in a superhero rpg. Also, the short rules do not really provide enough background material and world-design advice for a full-scale role-playing game." Marc Weidenbaum reviewed Villains and Vigilantes in The Space Gamer No. 29. Weidenbaum commented that "Villains and Vigilantes is a good, firm, introductory role-playing game with easy-to-learn rules. If you are a game master from another 'world' you can, with little difficulty, adapt these rules to fit almost any other role-playing game." William A. Barton reviewed the revised Villains and Vigilantes in The Space Gamer No. 62. Barton commented that "if you're really into superhero adventure, I'd recommend giving revised Villains and Vigilantes a try. If you decide you still like Champions or Superworld better, well, you can always use V&V to help you decide what powers to purchase in another system when your superintelligence is on patrol near Arcturus IV." Reviews Different Worlds #32 (Jan./Feb., 1984) Pegasus #11 (Dec. 1982) Fantastic Science Fiction v27 n10 2011 legal dispute The game's creators were involved in a legal dispute with Fantasy Games Unlimited since 2011. They claimed that Fantasy Games Unlimited, Inc. ceased to exist in 1991, and that their contract specified that in such an event the contracted publication rights would revert to them, and that therefore the current Fantasy Games Unlimited (which they claim is a separate legal entity, although with the same owner) had no right to sell V&V material. A court case filed in U.S. Federal court, Arizona district (REFERENCE: case no. 2:2011-cv-02036) supported the claim by Fantasy Games Unlimited that the owner properly followed procedure to continue with the obligations of the New York business entity in continued operations as the Arizona entity. The case also asserted that at the time of its dissolution in New York, FGU was current on all obligations with that state and in good standing which then devolved into the entity now operating simply as Fantasy Games Unlimited. A judgment given on July 11, 2012, on the first two counts of case no. 2:2011-cv-02036 in U.S. Federal court, Arizona district ruled in favor of Scott Bizar resulting in Jeff Dee and Jack Herman being found guilty of defamation and unfair business practice and causing unspecified damages to the plaintiff. More judgments on other counts were still pending as of that date. The judgment ordered (not withstanding any other punitive measures to be determined for damages on all counts)