Talk:Games Workshop/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Early Epic games

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)

Fair and balanced

I appreciate their are a lot of discruntled GW gamers out there, but this page needs a fair and balanced approach. I am prepared to add a lot of info to this site, but any other contributors need to take a more balanced attitude towards the company please.

Bob the Ringwraith?

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)

The Silmarillion licencing is verifiable, but as for "Bob the Ringwraith", perhaps Adam Troke was merely joking when he recalled his attempts to include Khamul from Unifinished Tales. However, this is still the accepted belief of the gaming community. If it is truly believed to be unverifiable, then perhaps it should be confined to the Lord of the Rings page Grimhelm 18:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Licensing

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)

• I think we have to consider whether the information we have is verifiable or not. Unfortunately, the GW forum link on the page appears to be dead (and it's not in the Wayback Machine as far as I can tell). Does anyone have any sources for any of this? Cheers --Pak21 16:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Try this one, saved from the GW forum: [1] It is, of course, up to you to decide how verifiable it is, but not only does the story recur on a variety of posts on the GW forum, but it is also accepted by both the GW Gaming Community (which is what the article states) and also by a number of GW staff running the forum (including Adam Troke himself). However, if you still feel unhappy with its suitability for the article, maybe we should just contact Adam Troke directly.

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)

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)

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 ([2]), 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)

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)

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)

BloodQuest?

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)

Wages

Whilst £14000 may be low wages it seems a little unfair to say: "Games Workshop also pays very low wages, despite its success", as most shops pay this amount, many to deputy managers and managers, even large corporations with turnovers in the billions.

£14000 is a fair market wage, even for a shop which requires in depth knowledge of the products.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.65.170 (talk • contribs)

The idea that 14k is low could be called opinion, okay. However, I'm reinserting a suitably NPOV reference to it because the original wording was something like "below 14000" - I know GW employees who make twelve and a half K at stores with "london weighting", which is near poverty line and grossly exploitative. It should be aired.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.99.119 (talk • contribs)

I have re-removed the information. It is unsourced that they pay less than £14000 pa - if you have a source for this then please insert it. Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiability-Localzuk ^(talk) 23:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It should not be too hard to find a source, just ask any employee to scan their paycheck in the interest of encyclopedicity. Furthermore "Wikipedia is not about truth..." is an excellent catchphrase, and one I will be using often from now on. After all, let's face it, most of what we're doing here really isn't benefiting the sum total of human knowledge one rusty iota. --Agamemnon2 06:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The idea of scanning a paycheck seems a lot like original research - as it is a single example of a person's wage. We need some sort of verifiable, reliable source for it really (a publication of some kind is the normal requirement).

Also, that catch phrase is not mine - it is Jimbo Wales IIRC. -Localzuk ^(talk) 07:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I have it on the authority of several employees that the stated pay figures are correct. Obviously, I can't start naming names!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.96.123 (talk • contribs)

I am sorry but that is original research which is not allowed. It must come from a publication rather than word of mouth I am afraid. -Localzuk ^(talk) 18:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

In reference to my original comment, whilst I agree that there wages may be low, I feel that it is unfair, if not libels, to use this to imply that Games Workshop are somehow immoral for paying these wages.

In a previous job I was paid less than £12000 for working in a specialised Aquatics shop, a job which required knowledge and responsibility far above and beyond that of a Games Workshop employee (No insult to them, they have helped me many times). This was in the south west, an area with a cost of living as high as many areas of London.

I just feel that it is unfair to single out a company in this way.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.65.170 (talk • contribs)

"Go ask" is an entirely valid method of verifying a fact.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.96.123 (talk • contribs)

I am afraid that 'go ask' is not a valid method of verification as it does not comply with wikipedia verifiabity, reliability and original research policies. Please cite a publication for the fact. If you cannot, we cannot simply assume that it is because you say you have experience of it or other personal comments. If we go down this road, we will end up with an encyclopedia which is impossible to verify.

