Talk:Mordheim

[Untitled]
The past tense of "smite" is "smote". Sigmar was in no way smitten with those sinning in his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.63.166.79 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 1 June 2006

Hello I added the section about game balance but I am a newbie and forgot to add edit summaries 87.60.229.164 (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Started Rewriting the Article in a Format More Suited to Wikipedia
Removed a LOT of clutter and in-universe. Removed a LOT of bad prose. Removed a LOT of specific information about the rules. 188.177.0.10 (talk) 06:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We must rewrite the first two sections, then we can remove the template. 87.63.69.127 (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

helpful guide to mordheim
I think this should maybe be on the reflist, but I will leave the disucssion to other editors. http://www.indadvendt.dk/2013/07/how-to-start-mordheim/ 188.183.47.194 (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

to whoever it may concern
I was passing through and found a possible error. I think I fixed it but cannot verify. Marianna Chevaux was not from 2002 annual, but I think town crier #22. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.220.79 (talk) 05:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Unofficial warbands
Should we not only list the official warbands? J Milburn 14:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, GW has made these lists, so they are part of the game, the unofficial basically means that they cannot be played in tournaments.Spacedwarv 02:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, they are material GW has provided for the game, and still generally valid, regardless of tournament status. Commonly used fan-made warbands should remain included too, as they are part of the game as defined by the community at large. Metaphorazine (talk) 12:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unofficial warbands are OK as they have been published by GW but I do think that "Experimental" warbands should be removed as quality may vary. Perhaps experimental warbands should be listed with Mordheim grading system B Neale 00:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed "dice rolling" from the Skills section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.170.47 (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The infamous Warband balance poll
Poll in question: | here

The poll in question is quite pivotal and has been informally quoted by official GW rules trustees. Also, as I recall the basis of that poll was quite large. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.229.164 (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But that poll is *not* a forum post. It is a poll conducted in a forum with the participation of GW-designated moderators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.229.164 (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right the poll is not a *forum post* it's a *forum thread* which is comprised of *forum posts* which are negligible under WP:SPS. Aside from that how is it pivotal when this 'poll' was conducted 4 years after the last official book? --Nexusman (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The point is that this poll is a survey of a large portion of the online Mordheimers of the time. This is not just one guy posting his opinion in a forum or a Website. For that reason I don't think it falls under WP:SPS. Wiki tries to display the truth by having as many people editing/giving their opinions; just like that forum poll. No it's not always true or correct. Here is a | More Recent Poll done in a smaller Mordheim Community specifically about Skaven. To try to get past these opinions: does anyone have access to the results of Mordheim Tournaments? That should give you a pretty solid stat of which warbands are the most powerful. Ashton.Sanders (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I really think this is an area where WIKI guidelines are interpreted too strictly in regards to the subject matter. I understand the need to have reliable references in a scientific discussion where the views are many and the periodicals etc. reflect that. This is not the case with Warhammer or Mordheim so lets face it: When 50 players give their critical opinions of the game, this is as good a critical source that you are going to get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.229.164 (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, to illustrate the absurdities of WIKI guidelines in this matter, at least, consider the fact that if a player were to write in the LOD-E-Zine: "We all know the poll that made yielded Skaven a 86% vote of "Overpowered"..." - THEN it would be a go-ahead by the WIKI-guidelines. Which is kind of upside-down.87.60.229.164 (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The survey itself is flawed, I'm sure the ex-governor of Florida would be jealous of this poll. Participates of the survey that haven't had experience with all the warbands unfairly weight the warbands that they have played/have experience with because they give the remaining a 0 rating, the resulting bloat devastates any chance at an accurate reporting. --Nexusman (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please explain that point again. - Though maybe we can compromise: We could list the verifiable fact that Skaven is the ONLY warband in the book with six starting heroes (= more income) and with a warband max of 20 (= higher threshold for rout tests = more wins = more XP & more income). - Nexusman if you play Mordheim yourself I'm sure you'll recognize that Skaven are overpowered. Maybe you belong to the faction of player who thinks that Skaven are overpowered but that they can still be played as-is. The point for me in this article isn't to push for anything in particular but rather to provide that essential piece of information. 87.60.229.164 (talk) 11:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Came back to this and the poll is gone.--Nexusman (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Stubified
Article has been stubified. It was completely unsourced and contained a number of copyright violations. Reinserting copyright violations will result in preventative measures being taken by uninvolved admins. Please also read wikipedia's policy on verification only sourced information is usable on wikipedia, and we require a specific kind of source - third party published reliable sources. Blogs and forums don't cut it. Also lists of things are not appropriate. Information needs to recorded as prose. Furthermore there is an issue with this page being used as as a place for forked information from or relating to a deleted criticism section from the Games Workshop article. This kind of "forking" is against wikipedia's rules and should be avoided. Liking this version of the page is not good enough - this page MUST reflect this site's policies-- Cailil  talk 00:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Article has been repeatedly vandalised
by the 'sysop' Cailil to the point that it may as well not exist. I had to go back through the version history to find out anything about the game. The whole of Wikipedia feels like it's on its last legs since idiots like him have been gutting articles because 'the rules' say articles should be stripped down to uselessness or only allowing the viewpoints of the 'in crowd'. Just delete the article. Just delete Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.178.26.189 (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * your just upset that he's your dad now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9803:4C00:D523:A154:7E27:703B (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mordheim. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090131064625/http://sg.tacticalwargames.net/fanatic/96rotc1.pdf to http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/fanatic/96rotc1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090131064647/http://sg.tacticalwargames.net/fanatic/97rotc2.pdf to http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/fanatic/97rotc2.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)