Talk:Games Workshop/Archive 1

message: Added the early Epic games to the OOP 40K section (Epic 40,000 already exists, Space Marine and Titan Legions do not). If I get chance, I'll contribute on Titan Legions. Lunrwolf 12:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Epic games 

message: The speculation around Silmarillion licensing and especially Khamûl the Easterling does not fulfill encyclopedic standards of verifiability. Statements like "it is unproven" and that something is "widely believed" by some unspecified group ought to be automatic markers for summary deletion of said material. --Agamemnon2 06:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob the Ringwraith? 

message: A user removed a large chunk of information from the page which was reverted complaining that it was incorrect. The user is connecting from GW so they probably know what they are talking about. Should we see if they will fix the information, are just trying to remove information to prevent people knowing or should we just removed it as they say it is incorrect and that 'Adam' was being misquoted. -Localzuk (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'd say that's good enough for me. I think the section could do with a tweak to make it clear that we're quoting someone quoting Mr(?) Troke. If the GW editor would like to provide any corrections, that would of course be much appreciated. Cheers --Pak21 19:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have brought it to GW's attention. Watch this link to see what they say: "Bob the Ringwraith" thread. Grimhelm 21:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, looking back at this, I have decided to remove the misquote. As a Lord of the Rings customer, I respect that the contract between GW and Tolkien Estate has a right to remain confidential. I also respect that Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. It's not that I'm biased in either way, it's just that GW never officially commented on their licence, so Wikipedia cannot give information on it. To leave it here would damage the reputation of GW, Tolkien Estate and Wikipedia as a whole, so it should no longer be here. Adam Troke never officially said it, but he never rejected it either, so even when it is removed from Wikipedia people of the GW forum will still believe it and Adam will unfortunately continue to be misquoted. I didn't invent this story, I heard it from another GW forum member (), and what the article says is "reportedly" and "it is widely believed". Wikipedia never took it as a primary source, therefore, but since it has been denied by what we can only assume is a server for Games Workshop, we have no choice to remove it, oterwise it might be seen as libel. Grimhelm 08:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with your logic there: GW never gave out any official commentary on the licence, but Wikipedia can give information on it, if it is obtained from unofficial sources. Wikipedia isn't (and definitely should not be) a place solely for GW press releases, which is what your logic would turn it into, or do you think we should also remove the comments about GW games being very expensive to collect, as GW have never said that? On the other hand, for this specific piece of information, I agree with it's removal, as its verifiability is now in doubt. I just don't want to see this establish a precedent for any piece of information being removed if we get an unofficial GW source denying it. Cheers --Pak21 15:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am only referring to this specific piece of information, since it has been denied by a Games Workshop IP address and Adam Troke himself, who it is of course referring to. Besides, it would bring up questions on how the information was obtained, since the contracts are private. Grimhelm 20:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Licensing 

message: Under the Licensing section, shouldn't some mention be made of the Bloodquest movie that work began on, but was never completed? Charax 04:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BloodQuest? 

message: "Games Workshop originally produced miniature figures via an associated, originally independent, company called Citadel Miniatures (of which Maurauder Miniatures was an imprint)"
If I remember my GW history correctly, Marauder Miniatures was a seperate company set up by 2 former GW sculptors/painters (the names Ally and Trish Morrision spring to mnd, though I can't be 100% on this), and went on to use both (at the time) former and current GW sculptors for it's own ranges.  Marauder miniatures, although not a GW company, were always acceptable for use in GW games, and were shown in both White Dwarf and other GW publications.
At some point, Maraduer was brought by GW and added to their range of figs (in fact afaik, some can still be brought from GW's mail order) 
A links: http://www.solegends.com/marauder/index.htm
86.16.42.154 21:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marauder miniatures 

message: Does some mention need to be made about the fact that the different territories (for example GW UK, GW US, GW Cananda, GW Australia, GW France) are not one-and-the-same and can make descisions on which ranges to stock regardless of the main companies goals (eg GW Australia refusal to stock any Specialist Games except Necromunda)? 86.16.42.154 22:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GW around the world 

message: "The first edition of the Warhammer 40,000 rules functioned much like a role playing game by using a 3rd player to act as a games master, and in 2003, Michael Sherwin, the company's finance director, stated that "A hobby game takes a whole day to play... is less about instant gratification" [1]. This statement reflects the style of play available under first edition, but is directly at odds with the then and now current third and fourth edition rules which allow you to play a tournament sized 1500pt game in under 2 hours."
It is extremely misleading to say that this quote from Mike Sherwin referred to the first edition style of play. The quote was given in 2003, at that time the current edition of 40K was _third_ edition (which was released in 1998). It's therefore the editor's opinion (and not Mike Sherwin's) that this quote reflects first edition better than third edition and it's inappropriate to try and imply otherwise. I've amended it to read as follows:
"The first edition of the Warhammer 40,000 rules functioned much like a role playing game by using a 3rd player to act as a games master, and in 2003, Michael Sherwin, the company's finance director, stated that "A hobby game takes a whole day to play... is less about instant gratification" [1]. Current third and fourth edition rules allow you to play a tournament sized 1500pt game in under 2 hours."Epistolary Richard 10:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misrepresented quotes 

message: "There is also evidence that Games Workshop may be abusing its monopoly position."
I'm not quite sure what market this editor considers Games Workshop to have a monopoly position. They don't even have a monopoly position in the tabletop wargames market as they have a relatively small footprint in historical wargames which is the traditional core of the tabletop wargames market - they're big players in the fantasy/sf tabletop wargames market, to be sure, but still not the only one. They do have a monopoly on Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 products - but that's because they created and own the brand - it's like saying that McDonalds have a monopoly on selling Big Macs.
As this sentence's removal would make the subsequently lines a non-sequitur, I've amended to read "Some GW fans consider the price of GW products excessive." It's a point of view that's pretty evident from this article but if someone can find a specific source then please add it. Epistolary Richard 11:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a monopoly is and what it isn't 

message: Is it just me or does much of that section seem to be a disgruntled rant? At one part it critisizes the Necron army layout! While a criticism section is fine does every single criticism need to be mentioned? Most fandoms have certain levels of criticism against whoever makes whatever they're fans of and while  GW might have above average amounts I doubt it deserves such a gigantic section. Johhny-turbo 04:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments and critisism 

message: Could I ask why the section on "The Games Workshop Game" was removed?  I realise that it wasn't entirely serious but I think it still deserves to be mentioned on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.42.65.42 (talk • contribs) .
:It is Wikipedia policy that all information in an article should be verifiable. Which reliable source includes the information on this "game", or is in fact something which was made up in school one day? Cheers --Pak21 13:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Games

message: A criticism concerning price rises in advance of inflation was removed. Since it did not state and cite the prevalent rates of UK inflation over the period indicated, the removal was probably correct, but since the criticism was valid I've reinstated it with more concrete references.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.153.198.246 (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inflation-busting price rises 

message: The review from RPG.net on the 3rd Edition of 40k does not contain such a critisism of the scale assumed (RPG.net Review Circa 1999)
Other notes appear more likely from an 'Elitist' attitude from old time gamers and roleplayers, and while I share many of the same sentiments, especially concerning the over inflated prices, being able to finish a game in a few hours after work (with the so-called 'dumbed down' rules) remains the best parts of a simple game system, rather than gargantuan battles that could last a weekend (those are still possible for the hardcore...). For me, there is still a satisfactry level of depth, without having to memorize a million rules, like in 2nd ed, where phases would last hours in large scale battles, and arguments would be the bane of an evenings gaming. 
I am not sufficiently experienced in the latest edition of 40k or fantasy, so I won't comment on those - for all i kno the new versions better fit the pattern for the critique displayed in this article. 
Blaene 16:33, 4th September 2006 (GMT)
I read the article, and the review. The author of the article was actually trying to support GW, and whoever put his review in the page did so out of context, citing not his statements but those of an opponent he played in 1998. So, I deleted it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.57.161.53 (talk • contribs).
-- You're reading the wrong review, from which some of the criticism was directly quoted. The actual source is here: http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_1182.html
As such, I'm going to reinstate the criticism.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.153.198.246 (talk • contribs).
Its a review of a newly launched game and less about GW business practices - I'd haver put it inthe wh40k article if anywhere. For the moment i left it there but it needed editing.GraemeLeggett 10:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: come to think of it, for balance the other review  should be mentioned. GraemeLeggett 10:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Comments and Criticism" on reference to RPG.net