PS. Please sign your posts by typing for tildes like ~~~~ as it aids archiving and also allows for people to follow a discussion better. Also, please indent comments by inserting colon : marks before your comment (1 for each indentation level) - but don't go to far, around 8 indentations is where you should start again without any indentation. -Localzuk ^(talk) 23:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I used to work At Games workshop and was paid £10500 per year. This amount was tru as of 2005. This amount was scandalous. The job That staff Carry out is huge. They have their normal "shop" duties, Teaching duties, Specialised knowledge duties, unpaid over time duties and much more the 10.5K was a joke TBH

AP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.25.109.194 (talk • contribs) .

I refer you to my previous comment about working in an aquatics shop. Fair market wages. I feel I was under paid, but I do not use Wikipidia to vent that, because it was not the shops fault, but one of socioty as a whole. I worked out what I earned there the other day. £11600. Thats life. Witipidia is not about our personal issues. Its about facts. Lets keep it that way. If you realy want to put something about wages please put something like "there pay is on avrage £*****" then give a sorce. Let people make there own minds up.

Comments and Criticisms Section Sources

I have just read through this section again, and even though I agree with the claims, it needs references for every point made.

I think that we should put a timeframe on removing unsourced information from the section, else it will just sit there forever without any references. How about 2 weeks?-Localzuk ^(talk) 21:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"Going into a Games Workshop store can sometimes be rather intimidating, as the staff are often known for their enthusiastic, but potentially intimidating sales banter."

Removed the above as personal opinion. If you find a newspaper or trade journal which supports this, feel free to quote them and put it back in. Epistolary Richard 10:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Beginnings

Do we have any more information about when and where Games Workshop actually began? There's no "History" part to this article. Colonel Marksman 15:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent article in White Dwarfs issues 300 and 301 (iirc correctly - I'd need to find the specific issues to check) going back to the Steve Jackson days. Wheter GW would allow the articles to be used, else someone with excellent re-writing skills will need to take a look. 86.16.42.154 22:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Darkson

There are some articles in white dwarf 304, the issue celebrating 30 years of games workshop that should also help give more background on games workshop.

Marauder miniatures

"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) Darkson

GW around the world

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) Darkson

Note: GW Australia actually only stock the Mordheim range, not Necromunda.

Misrepresented quotes

"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)

What a monopoly is and what it isn't

"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)

It's tricky. I'd say that GW did have a 'virtual' monoploy: a bit like microsoft: you can choose not to use their products, but if you don't, you'll have trouble finding people to play against. It makes zero sense for a company to compete with GW: they have a vicegrip on their market, lots and lots of brand loyalty, and great products. They have no real competition, and therefore can jack up their prices as much as they want. --Gunny01 04:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• I wouldnt exactly say that GW could "jack up their prices as much as they want" - even the most hardcore wargamer can recognise when they are being ripped off. Fairer to say that GW have a very great degree of freedom in setting its prices--Crais459 07:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• GW has enough competitors to make any claim of monopoly utterly ludicrous. --Agamemnon2 10:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think it's a ludicrous claim at all, what genuine competition does GW have? The next 'biggest' wargame is Warmaster, and I don't see Warmaster stores in every major city and then some...--Xzamuel 23:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• mo·nop·o·ly n. pl. mo·nop·o·lies. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service

Games Workshop does not have a monopoly on producing or selling toy soldiers or rules sets to use them. The lack of credible competitors in an industry does not make the sole profitable company guilty of having a monopoly on said product or the means to sell it. A company is not responsible to ensure the "equality" of its competition to its own efforts. The "Warmaster" example above is patently absurd. Do some research on what a monopoly on a product or service really is.

Comments and critisism

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)

• I think it's quite fair and rings true... the complaints about the Necron and Tau army lists are perhaps too much like someone's personal opinion but the rest, I think, is fine. I say this as someone who is a loyal slave to GW and their products but very disappointed at mainly the financial aspect of it all. --Xzamuel 23:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I took the liberty of removing the Tau and Necron part, it said that the limited troop choices are "against the spirit of the game" without citing sources and if I would place my own opinion on this talk page, I feel that the limiting of the Necron's was a good move since it both limits min/maxing and can make the player think more of tactics then army list though once again that's just my opinion.
  • If you want my personal opinion, I agree with you. In fact it even says on an article on the GW website that the Necrons were deliberately designed to have a limited troops choice to emphasise that they used a mass of unstoppable troops, which fits with their fluff quite nicely. That article is pretty much a source to disprove the opinion that appeared previously.--Xzamuel 19:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Other Games

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)

Inflation-busting price rises

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).

