Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Space Hulk holds a special place in my heart for a few reasons.

1. When I was first getting into 40k my parents gave me the choice of a single box to get started. It was the opening of the main (and now long since gone) GW store in Australia, so they had everything there from Space Hulk to Doom of the Eldar.

I was deciding between Space Hulk and Tyranid Attack. I went with Tyranid Attack, but that cover with the Blood Angel Termy sitting in the store - they had SO MANY boxes of them - always sticks in my mind.

2. Space Hulk is part of why I have such an obsession with tiles, maps and terrain. When I decided I wanted to get a copy of Space Hulk it had been years since even the 2nd Ed had been on sale, so to eBay I went, picking up 1st Ed, Deathwing, Genestealer and 2nd Ed (in French, weirdly) plus, somehow, a second set of Tyranid attack all very quickly and, at the time, for not so small a price.

I found that the 1st Ed and 2nd Ed tiles, whilst different in art style, were all compatible, and I was hooked on making big layouts. When 3rd Ed came out I even took a 1st Ed tile to my local GW and checked to make sure they fit together!

Now I have more tiles that is sane, even going so far as to buy entire games that I've never played just to get the tiles (1st Ed DOOM being a great example).

3. There was a thread a little while back about our fav units in 40k, and I believed I answered 'Genestealers'. Space Hulk is the perfect venue for such creatures, evoking Aliens (which I also loved) whilst also giving us tight and intense games that play out differently each time. I love Genestealers, and I have a bout 100 of those original Space Hulk 'Stealers. I still think they're fantastic. Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever played Space Hulk as the Marines.

I even remember when one of Dad's old school friends from England came to visit us years ago, and they went out for dinner leaving me in charge of their two young boys. Didn't know what to do with them until I broke out Space Hulk. We were still playing it when our parents all got back from dinner late that night.

Terrific game, and thanks to Mr Halliwell for bringing it to the world.

animal310 wrote:

JWBS wrote:

 Wiz Warrior wrote:
anyone who has met him could confirm to the one in charge of that content wether or not its them.

Right, so all this would indicate is that no-one on the current WD team has ever met him or his namesake. That's literally all this shows, unless you think that the current editor/proof readers should all be routinely required to get their work checked by JJ/Chambers/Paul Sawyer/Thornton, or whomever else could have reasonably be expected to spot this.

"unless you think that the current editor/proof readers should all be routinely required to get their work checked by JJ/Chambers/Paul Sawyer/Thornton, or whomever else could have reasonably be expected to spot this"

Or conduct a two minute google search. Hardly back breaking research required. Their names are very similar however an email to one of the people mentioned, or someone who still works at the company who would have known one or both men would also have caught this.

Yes, so a check by any of those four guys I mentioned, every time someone writes a piece. If an additional layer of checking could have prevented this mistake, the same can be said of any relevant check relating to any other previous mistake. So I guess that's what needs to be done in future. Jesus, instead of printing a picture of a guy that used to work for them several decades ago they instead used a pic of another guy that used to work for them several decades ago and happens to have a strikingly similar name. I don't know why this is such an appalling display of disrespect, incompetence and slovenliness (or sloppy, shameful and insulting, since you've made it clear you don't like any sort of paraphrasing). Maybe I just lack that "Put your manager on!" mindset.

JWBS wrote:

animal310 wrote:

JWBS wrote:

 Wiz Warrior wrote:
anyone who has met him could confirm to the one in charge of that content wether or not its them.

Right, so all this would indicate is that no-one on the current WD team has ever met him or his namesake. That's literally all this shows, unless you think that the current editor/proof readers should all be routinely required to get their work checked by JJ/Chambers/Paul Sawyer/Thornton, or whomever else could have reasonably be expected to spot this.

"unless you think that the current editor/proof readers should all be routinely required to get their work checked by JJ/Chambers/Paul Sawyer/Thornton, or whomever else could have reasonably be expected to spot this"

Or conduct a two minute google search. Hardly back breaking research required. Their names are very similar however an email to one of the people mentioned, or someone who still works at the company who would have known one or both men would also have caught this.

Yes, so a check by any of those four guys I mentioned, every time someone writes a piece. If an additional layer of checking could have prevented this mistake, the same can be said of any relevant check relating to any other previous mistake. So I guess that's what needs to be done in future. Jesus, instead of printing a picture of a guy that used to work for them several decades ago they instead used a pic of another guy that used to work for them several decades ago and happens to have a strikingly similar name. I don't know why this is such an appalling display of disrespect, incompetence and slovenliness (or sloppy, shameful and insulting, since you've made it clear you don't like any sort of paraphrasing). Maybe I just lack that "Put your manager on!" mindset.

Now I don't agree with giving GW a pass on this, but I don't agree with giving GW a pass on any of the mistakes in books they have made that are easily preventable since they have the time and funds to make both situations a rarity, and not the norm. So at least I am consistent?

However, I do believe a lot of the way some of us feel is that we are a culture that elevates our dead. A look at the way Michael Jackson is seen after their death... and the way many see him as a cultural icon (and ignore the accusations around him, and his oddities). So, disrespecting a GW icon like that, is something many take a bit more seriously, as they are one of our hobby icons.

I understand that this was an likely honest mistake by some intern formatting the article that has never met or heard of Richard Halliwell, it just feels like poor form to post a picture of not only the wrong person that passed away, but somebody who also creates the childhood dreams for a lot of our older gamers on the forum. Makes it a bit more personal.

The worst Obituary I ever read happened to be GW related, it was what Demski-boski wrote for Alan Bligh. Look it up if you want to see what solipsism in obituary form looks like. It's basically a story about Demsonbowski, with a bit of Alan Bligh thrown in. Simultaneously amazing and appalling.

JWBS wrote:
The worst Obituary I ever read happened to be GW related, it was what Demski-boski wrote for Alan Bligh. Look it up if you want to see what solipsism in obituary form looks like. It's basically a story about Demsonbowski, with a bit of Alan Bligh thrown in. Simultaneously amazing and appalling.

Get a hold of yourself, he wrote that mere hours after his friend had died and utterly shaken with grief. Hardly the time any compassionate person would be able to form a well-considered, structured and objective orbituary. Pain is subjective and so is that text.

So what are you saying, three stars out of five?

So wild to see people defend the editor of a magazine failing to do his job and on an obit no less.

animal310 wrote:

JWBS wrote:
Lol wtf. Yeah sure this clerical mistake is truly a heartless and sinister move on their part, thanks for the genuine and non-hysterical characterisation of the situation.

It not heartless and sinister, it’s sloppy, and when it regards someone’s death, more respect and care should be taken.

Absolutely.

I would say that you need to reed the room here JWBS and realise this is probably a pretty poor situation to White Knight.

Indeed Pacific. Opinions contrary to your own are likely as not just some form of sycophancy.

Cronch wrote:
So wild to see people defend the editor of a magazine failing to do his job and on an obit no less.

You can take the editor out of Privateer Press, but you can't take the Privateer Press outta the editor.