In the Emperor’s Name! updated

By tgn_admin
In 40K
Aug 23rd, 2011
25 Comments
636 Views

In the Emperor’s Name! Core RulesGawd ‘Elp Us Games have posted an updated version of their free In the Emperor’s Name! gothic skirmish rules.

From their website:

Since its launch only a short while ago In the Emperor’s Name has created an enormous amount of interest amongst people who love the Warhammer 40K universe, but are not so enamoured of the rules that accompany it. We have had over 3,000 downloads from the blog alone.

The quality of feedback, from AAR’s to individual comments on the blog, the Yahoo Group and on other blogs and fora has been excellent. As a result we have been able to create a lot more material for this game as well as improve and clarify the rules.

Not all the good ideas that have come forward have been included in this edition. Some will be released individually on the blog, others in new supplements once we have enough material.

There is still a lot of the Warhammer 40K universe to explore, from Enslavers, Dark Eldar and Hive Fleet infiltration units, to new campaigns and dangerous locations. Anyone fancy hunting a Lictor on an Ice Planet or in the depths of the Catachan Jungle? More Psychic Powers and Special Abilities anyone? And who just loves the Assassins and their Temples?

We hope that you enjoy these rules.

  • kaiserx

    A free-unlicensed 40K game? on a 2nd edition? GW lawyers must be on vacation…

  • Zac

    Lets keep the comments to the item at hand please.

  • phoenixman

    is it me or does that face look a teeny bit like Gary Barlow from Take That? scary

  • keltheos

    On the plus side I skimmed two of the three files and they don’t grab any artwork from GW. Maybe this can survive as a fan-based work which references GW models but not the actual artwork/background (I see names but nothing much else).

    Good for them if it works, going to give it a read and see how it looks. Might be a nice swapout for Kill Teams. Even added in Squats and Slaan, kudos to them!

  • matholwch

    Hi guys, Craig from the Forge of War Development Group here.
    We have been careful not to use any GW images or artwork. We have no interest in impinging on their copyright in this way.
    Our rules allow gamers to explore the GW W40K universe in a new way, and may well result in GW making sales of many of their less popular (i.e. large battle-worthy) miniatures.
    Our work is also free and we don’t profit one iota from it, so I am hopeful we will be left alone.
    That aside, we are now working on a generic SF set, based on the same rules engine so if GW do put their legal foot down we shall still have the rules to distribute.
    Not only Slann by the wayKeltheos, but we have Zoats!! 🙂

    • keltheos

      Great (hadn’t seen the Zoats yet, still looking at it all…:) ).

      Yeah, non-profit and avoiding their imagery should help keep you guys safe. Hope it works out for you, looks fun. 🙂

      (and starting up a generic set is a good call just in case)

  • tajnisvet

    Guys, be careful, GW is certainly going to do same nasty work, no matter if there is a profit or not. They can’t take any chances to leave anyone using their copyrighted material.

  • PanzerKraken

    Isn’t that the Inquisition symbol on the cover dude’s forehead?

    • matholwch

      Nope, it’s a nasty birthmark 😉

    • Dahak

      IIRC the Inquisition symbol has three distinct crossbars, rather than a single chamfered one. And a Skull.

      Can’t forget the skulls. This picture is completely lacking in skulls. Almost as if he wanted to avoid being in that Michell and Webb sketch.

  • lordofexcess

    80%-90% of GWs IP is blatantly copied from somewhere else. They’ve been highly unsuccessful in recent years in stopping every single person who uses something that is remotely resembling something they have in print. Yet that was their policy 10 years ago if someone so much as thought about using something that could be wildly construed as being related to their product that person would receive a cease and desist letter. GW has been getting shut down all over the place as little mom and pop shops have been lawyering up and telling GW to go pound sand … just look on ebay and look all around the internet. Mantic for example .. ten years ago GW would have sent 100 cease and desist letters and been in court. Its been pretty quiet and I believe its a shift in policy on their part … in part because it really doesn’t hurt their business but also in part because they haven’t at all been successful in stopping it and really in the end it just gives them a PR black eye. I believe GW has a right to protect its IP but they often go too far in terms of what they consider their IP as so much of it is really generic, that said they do have alot of unique IP that I’m sure they could make compelling legal arguments pertaining to their ownership.

    • wachaza

      They don’t acknowldge any of the GW IP they do use-all the names for a start. Expect a legal letter. Even fan produced stuff needs to include the GW copyright statement.

  • Zac

    Folks, this isn’t an Intellectual Property blog. Its a tabletop gaming blog. Lets keep the IP debate in topics that specifically address it and not let it creep into every other topic.

  • Sevej

    I didn’t realize ITEN is made by the same guys who made FUBAR and Forge of War. The other two are pretty good lightweight rules… now I have to check this one out.

  • papasmrf667

    Nice i will give this a read through. What size games is it for?

  • KaneBlaireau

    Always up for some gothic sci-fantasy gaming! Will take a gander.

  • Kane856

    Having a go at this at the weekend – the symbol on the guys head isn’t exactly the inquisition symbol – similar but not the same ….

  • matholwch

    Papasmurf,
    ItEN is aimed at each player having a Retinue. This is a leader figure, such as an Inquisitor, and 4-10 supporters. Thus it is a skirmish game.
    As for GW, we just hit 2,500 downloads so the game is now out there in the public domain and cannot be redacted. Any action by them would now be moot.
    If they insist I shall take it down from the blog, but I shall only replace it with ItEN 3.0 in which all GW terms shall be replaced with suitable alternatives.
    They would be better off aiming at all the document distribution centres such as Scribd who allow the wholesale pdf description of GW IP.
    Cheers,
    Craig.

  • Craig, ITEN 2.0 is what I’ve dreaming of for years. Thank you and the FoW group for the effort, and keep up the good work. I can assure you the game is creating a lot of expectation in many spanish wargaming forums

  • Zero

    Looks great. I don’t play WH40K, nor I intend to start, but I badly looked for an excuse to purchase myself this miniature:
    http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1160013a

    Now I have that excuse 🙂

    • Talarius

      I don’t have a Daemon Hunters/Grey Knights army, but i bought several blisters of the retinue figures back when they first came out. Now I have a reason to use them! 🙂 (can’t remember if I bought an Inquisitor, though, so I may need that same figure you link above)

  • As said above, this ruleset can only help GW to sell more. They’d be stupid to ask it removed… But you never know.

  • tuco

    Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see a retinue entry for Arco-Flagellants.

    It is nice to see the Abhuman Guard in the Imperial Guard list. Believe it or not I have an old pewter GW beastman mini with carrying a chainsword and a plasma pistol. But now I’m showing my age.

    • I used that same model as one of my IG squad leaders for many years.

  • This looks really, really good. Amazing what you can sometimes get for free.