Perhaps, but Games Workshop's games are highly money-intensive, requiring purchase of figures, paints, painting supplies, assorted books, even, at prices that, frankly, seem a bit too high. (AnonWikiman)

"Comments and criticism" and LoTR

The comments on LoTR in the "comments and criticisms" section are massively POV. It basically says that LoTR is a far superior system to the other two, ignoring the criticisms that it is less tactically interesting. Oh, and that "hardest to master" rubbish is, quite frankly, marketing cow faeces. --David Mestel^(Talk) 19:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, only one of the ten paragraphs in that section talks about The Lord of the Rings, and unlike most of the other "POV", it is actually referenced; saying that "hardest to master" rubbish is "marketing cow faeces", that is a complaint you should take up with UK White Dwarf 311 (2006), from which it is quoted. Or even GW's rulebooks:

Many of the special or detailed rules only apply in rarefied situations… [but] Although the basic game system might seem beguilingly simple, you will find it requires considerable skill to employ it effectively. (The Two Towers Strategy Battle Game Rulebook, page 5, 2002).

As for being "tactically boring", just because block formations aren't set in stone like many other wargames does not mean that they cannot still be used in the Lord of the Rings (the spear formation is a classic example); not that miniature wargames are military exercise, but real military commanders of, say, the Middle Ages for example did not calculate tactics in terms of "bonuses" received from formations.

This is what is meant by it being "most realistic and flexible of the three core games". In fact, it could be argued that because of the scale of battles, LotR is more tactical than Warhammer, whereas Warhammer is more strategic (tactics being the microcosm of a campaign/battle - strategy being a macrocosm). Grimhelm 08:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

But you still haven't cited a single source stating that it's the most realistic and flexible. --David Mestel^(Talk) 14:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are ten points regarding the game mechanics of LotR SBG compared to Warhammer, which I think qualifies as a suitable citation for the article: [3] --Grimhelm 19:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be a forum post, which would in general not be a reliable source. --Pak21 20:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Full-text online sources are as acceptable as offline sources if they are of similar quality and reliability.

I understand why, in general, a forum post is not a reliable source - however, this was not a forum post in it's original form; as stated at the top of the page, it was copied from another source before being posted; furthermore, it is not a forum post in its current form - it is in a stable form, retrieved and dated from the Official Games Workshop forum.

Since there are few official GW publications comparing the two systems, the source is an acceptable substitute in the absence of published material; it is, for the most part, a well laid out argument based on the game mechanics of the three systems. Granted, the final two paragraphs are opinions, but the ten points are verifiable by a simple comparison of the rulebooks. Given the current condition of the source, I believe it is an appropriate external link. Grimhelm 20:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It leads us down a slippery slope if it is allowed. I don't support its use for a couple of reasons - the site is an angelfire site and therefore isn't guarenteed any permanent lifetime and it is a forum post. -Localzuk ^(talk) 21:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There are few GW publications comparing the systems...so guess what? We don't compare them either! It's a POV minefield. --David Mestel^(Talk) 22:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well what about the references to other criticisms from Doordice.com and RPG.net (see subsection below) - they don't even provide links to the webpages in question! Grimhelm 16:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The "LoTR is the better than WFB" argument is stupid. GW is hardly a trustworthy source in this case as LotR was a very expensive investment for them and the game is struggling.

The anglefire post isn't any better because you could easily find dozens of forum posts on why WFB is better than LotR so you'd have to quote those, too. Which leads us to the real problem: WTF is a discussion on which GW game is the bestest evar doing in the criticism section of the GW article?!

Honestly, put the anti-WFB link in the WFB article's criticism and some anti-LotR link in that one. Or make a comparison page or whatever. It just doesn't belong here. 82.135.74.52 18:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Comments and Criticism" on reference to RPG.net

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) 1 February 2007 (UTC).

-- 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) 03:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

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)

come to think of it, for balance the other review [4] should be mentioned. GraemeLeggett 10:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not about business practises, no - but there's nothing about the comments and criticisms section that says it should be.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.153.198.246 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC).