Talk:Warhammer 40,000/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Opening Image

I would like, if I may, to suggest we open this article with a picture not of three Grey Knights but of the cover of the core rulebook. A shot similar to the one we have of Rogue Trader would be ideal.

  • Is there a reason we can't use the one which is currently half way down the page? --Pak21 09:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

what was wrong with the original image

the one with the three figurines?

Pece Kocovski 05:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

  • It was not representative of the game as a whole. The rulebook is. --Agamemnon2 07:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

External links

Natalinasmpf, I understand the point you're trying to make with your edits (and I know what the Manual of Style says), but I honestly don't think your edits improve the article: the timeline and galaxy map links are not "side-by-side" with internal links, and having two separate sections for computer game modifications is just messy. How about something where we make it clear in each of the sections which are internal and which are external links, rather than a robotic move of every external link to the end? Cheers --Pak21 16:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Well they are sort of side by side, because they are posed in the same context as internal links. A professional way, perhaps, would be to do it using footnotes. -- Natalinasmpf 19:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Need images!

We're on the verge of losing the majority of our Warhammer 40,000 miniature images, as the guys who run around 'Images For Deletion' have determined that using these images is a breach of copyright.

Thats the images from ALL of our character articles, and ALL of our army articles.

Now I'm trying to find a fair-use set of images, but it might be an idea - if you have any character models at home, painted up to a decent standard, snap a pic, upload it, and put it in the article.

Just a heads-up - Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 22:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

    • I've replaced what I can, but we'll have to think about replacing the fair use images I pulled from Games Workshop's website and replacing them with free use pics of our own devising. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 01:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe we should have more images of well painted models. The one that is there is a conversion that does not properally show the true nature of Warhammer 40k. If anyone could please put a variety of pictures of well-painted models, it would be very much appreciated!

  • We do what we can Mr/Mrs/Miss Anon. If you can provide us with an image that better encompasses the nature of conversion, we will be happy to take it. Picking on the image in the main body of the text is not the way to write an encyclopedic article on a subject, and all of these edits have been reverted. -- Saberwyn 01:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, and I apologize for my brash actions. It was not right to change the text in that manner. I would also want to supply this article with a conversion, but I do not have one at this time that could show what we need. I would also like to make an apology to the creator of the model in question. It actually isn't bad, and I made it sound worse than it is in an ecyclopedia article of all things. I guess I just want us to have a picture of a proffesionally done conversion for example, the ones in White Dwarf and on the official web site. Again what I did to this evcyclopedia article was improper and malacious.

I also want to kow who Anon is because it is not my name and I certainly did not pick it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.162.76.82 (talk • contribs) .

While the images of official Games Workshop conversions are obviously of high quality, we cannot license them under the GFDL, so we cannot use them in any future print or DVD publication, so the use of Free images is strongly encouraged. As for Anon, look it up in Wikipedia :-) Cheers --Pak21 09:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It would be better to have a high quality conversion and if any Golden Demon winners ( or anyone who doesn't have this ubelievable talent) are reading this please post your selected model. —Emporer 01:45, 9 March 2006

The Warp

Which came first, the current concept of the Warp in the 40k universe or the movie Event Horizon? 70.36.255.222 07:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm almost certain 40K's Immaterium came first, but I'm fairly sure that something else came before it, and both the movie anf 40K draw from this 'supersource'. Buggered if I know what it is though. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 07:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Notable characters

It seems to me this section is getting a bit out of control: it now contains a large number of characters, who, while moderately important within the 40K game, don't actually have much bearing on the Universe as a whole. If nothing else, I'd say it needs a severe reordering: for example, Horus, one of the characters with the largest effect on the Universe is buried three quarters of the way down the list. However, I don't have any really good ideas how to do all this, so am open to all reasonable suggestions! Cheers --Pak21 17:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep it to those that have wikiarticles. The Emperor and Horus should be the top two, followed by the Chaos Gods and Abaddon. You could probably drop Cmdr Farsight, Fabius Bile and Lord Commander Macharius, as they, along with almost everything unwikid, are small-fry. Keep Ghasghkull, because he'z da biggest Ork the 'ooniverse haz ever seen. -- Saberwyn
  • Done. I also took out Eisenhorn, as he's not significant in either the 40K game or universe as a whole. Cheers --Pak21 13:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I started a Ghasghkull wikiarticle but don't have much info as yet. But at least an article is there now.--Kraken72 13:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ghazkull and Yarrick are highly important to Armageddon,so are Helbrecht and Grimaldus,you see, so i dont like people editing my stuff!!!!Ta,Black Templar

While Ghazkull and Yarrick are important to Armageddon, that's only one planet within the 40k universe, and they already get significant mentions on the Armageddon page itself. You could possibly try making a play for having them included as they were the first special characters in the 40k universe, but I think that's about it: they haven't actually affected the universe in any really notable way. Helbrecht and Grimaldus are even less important as far as I know. As for people editing "your stuff", you should probably read about Wikipedia's five pillars, in particular pillar 3. Cheers --Pak21 19:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Helbrecht and Grimaldus (Grimaldus in particular) have only 'existed' as specil characters for a small number of months. If the characters, both fictionally and in-game, have a significant impact on the 40K universe in the years to come, a case can be made for adding them at that point.
I personally suggested Yarrik be pulled from the original list, as although he was the second special character created for the game, there are many more human characters that have a far greater impact on the 40K universe than he does.-- Saberwyn 21:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

could i add Rogoral Dorn?ta,Blacktemplar

If you can present a coherent reason as to why Rogal Dorn is more important than the other 19 (17, whatever) Primarchs, possibly. I don't see why we should have one without the rest. Cheers --Pak21 18:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the criteria presented here. "Notable" doesn't mean that they have to be of cosmic significance. It simply means that they're important in the setting in some regard, and/or have had alot of material written about them. In this regard the Chapter Masters for some of the Space Marine Chapters deserve to be on this list a whole lot more the Chaos Gods, for example, who are essentially non-characters who's only purpose in the setting is to explain how Chaos troops get thier various powers. I am reverting the notable character's list back to the previous longer version. -user:manuelomar2001
I disagree and so do at least 2 other people. I will put it back to the shorter version as we have defined a notability criteria. The term 'notable' does mean that they have to be of significance. If we allow it to grow then it should be its own article (we have a Category:Warhammer 40,000 characters). Then it will be trimmed back down and start growing again. The chaos gods are important as they are the key parts of chaos, the emperor is the key element of the imperium etc... We cannot allow for the list to get longer and longer as different people see things differently. Please visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000 and take part in the notability criteria discussion that is going on there. For now, leave the list short. Once we have some 'official' criteria written down, we should apply it.
Also, as you are just one editor and the general consensus before you arrived was to have a shorter list please take this into account and discuss before reverting. -Localzuk (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Please do not do that until a consensus has been established here. --Pak21 18:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

well,he traveld on the Emprors battle barge,and i agree with manuelomar2001

But why is that important to Warhammer 40,000 more than any other actions? It should be included on the Army's page, yes, but not here IMO. -Localzuk (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I request that everyone involved in this discussion redirect to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Notability#Main page characters, where I've attempted to bring this discussion into the larger framework of character notability within 40k in general. Cheers --Pak21 20:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Current state of play

The section as titled contains a repeat of information (stating the game is in its 4th edition - this is in the History section). Should the History section not contain the heading 'current state of play'? That way the repetition can be removed. -localzuk 11:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't mind keeping it, because while the History section is a look at the game overall, the 'Current State' can include information regarding recently released rules updates, new Codex supplements, and worldwide campaigns. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 11:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Currency

Why do we have currency conversions for each of the costs of units? Also, should it not be in GBP only as this is a British subject as per the wikipedia guidelines? -localzuk 20:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Some anon did the conversions. I'm going to revert to purely Pommie-money now. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 20:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. -- Saberwyn
It's got goddamn players around the zogging world, it is by no means an exclusively British subject. --Agamemnon2 06:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
That's why it was initially multiple currencies. I don't give a flying rats arse either way, but if it has to be one currency, it should be british, because while its played worldwide, the Poms came up with the game, and are the ones who own the rights to it. -- Saberwyn

The reasoning for it in my mind is that if we include USD, GBP, Euro etc... then why not include Yen, Rupie, AUD etc...? The point is to have a reference cost and as the game is from a British company we should use British English - as policy (I can't find the one at the moment) suggests. For example, Monopoly was created by an American company and as such should be written with US English etc...-localzuk 10:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Armies/Races/Species

