6 or more and the blows do go up beyond the 4-5 mark but these situations are fairly low in occurrence. It is MUCH more common for a typical fight to end a Combat turn where the more experienced opponent defeated his adversary quickly or the weaker opponent managed to hold off the extra attacks with defense until the next Combat turn.
What I have an issue with is like Padster eluded too and that is the weaker opponent suddenly gets into a situation where he is out of blows or options and has to pretty much wait until the next Combat turn in order to suddenly find a second wind in order to be able to start exchanging blows once again. Yes, I agree, this is very choppy and chunky but if it is understood by all around the table that this is the system mechanics and how it works and is the same for everyone then it becomes less of an issue or problem. The players accept it and continue the excitement of the game.
As for the AP system I cannot say too much, I own both 3rd and 4th editions and read it all but was repelled by it. M friends also looked at it and did not like it either, to them it seemed to be too much effort to try to coordinate the sequence of events and the GM and players having to look at charts to establish the correct order of events. For us at least the Blows system takes that out and replaces it with a easily defined sequence of events and exchanges even if the disparity of two extreme adversaries creates situations where one foe has twice the blows as his adversary.
To be perfectly honest I think this is pretty accurate and realistic anyway. It stands to reason that a very experienced fighter with great skill is going to swing a flurry of blows against a foe who is much less skilled. 2:1 striking opportunities or 3:1 striking opportunities is not out of the question, it is just the mechanic that is used to show it that is of importance. It makes no real difference whether you use a Blows system as defined in C&S 1st - 2nd or the AP system of 3rd or 4th to show it. They both give you the result you need based on the situation, it is just a matter of preference as to which mechanic you prefer to use. Both have their advantages and both have their disadvantages.
With regards to modernisation of the AP system over the Blows system I do not really agree, I do not think the Blows system is a cast back to the dark old days of steam engines or a mechanic from the vault of time. It is a very workable and usable game mechanic that works well when all agree with it, understand it and like it.
The Blows system it must be remembered has also a "Reach" and "Speed" mechanic for all weapons which do add a great deal of scope for different or changing situations in the blows exchanges and does create situations where adversaries are caught off guard, on the back foot or in precarious situations. This greatly adds to the system mechanics for Blows and the combinations they create which dilute the argument against the system to a good extent.
One could argue that an adversary with a high PCF and a light weapon facing a weaker opponent with a Heavy weapon creates situations of unbalance or sudden situations where the weaker opponent is caught in the 3rd or 4th blows with nothing to do but this is wrong, if he has a shield he gets two extra FULL Active defensive blows anyway. Once those two blows are used up he can still use the rest of the exchanges (if any) to Half Dodge. Also, even if hit in he torso region he still gets to have his shield block the blows if they land. If the opponent without blows does not have a shield he still gets to use his Half Dodge for the rest of the exchanges anyway.
In conclusion I don't think that the Blows system is a jump back into the dark ages at all, it is a very detailed yet simple game mechanic that was used in the game we all love for well over 20 years before the AP system was published, it was thorough, workable and very usable, players enjoyed it and lived with it even if it did create situations where two foes might have a huge blow disparity. Two foes with greatly differing abilities, experience and blow opportunities is what combat is all about.
Seeing an less experienced combatant come up against a very experienced foe is a very common situation. Many times in reenactment groups I have seen these les experienced fighters go in with full intentions of taking on the more experienced fighter and swing, blow for blow at first but then they quickly find out that the experienced fighter has much more to fire off and the lesser experienced foe ends up under a flurry of attacks and unable to respond and goes down. This usually happens fairly quickly well within the first 10 to 30 seconds. It is only when you have two evenly matched opponents where the fights last longer and incidentally, two evenly matched inexperienced opponents often have fights that last awhile as well even if the opportunity to strike are less due to the inexperience.
Padster, it is good to see you back and debate with you, I remember our exchanges several years ago and enjoyed the debates. This is what makes the question so interesting, we all prefer differing styles and mechanics of play and probably always will. Good to have you back.
On another totally different note, the question is ; Who was it that actually re-wrote this new Red Book ?
