Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:37, 1 March 2007

Archives

1

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.

"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 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… 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 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: --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 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 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)

"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.

Criticism of business practises

I thought I'd add this in here, and hope someone else could maybe add it in a wiki type fashion. One of my friends runs a local gaming shop here in the UK. They used to be on very good terms with GW, and had semi-regular tournaments, etc etc. Games Workshop explicitly told them (several times) that GW would NOT be opening up a store here. After a few years, they did. (Verbal contracts, etc etc) Which might not seem like much offhand, but GW were essentially using the games store to "test the water" and suchforth, make sure there was enough of an audience, etc etc before opening a store. When the GW shop opened, my friends store business (unsuprisingly) hit rock bottom. This in itself may just seem like pointless bitching, except I've heard of them doing the exact same tactic (and in some cases, destroying smaller stores entire revenue) in several places. While its not illegal, its not exactly nice. Also, the white dwarf magazine has changed substantially over the years. Back in ye olde days, (like, issue 50) it was essentially a gamers magazine. Cartoons, games reviews (of things other than GW as well), etc etc. Today its more like a thinly disguised XX page advert. The aim of the magazine has obviously been reduced from adult to young teenage male (which is what the product seems to be aimed at anyway.) Incidentally, and Im not sure how 100% true this is but someone with better knowledge of GW product can probably verify this or not- I was told that GW releases a new version of a game (Warhammer / 40k, etc) every 4 years, as this is the expected "cycle" of their audience. (ie, their target is 10-14 year olds) And lastly (apologies for the extended bitch) I've noticed that GW are extremely happy to fold a product if it isnt meeting targets. Remember man'o war? How many articles do you see on that in white dwarf? --80.41.201.188 13:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

None of this is suitable for adding to the article unless you can cite reliable sources to support this in accordance with Misplaced Pages's policy on verifiability. Cheers --Pak21 14:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, nvm then. Feel free to delete it, I just thought I'd throw my personal experiences in. --80.41.201.188 22:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

All the experiences are commonly cited concerns, however they don't conform to wikipedia's scrutiny which can't include 'just ask someone' as sources, dispite however many people you'll find agreeing. Unfortunate in some cases, but I don't think it will be long before someone publishes an exposé of GW's buisiness practices and thus provides a reliable source. The gazumping of local game shops isn't something I've experienced myself though, as most of these I find tend to drop their prices of GW products by the 20% that GW allow them to (they are not allowed to drop their prices lower than this so they don't compete too much with Games Workshop's prices - ironic eh?) White Dwarf is most definately rather useless as a magazine now, with massive converage of new releases, coming soon's, etc. rather than actual hobby articles. It's all most unfortunate as I believe that on the lower tiers, GW is still a company run by passionate fans and the problem lies with those at the very top who are exploiting them. Xzamuel 22:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The major issue with the criticisms is that these are mostly legitimate business practices as opposed to illegal ones (false accounting, corruption of government personnel). And are they actually notable as such - GW has for a long while now been focussed on producing money from its products but that is not unusual for businesses with stockholders.GraemeLeggett 14:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't say they were particularly notable, but in the case of Games Workshop it's these practices that have caused a major rift within the fanbase and also contrasts greatly with the ethos that the company projected and put into practice less than a decade ago, it has been a very rapid change of tac that seems contrary to what many old school fans 'signed on for', whether it's notable though remains open to debate. Xzamuel 23:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm. An encyclopidia isent realy the place to put you gripes on how a company changed in a way you don't like. Facts please. Wikipidia is not here for people to give ther two penth' worth on how things change. Write that they have changes, but only if you can give quantifiable data and sorces, not "they made it for kids to make more money". Thats calld running a buisness. If they haddednt changed theyd have gon under.

The shift in White Dwarf from a multi-system RPG magazine to a Games-Workshop product only magazine - which occured between issues 60-100 is well documented in the letters pages and editorials of the magazine itself, so that at least is verifiable. --Davémon 22:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Miniatures

"Games Workshop originally produced miniature figures via an associated, originally independent, company called Citadel Miniatures (of which Maurauder Miniatures was an imprint)" - Marauder Miniatures were not an imprint of Citadel, they were a range of figures sculpted by (or for) two Citadel sculptor (Ally and Trish morrison iirc), and Marauder was a completely seperate company. At some point, the range was brought into the main Citadel fold (brought out? folded?). More info, and a link, can be found in the Archived discussion page. 86.133.30.68 17:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Darkson

More info on Marauder: http://www.solegends.com/marauder/index.htm 86.133.5.201 16:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Darkson

Why did someone put the incorrect statement back into the Minatures section? Marauder (which is also being incorrectly spelt each time) was NOT originally an imprint of Citadel.86.132.144.114 11:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Darkson

Magazines

"Games Workshop also published Fanatic Magazine in support of their Specialist Games range, but it was discontinued after issue 10, though it lives on in electronic form however this also appears to have been discontinued since it has not been updated since late october 2006." - Incorrect. Since Oct 2006, the online version of Fanatic Magazine has moved from a weekly to monthly schudule of publishing. Last released 14th December 2006.86.133.30.68 17:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Darkson

External links

"*Heresy Online Large Warhammer 40k Forum covering all aspects of the hobby."

With 113 members, does this really count as a "large" 40k forum? Darkson 05:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)