I have been trying to focus some of my attention on this page and have created User:Localzuk/Warhammer 40,000 Temp as a place where I am doing some major reworking. I have not yet finished it but would like some input. Do we need so much information duplicated across articles. For example, the information about the Imperium can be found on its own page (specifically the part under Armies/Races/Species). This goes for the other species. As the section stands, it lacks information on 4 of the major armies. If this information was put in, I think the article would be too long. My opinion is that the information should be listed more generalised eg: 'The Warhammer 40,000 game, and consequentially the fictional universe, is made up of many races and species. The major ones are:' followed by the list. This would removed the unneeded duplication of information. Could anyone interested put any comments on the talk page.-localzuk 10:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Temp page moveover

I have finished making changes to the page over at my sandbox and will be moving it here if no-one disagrees. It has some section re-work and a cull of information that is needlessly duplicated in other 40k related articles. -Localzuk (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Has my support. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 22:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Do you mind if I make (minor) edits to your current sandbox page, or would you rather I wait until it's in the main namespace? Cheers --Pak21 21:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


I hope to move it over tomorrow, depending on free time. I will bring the factual changes that have been made to the original article in to the temp one before doing it to reduce the amount of mini changes that need doing after the move.-Localzuk (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've just done "some" minor edits (mostly italicising game titles and standardising on using "Warhammer 40,000" everywhere as opposed to any abbreviations). Vague apologies for the large number of small edits: I really wasn't be competent... Cheers --Pak21 23:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of splitting this page into one about the tabletop game itself and one about the setting, similarly to Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer Fantasy Battle, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay? Ausir 03:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have now moved the page over. Hope it is ok. Also, I like the above idea, but would not do it as yet as it would need more information before finishing - perhaps another user space temp page(s)? I am willing to make a start if people like the idea.-Localzuk (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

(Below copied from my user page)

Armies/Races/Species

Re: Warhammer 40,000 Talk

Group them under the subheadings of Imperium, Chaos, Eldar, Everyone Else Major, Everyone Else Minor (use your own names for the sub-headings). We don't need the blurb, that's covered by the main articles.

With your permission, I'll have a quick play with it, to show you what I mean. Leave a note on my talk page when you're ready for me to do so, and I'll alert you when I'm done. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 10:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've done some changes - go ahead and make a few yourself. -localzuk 10:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. I've tweaked some of the headings slightly, added a few minor groups, and tried to organise the minor groups by association. If you ever want someone else to have a look and a fiddle with the page, you know where to find me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Saberwyn (talk • contribs)
Cheers, looks good.-Localzuk (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Links

That section could do with a bit of a cull, methinks. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 12:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that - I think we need to thin it out to only provide a select few sites of extreme importance/relevance to the game.-Localzuk (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Cull of Links

By -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 01:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

To Keep
Add

A link to Games Workshop's main 40K page, top of the list.

Remove

Everything else, a mix of tiny forums, minor fan-pages, and game-mod pages.


Notable Characters

I have noticed that the list of notable characters is growing (4 new redlinks added today). Can we make some decisions about who should be included? We don't want the list spiralling out of control at the whim of every person who thinks every character is important (which in a way they are but we need to keep to the top few). If we end up with an article full of lists, I think it will detract from it. We already have a Characters Category, do we need to list so many here? -Localzuk (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I will go further and say that we should not have lists of minor species or 'notable ' characters on the page at all. They are both listed in categories seperate to the page and these are linked to. How about removing them and only include them as inline links within blocks of text (eg. the history/storyline).-Localzuk (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't actually think the category listings are a substitute for an article (or a section thereof). In an article, we can add brief explanations and group things appropriately, which just aren't possible in a category page. Perhaps we should break out a "Warhammer 40,000 species" page? Cheers --Pak21 16:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this may be best. We need to reduce the amount of lists as it looks unprofessional at the moment having then all in here with no information with them. If there was information, the article would become way too long. -Localzuk (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I have created a Warhammer 40,000 Species page, moved the list there and tidied up the paragraph about it on this article. -Localzuk (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've just moved the page to Warhammer 40,000 species on the basis that "species" is not a proper noun, so should not be capitalised in an article name. Cheers --Pak21 21:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • My general view is that we need some idea of notability criteria for being included on 40k pages in general. As for the four red links added today, two of them (Farsight and Aun'shi) actually already have pages, but I'll remove them all anyway as none of them are particularly notable in terms of the 40k game or universe as a whole. Cheers --Pak21 09:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
The way I personally see notability criteria, if they rate a special character miniature in their Codex, and already have an article, they can have a mention in the next 'tier' up of articles (usually the one concerning their race/organisation). Listing on the main 40K article should be restricted to the seriously big honchoes of the universe. Of the ones that are here, you can probably wipe Marenus Calgar, Ahriman, Khârn the Betrayer, and Commissar Yarrick. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 07:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think any of the "special characters" deserve entries on the main page, actually. The Emperor, Horus, Chaos gods and Primarchs, maybe, but none of these johnny-come-latelys. --Agamemnon2 18:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I wish to add The Primarches. They have made a major impact on the Warhammer 40,000 universe as a whole.Ta,Blacktemplar

Again, please take this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Notability. Cheers --Pak21 20:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Lists almost there

Well, the article is almost professional looking now. The only bit that remains that looks, IMO, quite bad is the spin off's section. There are a lot of spin off's. Would this be better on its own page with a brief paragraph on this one about how the game is copied, emulated etc...?

What do people think?

  • Sounds good to me. Create a new article (Warhammer 40,000 spinoffs?) with just links to the better known ones (BFG, Epic, Necromunda, Dawn of War, Fire Warrior?) on this page. Cheers --Pak21 13:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I will have a go (again, as I just had it created and closed the wrong window) sometime soon... Watch Warhammer 40,000 spin-offs this space. (I chose spin-offs as it is more linguistically correct, however is there a better word?).-Localzuk (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "spin-offs" seems fine to me. I wouldn't worry too much about the title, as we can always move the page later. Cheers --Pak21 14:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

I've just reverted to the last version by me (Pak21), removing the newly added section on the Inquisition. The Inquisition, while important to the Imperium (where it does get its own section), isn't that important to either the 40k universe or game: it's not available as a playable army in its own right. My reversion also takes out the characters re-added to the Notable Characters section; see the discussion above for the reasoning behind that. Cheers --Pak21 13:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Otherwise fine, but you took out Yarrick, one of the oldest named character in 40k. --Agamemnon2 21:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
For factual clarity, removing Yarrick was suggested by Saberwyn above, and done then, not in this edit (which really was just a reversion). I see that Yarrick is important to the development of the game, but I'm not sure he's that important to the Universe as a whole. On the other hand, I wouldn't object to him reappearing, but I am inclined to be fairly brutal with anything else appearing in the list! Cheers --Pak21 10:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the list is long enough as it is. If Yarrick is re-added I think it opens a flood gate to allow other characters to be added. As Pak21 says above, Yarrick is not that important to the Universe as a whole. I think it should be left out. -Localzuk (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
In that case, I'm going to propose the removal of Gaunt, he's only the commanding officer of a single Imperial Guard regiment among hundreds of thousands. He is not important to the game as a whole, only to Dan Abnett's novels of it. --Agamemnon2 11:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Fine by me, but then I'm not one of the people who keeps adding characters to the list :-) Cheers --Pak21 11:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Am removing it. -Localzuk (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Template

I have created a template and placed it on this page to guage peoples opinions. I think a template placed on all Warhammer 40,000 articles will aid a 'grouped' feeling. However, it might not be in its best condition at the moment.-Localzuk (talk) 12:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks pretty good so far; I'm wondering about putting Dark Eldar under Eldar (they'd hate that, wouldn't they!), and maybe changing the "Other" section to "Other Aliens" or "Xenos" or something. -- Metahacker 18:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject

I have created a proposal for a Warhammer 40,000 wikiproject. If anyone is interested in it, details are available here and here. If you would like to join the project, simply add your name to the bottom of the list on the first linked page. -Localzuk (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Game related deletions

Warhammer editors might be intestested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape skills. Kappa 03:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What the heck gives you that impression? Warhammer and Runescape have nearly nothing in common. --Agamemnon2 07:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
In theory, both could be described as "cruft" if we go into too much detail. The crucial point here, I think, it to keep it encyclopaedic. There's clear precedent for keeping stuff on WH40K special characters, the races, etc. (I mean, we keep all Pokemon stuff), and if we want to be able to write about this sort of thing we might well take an interest in attempts to reduce the "cruft" levels in articles describing other games. The problem with RuneScape, as I understand it — a problem our articles on Warhammer games don't, fortunately, share — is that many of the articles are not encyclopaedia articles at all, but game guide entries, self-promotional material, and so on. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible Changes needed

I think this article could be close to being a Featured Article. The only things that I can see that could be improved is:

  1. References! Nothing is externally referenced. We need some references really to comply with WP:CITE, WP:RS and WP:V.
  2. Template - I am going to make a smaller, horizontally based template for placing at the base of the page rather than the top. This will have at maximum 12 pages linked in it so as to keep it small.
  3. More wikification in the 'Warhammer 40,000 The Game' section as it is nearly unlinked...
  4. A bit of 'blurb' for the 'Notable Characters' section. At the moment it is just a list. It needs some sort of description as to why they are notable and in what sense.

I will try and do some of these - but I am currently busy with coursework, and working. So if anyone can do any of the above, I think it would be pretty close to being FA ready.

-Localzuk (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have now reformatted the template and re-added it to the page. What do people think? -Localzuk (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I have done number 3, although the 3 new redlinks could likely just be one in the end - a 'scenarios' article that discusses the normal scenarios (ie the ones in the rulesbooks etc...) and a bit about fanmade scenarios in general.
I have also done a few changes to the hobby section, removing the line regarding the cost being too high as this was immediately countered by another POV statement. 2 POV's don't make NPOV - especially as neither were referenced. I also removed the 'GB' from in front of the £ as the correct term is either GBP or £ on its own (and the GBP should suffix the number).
I have added a brief blurb as per no 4, but it could likely do with a slight rewrite. I will likely re-look at it tomorrow with a fresh mind (it being 1am now).
So, the main thing is references. So if someone can provide a reference to these (I don't have copies of the old rulebooks etc...): The rulebooks, codexes discussed, and any other literature used to present information in the article - that would make it an excellent article. -Localzuk (talk) 00:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Merger of Asdrubael Vect

Someone proposed that the mentioned article should be merged into this article. Personally, I think it should not be merged into this article. If it must be merged it should be merged into Dark Eldar else it should remain as it is but be expanded. -Localzuk (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think it should be merged into Dark Eldar as it isn't really about the named character. If it was just about them it would be just 3 lines long. -Localzuk (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes i agree that this should be merged with Darlk Eldar NOT Warhammer 40,000.--Lord Wolfwood 00:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Definitely do not merge it here. Given that the Vect article had already been changed to suggest merging with Dark Eldar, I've put the tag on Dark Eldar instead. Cheers --Pak21 08:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Warhammer 40,000. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2018

Please create a Reception section and add this: Warhammer 40,000 was inducted into the Origins Hall of Fame in 2003.[1] 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:781F:617F:60AD:6562 (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Dicertian

"and the assault phase where the outcome of any physical or hand to hand attacks are determined by dicertain rolls."
In the intro, the word "dicertian" is used. It's not an English word, is it a WH40k game term or is it a typo/edito/vandalism? -- PaulxSA (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Lede notes

WH40K was NOT based on Warhammer Fantasy. Rick Priestley was working on WH40K before he even joined Games Workshop. They just called it Warhammer as a marketing ploy. Kurzon (talk) 04:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It's quite clearly based on Warhammer Fantasy, the rules were originally fairly identical in their core functionality. Both setting and rules were based on WFB, GW has stated this many times. Considering Priestly had been at GW for many many year before 40K was released, he originally wrote WFB, and GW stated at the start it's a sister game to WFB. And GW themselves very clearly stated that, direct quote "Warhammer 40,000 takes the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay background into the galaxy itself." And "The Warhammer 40,000 background is an extension of the Warhammer game series, linking the Warhammer Fantasy Battle and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay games into a complete background." Early 40K was 100% compatible with WFB, units could be transferred both ways, and the Warhammer world existed as a world in the 40K universe. They shared a lot of background as well. At the beginning they were clearly the same thing. You'll need a lot of references to refute the cites and references that support it being based on WFB and WFRP. Canterbury Tail talk 20:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Aimless redirects and lack of information

The absolute insistence of editors to prevent any Real information about the popular setting or lore from this series has produced a rather mess of an article. Things such as Imperial Guard, Adeptus Mechanicus, and Sisters of Battle all redirect here despite not being mentioned in the article itself, thus Serving no purpose.

I understand this can’t be a full 40k wiki but there needs to be a bare minimum of setting information to allow for any kind of ability to inform. As it stands now all people can discern from this article is 40k is a British miniature game that might involve space and then you have to try and find information elsewhere. This is undoubtedly one of the most bare and confused science fiction setting articles I’ve ever seen, and would gladly change it if it wouldn’t be reverted

At the very least, there should be a setting or Imperium article similar to this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizations_of_the_Dune_universe

Wordbearer88 (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Sneed --Bloodloss 01:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Corpose Emperor: Rogue Trader, 1987

There is a sentence: "In the original rulebook of 1987, the Emperor was bed-ridden due to extreme old age but could still communicate and therefore rule his empire. But with the revisions introduced in The Lost and the Damned, the Emperor became comatose, the consequence of critical injuries sustained in battle. " However, the 1987 Rulebook "Warhammer 40,000: Rogue Trader" introduces the Emperor as a corpse rotting on his throne, essentially verbatim as he was introduced in the 2008 starter pack "Assault on Black Reach." The article as written implies Rogue Trader had a live Emperor and a later supplement turned him into a corpse, when this story point was pretty explicit in the original rulebook. Is this considered "original research"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:5210:A900:F464:1A72:C921:BE1D (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Alternative figurines

“ The first limitation is narrative. Warhammer 40,000 has a well-developed fictional setting and the match must fit it. Firstly, players should only use model warriors that were designed by Games Workshop specifically for use in Warhammer 40,000. Using wargaming models made for other wargames may cause confusion and spoil the aesthetic.”

This excerpt is confusing. Is this an official rule? It reads like an opinion (“players SHOULD use only official figurines”), and doesn’t use a citation to support it; nor does it seem like it’s quoting the rule book. 216.100.88.187 (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that it's the rule in tournaments.
But not the rules of the actual game, tournaments are only a very small proportion of the games played and aren't part of the main ruleset. Canterbury Tail talk 22:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Not sure about other editions, but 1987's Warhammer 40,000 Rogue Trader (1st edition) rule book allows, even encourages players to invent their own sculptures and even modify miniatures from other non-Gamesworkshop lines to add their own stats to them. The only challenge is convincing other players to allow them to use it. The above note about tournaments would be logical of course. For example, they can build their own vehicles out of shampoo bottles and deodorant containers and use totally originally alien figures in the creatures and modeling sections. So it's not just creating your terrain out of found objects, but characters or species in battles as well. Permission was also given to modify the lore as the players agreed, including creating new planets, cultures, etc. A similar "rule" to the latter appeared in Warhammer Fantasy Battle 3rd edition (if not earlier). Not a historian here, but check the sources and you'll see what I mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:5210:A900:F464:1A72:C921:BE1D (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
That's the rule in Games Workshop's officially sanctioned tournaments. The vast majority of the tournament scene is independently administered, and a lot of organizers (myself included) do not care as long as your alternatives are clearly identifiable as what they're meant to represent. I have a few third party miniatures in my army myself and no one's ever said a word against it. Rogue 9 (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I guess you can't stop players from using third-party or homemade models in their private games. In 1st edition there was definitely a lot of emphasis put on kitbashing. As in the original idea was to kitbash Warhammer Fantasy minis with sci-fi add-ons. I will rethink that line Kurzon (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking at it again, that line is fine to me. In fact, it should be obvious. You need to use models that you can at least connect to a stat sheet in the rulebook. If you want to use a third-party model to substitute for an Eldar Guardian, it should at least somewhat look like an Eldar Guardian so that you can distinguish it from other models and know what rules to apply to it in the game. It's not so much about hard rules but about practical necessity. If you use one or two third-party models in a game, I suppose you can manage, but if all the models are third-party, you're likely to run into confusion. Kurzon (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with your points here. I've made an edit which follows your logic, while removing/changing some of the parts which seemed of more opinionated or non-practical origin to me (such as the unnecessary reference to the Greek hoplite which elaborated on an easily-understood point, and the point about aesthetics which is definitely subjective); as well as making it seem more like one consistent point and reorganizing it in way that I feel better establishes the flow of the section. Feel free to make changes.2600:1700:2120:7690:6C35:2D99:448E:4EC0 (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ "The 2003 Origins Awards - Presented at Origins 2004". {{cite web}}: |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Warhammer_40,000/Archive_2&oldid=1193951633"