I would love to find out who it is and get them into this forum to explain their motives, direction and any other additions or ideas they came up with. It is clearly obvious that these guys are really devoted to the edition and the work they have done really shows this...
After rapidly reading the "C&S5 edition", I'm wondering if this version of C&S deserves the right to be called "C&S5"? I'd rather call it "C&S1.1"
It looks like it's the same old Red Book, with some nice additions to it. I suppose that when the "real C&S5" will eventually come out (if it does), it will use the SkillSkape system and most of the rules that were covered by C&S4?
The game mecanics are unchanged from the 1st ed and is a mix of C&S1 and C&S2.
But can we consider a new version only based on it's mecanic?
I'm not sure (ie AD&D, AD&D2, ...).
With C&S5 we have a lot of new stuff (new classes, new spells, additional text, new fighting and religious orders, new religion & cults, ...) and we get back our Black Magick, Tolkien races, fighting & magical orders, ...
I don't know what Scott Bizar have in mind but I'm happy of this new version and I hope this is only a first step for C&S6
I have printed off a great deal of this book, the data in it is superb I must say. I especially like the information on Druids and the cults, this will go a long way in filling gaps I had previously. One of my players loves playing Druids and it is a constant battle getting info for him without having to jump into other systems. I did not like how 3rd and 4th editions designed Druids but this version in the red book is very good and sits well for what I like.
I agree. With C&S3 I loose my players and despite C&S4 they did not come back.
But they are very enthusiast with the 5th edition and we have began a new campaign for 3 weeks. Two of my players choose the druidic religion (cult of Beli Mawr and Morrigan) and are pleased of this new stuff.
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 7:31 pm Post subject: This is not 5th Edition C&S...
...it is as someone has already said C&S 1.1 Edition.
I have contacted the chaps who own C&S and they ARE working on an official C&S 5th edition. I did ask them to come over here and post this fact, but they clearly have not had the time yet and I don't want to say anything about it for fear of it being wrong, or that they may not want anything specific in the public domain yet.
Suffice to say, the 1.1 must therefore be the work of an enthustastic C&S GM/Player, but it certainly IS NOT C&S 5th edition.
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:17 pm Post subject: Re: This is not 5th Edition C&S...
the chaps who own C&S and they ARE working on an official C&S 5th edition.
it's been a long time since 2000...
many fans got the feeling of being deserted
is it the issue of the official/unofficial 5th ed that make them to awake?
the 1.1 must therefore be the work of an enthustastic C&S GM/Player
do someone on this list got in touch with FGU to confirm?
I feel very strange this edition get FGU logo on the cover as well as the introduction and afterward by Scott Bizar
If it's true, who have done this? what is their goal?
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:10 pm Post subject: Re C&S 5th Edition
This is an official statement from Brittannia Game Designs Ltd.
5th Edition - The current 5th edition is still in production and anything released on the internet is bogus.
Fact - Chivalry & Sorcery and C&S are registered trademarks of Brittannia Game Designs Ltd
Fact - The rights to C&S were sold by FGU to Highlander and then by Highlander to BGD (we have a letter from Scott Bizar comfirming this)
Fact - Wilf Backhaus is trying to release a new edition but with no regard to our legal rights.
Despite requests to desist he continues in his own meglomania way. I have therefore given advise that we intend to instruct the British Embassy to look after the interests of a UK product abroad. We will look into this release on the internet and will pursue any breaches of copyright and seek damages for the use of our trademarks.
Steve A Turner
Brittannia Game Designs Ltd
does it mean the 5th was made by Wilf Backhaus with the support of Scott Bizar?
this will explain the logo of FGU on the cover and the unpublished writings of Ed & Wilf in this new edition.
on the other hand, Ed is dead and the only remaining author of C&S is now Wilf.
can an author be expelled from its original creation?
and what about the lawfulness of a new C&S version from BGD if none of the two creators did not participate in the design of the game?
C&S is not only a title, it's also a concept Ed & Wilf instiled and I don't think other people could have their views (I may be wrong)
IMHO, BGD should find an agreement with Wilf to save the soul of C&S otherwise fans could turn away from the future official version like it was the case when C&S3 was issued
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum