Talk:Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning/Archive 1

Rant
Sorry for the rant nature of this, but having content stolen makes us sad :(

about 95% of the information contained in this article has been directly copied from war-rvr.net without our permission. The information contained on www.war-rvr.net is NOT public domain, although we were approached by someone and asked if it would be okay to use the information from our site in a "wiki project". Our response at the time was that we were not prepared to make our content public domain, and we thought nothing more of it. That response still stands though, Fahran, our primary contributor spent many.. many.. many hours compiling and writing the content for our site, and to see it shamelessly stolen is a little shocking...

With that said, both of us think wikipedia is the coolest thing since sliced bread, and would be amenable to PORTIONS of the site being used with citation, we wouldn't put the info online if we didn't want people to read it. If you are interested in citing information from our site, shoot us an email with the specifics and we'll let you know if its okay (via email, so you're all covered and.. stuff).

I have just spent a very enjoyable hour or so investigating wikipedia's copywrite violation policy and BELIEVE i have followed it properly. We have blanked.. well... most of the main text of the page... sorry. Its just all stolen from our articles :( We've also added the article to the daily copywrite infringement site. UPDATE: Reverted content to before copywrited info was added instead, so that theres not this huge scary COPYWRITE section scaring off new people.  Yay wikipedia and revisions.

http://www.war-rvr.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=3&id=21&Itemid=31 and http://www.war-rvr.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=3&id=20&Itemid=30

Wikipedia notes that "you need to acknowledge the authorship and provide a link back to the network location of the original copy." It SEEMS like this was originally done, but then people have come through and removed the links (presumably, looking at this discussion, believing that we were just advertising ourselves.. not so).

Question for you: Why don't you just leave it up? There was no reason to go and do what you did, it was not hurting anyone and it was actually helping some people....Animediter 22:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

... It really hurts to remove content that might be used to draw new people into the WAR community, and I'm sorry we have to do it, but I'm really not sure what other option we have. Update: the other option, it turns out, is rolling back to a pre-copywrited material addition reversion. ... Versioning is probably one of the cooler things in the world. After cheese in a can.

Culain@war-rvr.net —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.78.64.106 (talk • contribs).

Edited
It seems to me that www.war-rvr.net members have editted the page to become a subtle advertisement for their site. Wikipedia, whilst I think is intending to give that information, can do so at the end of the page, in the external links section. I'm edditing it as such, if that's okay with the moderators.

Also, it has now been officially announced that Chaos, Empire, Orc & Goblins, Dwarves, High Elves and Dark Elves will be the playable races. However, speculation as to whether Chaos encompasses all four of the Gods, or singly Tzeentch, is still awaiting confirmation from Mythic. More information about the subject can be found at the Chaos (Warhammer) pages.Corellion 11:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * They said early in development that Chaos will follow the Tzeentch god. -Elwood —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ScottElwood (talk • contribs).

10000 pages
"Ten thousand pages. That's my best guess at the amount of finalized documentation that our content team will produce before the launch of WAR. We should start an office pool, or a printing press. Ten thousand pages for a game based on an existing property rich with detail. I can only imagine the number of pages we'd be writing if we were coming up with a world of our own! " --Asososocrates 05:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Can that short part be corrected, please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asososocrates (talk • contribs).

Corrected
Corrected a couple titles that referred to the game as Warhammer Alliance: Age of Reckoning to Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning --67.176.132.193 06:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

What is this?
http://pc.ign.com/articles/524/524986p1.html

Uhhh....it's from 2004? What's up with that? TheDavesr 03:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The Climax version was cancelled in 2004, then Mythic took up the project. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.72.76 (talk • contribs).

Disaster
This entire article is a disaster. Sloppily written, and very unencyclopedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.197.188.59 (talk • contribs).

Article Cleanup
I see someone cut out a lot of parts of the article. I agree, it was sloppy before and needed a good clean-up... but right now it has absolutely no information on the game mechanics etc, making it worse than before. Bloodloss

Possible article on Paul Barnett
This guy is a major designer of this game, ans we have nothing on him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asososocrates (talk • contribs).

Revert
I have had to revert this page AGAIN to remove copywrited content after http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aanhorn reverted the page so that it contained our copywrited content again.

Wikipedia's copywrite directions are very very clear, you MAY NOT just plain copy data from another site without their express permission.

Culain@war-rvr.net 27/7/6 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.78.64.106 (talk • contribs).

Copywrite content taken from war-rvr.net
Again I have done a page reversion to a previous version of the site that did not contain our copywrite works. the revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warhammer_Online:_Age_of_Reckoning&diff=67991159&oldid=67846497 reverted the changes that I had done to remove this content on two occasions (this is the third). For more information please read the below and my feeble entreaties even further below that!

Please.. please.. do not revert like this again. I note that this time the Ip address 24.60.98.39 appears to have been responsible for the reversion.

I have listed below, exact links to the sections of our site that each of the different content headings was taken from.


 * PvP PvE http://www.war-rvr.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=31


 * Types of PvP Content http://www.war-rvr.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=31

Career System


 * Introduction text is the same http://www.war-rvr.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=35&Itemid=31
 * Character Customization http://www.war-rvr.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=31
 * Quests http://www.war-rvr.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24&Itemid=31
 * Death http://www.war-rvr.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38&Itemid=31
 * Tactics http://www.war-rvr.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=31
 * Moral http://www.war-rvr.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36&Itemid=31
 * Zone Layout http://www.war-rvr.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=31

Culain 08/08/06
 * I have removed every section that was indicated here. Please, do not add them again. If so, I will request an administrator to review this. Note that adding copyrighted information knowingly is considered vandalism. -- ReyBrujo 04:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it highly ironic that war-rvr.net should be so quick to move against copyright infringement here, when their website is full of copyrighted images from the official WAR website, usually with a 'war-rvr.net' watermark added.

I do wish amateurish websites didn't steal nearly all their content from wikipedia and then delete the original source, claiming it to be their own.

Re-added Fansite Links
A number of Legitimate fansites were removed from the links at the bottom of the entry. I have re-added these Fan Site links. Please do not remove them unless they are bad links as the administrators and moderators work very hard on these sites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.140.133.181 (talk • contribs).
 * I will explain why each should be removed:
 * http://www.warspain.com : A Spanish fansite has no place in the English Wikipedia. Put it in the Spanish Wikipedia to see if they allow it to be there.
 * http://warhammer.trumps.net/ : The site was opened less than a month ago (2006-07-27 02:13:53), this is just advertisment.
 * http://www.mongbat.com/ : The News section has only one news. Most of the other sections has items added in the last week. The forum has 5 members. Not notable enough to be an external link.
 * http://www.warhammeralliance.com/ : This looks like a good fan site. Has a relatively good Alexa ranking (276,157, to put it simple, this is the 276,157th most visited site in internet according to Alexa), and a forum with 4,462 members.
 * http://vnboards.ign.com/Warhammer_Online_Age_of_Reckoning_General_Board/b22997/ IGN board, no need to be added here. You can add IGN.com at the IGN article, but not every of their board in every of the articles. Per the 9th guideline clearly states that external links that point to a forum are not necessary unless mandated by the article (in example, the article is about a forum, or the official forum).
 * http://www.battleofwar.com/ : No Alexa ranking, forum with 44 posts, no articles. Not notable enough to be included as external link.
 * http://www.war-rvr.net/ : Alexa ranking of 2,913,840, forum with 990 members, 57 news. Although people have been copying information from the site here violating copyright terms, the site itself is not really notable for be included as external link.
 * http://www.only-war.com/ : Alexa ranking of 445,543, forum with 5,324 members, apparently first appeared in 2003. It may barely be good enough as an external link for this article.
 * http://vault.ign.com/wiki/index.php/Warhammer_Online:_Age_of_Reckoning : Again, IGN-based site. Wikipedia would only contain links to IGN if it were by their members.
 * http://warpedia.thewarband.com/index.php/Main_Page : Alexa ranking of 1,990,244, created on November 14, 2005. I would not include this link, as it is contained by war-rvr.net, not notable by itself to be included.
 * http://www.waronlinewiki.com/ : Alexa ranking of 1,101,764. Site created on June 6, 2006, just two months before. We cannot allow every site to have a spot at the External link section. Wikipedia is not a link directory.
 * This is why I am removing again all but only-war.com and warhammeralliance.com, which seems, from all these links, to be the most popular. Note this: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such. Fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included. The style guide states one may be included. People include a lot. If you disagree, tell me why you think any of the removed links should be included.
 * Note that this has nothing to do with the effort the webmasters, moderators or keepers of those sites do. As they deserve the right to ban users in their forums, publish news or articles, or including or removing downloads, Wikipedia needs to trim unnecessary external links when they become too many. Once the sites become notable, nobody will object including links here. However, adding a link just after a month since the site opened is abusing the right every of us has to edit the article. -- ReyBrujo 02:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * RE:Above
 * Fansites are an important part of games. Different sites have different fanbases. Warhammer Alliance for example is just a forum. it rarly has any news unlike war-rvr and the others you removed. Only-war frankly looks quite bad, but it is informative. battle of war is simply a news site with a cool RSS feed. Sites dont have to have forums to be successful. And there is little point in signing up to battleofwar since there are no bonuses to sign up apart from administration from members and news submitters.
 * war-rvr seems to be the best site out there at the moment and is introducing new content and features quite alot. I don't know what the Alexa ranking is and frankly i dont really care. I want to see fansites listed on here and so do many others. Most different fansites get exclusives and I don't believe it is your right to remove external links just because you feel like it. They are not breaking the rules of wikipedia and are useful bits of information.
 * Maybe you are biast towards the sites that you leave linkes but I would hope not.
 * Added by TB August 27th —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.41.32.217 (talk • contribs).


 * Not at all. I usually delete ALL fansites when there is no consensus for keeping them. I did a neutral research and posted my thoughts here. Apparently you do not agree, which is completely understandable. We can wait for more opinions about this, but if we can't agree on which sites should stay, we can just remove them all, leaving the official ones and the big news ones (IGN, GameSpot, GameSpy, etc), which is usually the way of handling these matters. -- ReyBrujo 16:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont agree that commercial sites such as IGN and gamespy should have the rights over dedicated fansites to be listed in the links section. I would much prefer just official sites be listed if there are going to be disputes about external links. warhammeronline.com has a fansite links section and if people want to see fansites then they can get them through there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.41.32.217 (talk • contribs).
 * Ranking by Alexa seems to be quite inaccurate, my research suggests that traffic stats are generated from people who use a certain toolbar, which of 15 years of being online I, nor any of my friends have ever heard of. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.41.32.217 (talk • contribs).
 * I have removed all the fan links until consensus is gained. Alexa rank was one of my points in the research, I also verified amount of posts, foundation, activity and membership. We can't add a fan site just because someone likes it, nor we can remove another just because friends did not know about it. -- ReyBrujo 17:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If any fansites are going to be listed, can we please make sure to include Warhammer Alliance, which is, as stated previously, the most visited WAR fansite, and contains the nearest thing this game has to official forums? 212.42.10.194 10:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Fan sites are critical to a game and the community. Any publisher & developer will tell you that and fully agree. Also keep in mind sites come in many flavors and should be represented if they are among the most active, even if that number is as high as 10 links to 10 sites. As long as they remain consistently active. Not having a solid list of them would be robbing the community and doing a disservice to this wiki readership. eviltrance


 * Fansites may be perceived to be good for a game, but Wikipedia is about verifiable and notable information and the links should be to useful resources - the definition of useful not necessarily being the same as the amount of activity a site has. GraemeLeggett 10:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the "consensus" is, there should be something useful concerning fansites in the article. I came to this article specifically to find a list of fansites to ask people questions about the game (since WAR doesn't host their own forums), and the article did not contain any information that I could use. I had to come to this Discussion tab. Perhaps somebody who feels empowered to remove the list due to Wikipedia's style guide can do some research on what the one fansite to include would be? Or maybe break the rules a little bit and include three or four links? Espeically in lieu of WAR not having their own player feedback forums. The article would be better served by having too much information than no information regarding this topic. 38.113.135.197 (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Guys, Mythic provides a list of fansites for you at []. Feel free to use that instead. TheCommodore7 (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Commodore7. I've added your link to the article. 72.20.143.93 (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Titles and sections, additional suggestions
The article is very messy currently. PvP players in waiting was very poorly done, and its managed to mis-title the screenshots section.

The article also has very vague view. collision shouldnt have a massive section to itself - should be under 'game mechanics' or something similar.

Also, i suggest a breakdown of all the video blogs. this will help to bulk out the article and provide more information.

The table of classes for dwarfs and orcs/goblins was also removed. this should be added back in, as I found it very informative, but might be considered misleading and needs refinement.86.11.13.74 16:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The main problem with all those sections was that they were just copied/pasted from a site without their permission. The table was deleted because Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. You could mention a couple of things about the races, but making a table is too specific game information. When writing an article, always think as a casual user. You may care about how many races the game has, but not which ones. From what I understand, nobody buys games unless they can control ogres, but they buy games if you can choose between 12 instead of 2 races. As for the changes, this is when I should stick a sofixit at your talk page ;-) -- ReyBrujo 18:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the Media section
Well I've resectioned the screenshots and trailer stills into media after the sloppy attempt to make a 'players in waiting section'.86.11.13.74 23:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are still too many screenshots, I guess 4 should be enough, maybe 8 as abusing. Also, you should consider creating an account, your edits are useful for the community. -- ReyBrujo 04:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed! I'll see what I can find out about War in dept, and if need be I'll try and make that video summary I suggested. Thanks for the encouragement.Hirmetrium 09:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Added Armies, Beta test and Features sections
Information as accurate to my knowleadge as possible has been added to an 'Armies' section. It requires much more input from everyone, and As such will make it very useful in the article. The beta test section was added because its fairly common for people to want to join the beta test of a popular upcoming game. Please remove it if you find it unsuitable.Hirmetrium 10:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've just furthered work by adding information about how RvR function and the unique charater customisation involved.Hirmetrium 13:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Animosity
I was just wondering if the seemingly animostiy between the upcomming warhammer online, and the already firmly established WoW deserves a entry. I admit fully I have not conducted a larger survey, but i have read some on the www.gamespot.com forums for WAR.

Through reading those you do get the impression that there is a animostiy. This could however just be the result of a limted number individuals at the site.

I do however feel it is justified to ask here if it of any relevance at all. The topics I have been reading can be found here: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/warhammeronline/forum.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maias227 (talk • contribs).
 * Unless the animosity is featured somewhere, like CNN, GamePro, IGN or GameSpot (but not on their forums!), we should not really talk about it. -- ReyBrujo 20:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's beyond the scope of this article and unless a perceived animosity becomes relevant it should simply be left out Ghost 9 (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a degree of animosity between die hard WoW fans and those that will be leaving WoW for WAR when it is released though this is probably not relevant to the article. --Nayl 05:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * some may consider that Warcraft is a avorted game that Games Workshop orded from blizzard... not to take the wrong path in wikipedia standarts but i'm refering to an article i've read here... quite a time ago so it might have been corrected - but the story of the Warcraft serie (RTS not WoW -cuz it's IMVHO been taken away from it) is really a good warhammer story... got the orcs/goblin relation for master/engeneer (oh quite a surpirse the hummies got their gnomes/dwarf)... well for me Warcraft never got the popularity within me -except for the custom maps of War3... --Zerat ca 03:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

EDITED OUT "Guild Listing"
" http://only-war.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3814&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 Lethal Injection" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.177.219.136 (talk • contribs).

Minor changes and a question
I edited the Army section to consitantly use the word army and to correct what seemed to be superfluous information. I wanted opinions on editing the the third paragraph out of the introduction to the article. It strikes me as out of place. JL096 14:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC) JL096 10:19am EST

Armies
Please give citations for the two Human and One Chaos Career that have the citation tag next to them as the only places I can find them on the internet are fan based forums.--The Nayl 16:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Subscription
anyone know whether we would need a monthly fee to play it like wow? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.46.166.10 (talk • contribs).


 * Yes - http://www.warhammeronline.com/english/community/faq/faq.php#Will_there_be_a_subscription
 * "Q: Will there be a subscription fee to play this game?
 * A: Yes. Given the expense of creating the game, maintaining the customer service system (in-game, phone and email) and creating new content, the only way for a company to justify these expenses is with a monthly subscription fee. However, when you look at the monthly fee (usually $10-$16USD) that a player pays to access the content almost 24x7, there are few entertainment values that can top that. Basically, for the price of one movie ticket in NYC, a small soda and a small cup of popcorn you have access to an ever-changing and growing world on demand (minus short downtimes for server or software upgrades)." Mefanch 20:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Distinction Between Warhammer Online, Warhammer FRPG, Warhammer "The Game of Fantasy Battles", and Warhammer 40k
It is probable that the present article might permit a misprision among some readers that Warhammer Online uses Warhammer FRPG rules, it should be overtly stated that Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning appears to resemble the wargame more than the roleplaying game at present design description. While it might seem like a minor contention it is also a small revision. There are those who have few people to play games with in person that might be seeking an MMORPG that uses Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay rules and would be dissapointed to find that Warhammer Online is quite simply Dark Ages of Camelot with a different setting and different classes. Also, fans of the miniatures war game Warhammer Fantasy might benefit from a better distinction between this new MMO and their favorite game.

68.115.17.73 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC) september

Cancelled?
according to gamespot its been cancelled: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/whonline/news.html?sid=6100992 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.18.184.15 (talk • contribs).


 * That is an old (2004) article. It is not current. Mythic is developing WAR. Mefanch 20:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a completely different game to Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning. They were working on a MMORPG before that but it was cancelled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.143.19 (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Screenshots
Should the screenshots not be labeled and placed around the page as other page would do with links to the sources for more screenshots in the external links section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.200.95.71 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 2 March 2007

Updated screenshots
I would think there are more updated screen shots, at least with the professions? --68.209.227.3 04:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Are they available to us? If so, I'm missing. ;) The screenshots in the article are older, and should be updated.. pretty sure they released new ones in March but not sure if there were professions. Anywho, it's a good idea.. I can't check as I'm at work. ;) Fr0 04:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes there are new screenshots available. These must be, like, 2 months old. Especially on the latest newsletter we got 20 or something new screenshots. Check these last two newsletters issues out (Especially the March one): http://www.warhammeronline.com/english/newsletterCentral/archives/Feb2007.html http://www.warhammeronline.com/english/newsletterCentral/archives/Mar2007.html

Dark Elf/ High Elf classes
Guys, they haven't even announced the Dark Elf/ High Elf classes yet. The ones you have on that page are fake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.114.164.66 (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Corsairs imo. http://mythicmktg.fileburst.com/war/us/media/flash/pp_Quests_bitrate.html Fr0 07:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Paul actually said that Corsairs were in the game, however only mentioned that Shadow Warriors are in the game. Whether they are playable, is only speculation. Fr0 02:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Info will be released in August. --68.209.227.3 00:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I restored every High/Dark Elf class to Unknown 'till we get official news. Please, stop posting innacurate stuff in an "encyclopedia". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.75.131.135 (talk • contribs).

Does anyone know if the fourth High Elf class has been announced yet? I read somewhere that it is a MDPS with a Pet to mirror the Squig Herder. White Wolves? can this be verified? John Doe or Jane Doe (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Extended beta section to include May's newsletter information
I've extended it and also placed the site in the external links as 'official european site'. Hirmetrium 17:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Baltimore Games Day Q&A
Part One: http://maestro.mythicentertainment.com/trk/click?ref=zq1v6u1m4_1-288x386ax172983&

Part Two: http://maestro.mythicentertainment.com/trk/click?ref=zq1v6u1m4_1-288x386bx172983&

Yep, was not good at all. They danced around questions, and surely didn't answer every person's question in the room. Meh, good to hear some news though although the audio was terrible. Fr0 02:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

First vids of Elves
http://www.warhammeronline.com/english/behindTheScenes/vidPhoneDiaries/2007august.php

Haven't received the Newsletter yet. --68.209.227.3 23:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Beta Applications
Is it really that important to make constant changes with the number of people who have signed up for the beta? Who cares if this week, 54 more people signed up than average. It seems like a futile fact to keep updating every other day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.64.140 (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Response: It's updated about 7 days or so, and it does help promote the game by showing many people want to get into beta and play. If someone wants to keep it updated it seems appropiate to me, however it would be better organized if it was not in paragraph form and was like: [Nov 4] - 400,00 [Nov 12] - 420,00 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.42.93 (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not meant to "promote" any game. I don't see how it's encyclopedic to continually update this number unless it's to highlight a important point (like if it's breaking records or something). Two years from now, people won't care that 393,193.2 people signed up for this beta.TheCommodore7 18:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree; it is not encyclopedic until the beta is over and it can be used as a statistical reference to the pre-release popularity of the game. There is no encyclopedic value in updating the information as it changes in real-time, as this isn't a news item. I'll be removing/rewriting that section. Itanius 16:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Career gender choice/appearance options in Career Chart
Please discuss the Career Chart and the inclusion of gender choice & appearance for the available races here. The purpose of the Career Chart is to summarize each career and the associated gender options available to players upon character creation. If this is too much information for one chart, then a second chart for gender-based options is an option. Itanius 17:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So to avoid further edit wars, I'll post what I've done here. The numerous "(Male in Apperance)" tacked on to every Greenskin race looked very unprofessional and very redundant. It was discussed that the information was relevant to a degree, so I added that to the overall Racial description of the Greenskins. That should put all the classes, regardless of Ork or Goblin under the racial umbrella, and it won't have to be added to every class individually. Sure, the Chaos and Dark Elf gender-specific classes are relevant, but when and entire race has the same physical description, it seems much easier to say it once than say it four-fold.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.64.141 (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the Career Chart is to summarize each career and the associated gender options available to players upon character creation. Removing gender choice options for one race and not the others is not an organized or uniform method to present the information in the article. Not all races have all genders, and not all careers are available to all genders. This is a defining characteristic for character careers, and vital in the decision making process, which is why it was included in the Career Chart. Redundancy and aesthetics are secondary concerns when information is being displayed on a chart designed for quick-reference in an encyclopedic manner. The value of the information should not be compromised at the expense of making the article "look nicer". Perhaps a rewrite of the Careers section of the article, with a revised chart format is in order. Itanius (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * An understood point, but for further clarification, it wasnt edited specifically for apperances; that was a additional factor. If it were an umbrella classification, I didn't see such a need to point it out class by class by class. Sure, saying Witch Elves are female-only is an important note, as that's a class-specific detail. I was simply stating that if ALL of the choices fall in the same bucket, we didn't need to point it out. All 4 Chaos classes don't have "(Worshipper of Tzeentch)" after them, that would be silly. It was stated in the racial description, so it was an understood detail. I edited the Greenskin classes to suit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.64.141 (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Guys, stop the revert war until we figure this out.TheCommodore7 (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no revert war, and it's been settled. Thanks for the concern! Itanius (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

High Elf Shadow Warrior is Ranged Damage?
From http://www.warhammeronline.com/english/gameInfo/armiesofWAR/HighElves/Careers/ShadowWarrior.php "They will still take a beating from his long range archery, but a Shadow Warrior poses a much more significant threat if they are allowed to come into short range.", and that the Shadow Warrior seems a more fitting match up to the Dark Elf Witch Blade, not to mention how High Elves are highly magical in nature, but have not been given a "caster dps" class to match up to the DE Sorceress, wouldn't the Shadow Warrior be more suited to the "Melee Damage" archtype? Of course we can't be sure until Mythic releases information about the final High Elf Class, and/or given more details concerning the Shadow Warrior. Tetsuox (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression, after watching Paul's Class Description video, that it is a ranged DPS class. He makes an edit mid-video explaining that the class description came across as seeming to give the player an option to pick between a ranged or melee type class to play, but he was there to say that in fact it was a ranged dps class, with some slight melee capacity. I think the quote of "more signifigant if they are allowed to come into close range" doesn't pertain to they are more signifigant at melee than ranged, but rather they are more capable of melee combat than other ranged/nuker archetypes such as the Zealot of bright Wizard. Just my $0.02, but I thought I'd share. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrel (talk • contribs) 19:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Delayed again
http://kotaku.com/372305/warhammer-online-falls-to-autumn

Fall 2008 --68.209.227.3 (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate Entry?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhammer_40%2C000_Online —Preceding unsigned comment added by StarkyD (talk • contribs) 14:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's not a duplicate entry. Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40,000 are two separate games. ... Itanius (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. Two up-and-coming MMOs with entitled "Warhammer..." was a bit confusing.  StarkyD (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Release date?
Is an online store a valid source for a release date? https://www.dynabyte.nl/artikel/615286/Warhammer-Reckoning-PREORDERPRIJS states the release date (verwacht op in dutch) as 23-09-2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.107.207.26 (talk) 11:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The online stores are all making somewhat educated guesses. They may turn out to be the right dates, but unless confirmed by Mythic, they cannot be confirmed. Caidh (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

EA Mytic's Name Change
This article still states that EA Mythic is creating the game, this is no longer the case with the recent name change reported by MMORPG.com and confirmed by an employee on the WarhammerAlliance.com forums. I suggest a name change since "EA Mythic" no longer exists. Arzakon (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Elfs vs Elves
As far as I can tell, in this game, "Elves" are referred to as "Elfs", contrary to this article. See: http://i26.tinypic.com/2jcbgi8.png -- Personally, I much prefer Elves to Elfs, but it's not really my call. Just thought I'd put this out in the open.. --MaXiMiUS (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhm.. nevermind me. I seem to be finding .. contradicting screenshots. http://i36.tinypic.com/119ccjn.png X_x.. --MaXiMiUS (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In the Warhammer universe, only Dwarfs thwart the "plural F" rule. ;)  -- Itanius (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's probably worth pointing out that the reason for this is that "Dwarfs" could be trademarked but "Dwarves" couldn't. Elves don't have this problem as they're always referred by as "High Elves", "Wood Elves" or "Dark Elves"&trade;. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

We'll be needing a Warhammer Fantasy Wikiproject
Take a look at Warhammer Fantasy (setting), it really needs a cleanup. That, together with the fact that there are several red links to books based on the setting, and that the article to one of the most well-known characters of the entire setting, Gotrek Gurnisson, was deleted recently. This is an expansive setting. I would say it's more expansive than Lord of the Rings. All articles relating to the Warhammer Fantasy setting deserves attention. --Ifrit (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, seeing as the 40k WikiProject has been doing a sterling job of eliminating the in-universe junk that made of most of WP's 40k coverage, I imagine that the future will be a global GW WikiProject which handles both. As for the Gotrek article, I don't see how on Earth an article on Gotrek himself was ever supposed to garner enough notability to survive alongside an article on Gotrke and Felix. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't get the whole notability thing. I've spent years on Wikipedia and I simply don't understand why there are such high standards for notability. I'm a diehard inclusionist in the true sense of the term. As long as there are people that might look for information on Gotrek on Wikipedia, there should be an article... and since Gotrek is such a staple character of the Warhammer world that it's almost a cliché to reference him... let's just say I don't see how we couldn't have an article on him. And as for any issue of it being too in-universe... I'm yet to read a single fictional character biography article on Wikipedia that was too in-universe, even though I was unfamiliar with the IP and/or the setting the character was from. --Ifrit (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Head Start
I want to put in the date for the Head Start program, but I am not sure where it should go. For now, I will put it in the beta timeline, but if anyone can think of a better place for it, have at it. I confess, though, that I am currently at work, and they have blocked the site for the reference that I wanted to use. It should be fine, but if it is not, I apologize! There are numerous other sources with this information if this one does not work. Phrenology (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Beta Timeline section is perfect. I corrected your entry and added the official news announcement as a proper reference. Thanks for contributing! -Itanius (talk) 04:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing that for me. Phrenology (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Night elves?
Hasn't anyone noticed that in the race/class matrix "high elves" is mistakenly written "night elves"? WoW much? Kellenwright (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's called vandalism. Welcome to Wikipedia. :) --Itanius (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Career Chart
This chart is misleading as specifically Archmage is also Ranged DPS and Warrior Priest is Melee DPS.
 * --Spike (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Archmage and Warrior Priest are both support classes. --Ifrit (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Full Class List?
Are we really going to do this? I've seen on so many game pages the "full list" arguments, and all of them revert back to this ->[] and eventually they get removed. I think the table of classes and achetypes would be sufficient, as it has enough information that's required, but it's not a game guide. I went ahead and removed the classes as well as the many empty classes that are listed. If we do end up keeping it, I'd then propose that it be a seperate page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrel (talk • contribs) 04:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point, thanks for the advice. Is it long eough to make a new article though? Foxfoil (talk) 09:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see where you're coming from Wrel. I expanded Foxfoil's addition since I thought a short summary about each career would be helpful to the article, since the career table just links to an external website. Wikipedia is meant to be encyclopedic, and it loses that value if there's no information ON Wikipedia. What if the official page is taken down, links changed, etc? Then we have no encyclopedic record with some kind of career summary. I understand the "game guide" angle, but we're not talking tactics, specialization templates, or anything of the sort; just a simple summary -- exactly like the summary that is already on the page for each of the six armies.
 * It won't break my heart at all if we don't keep it, but I think these factors should be taken into consideration. Itanius (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be amiss to a brief talk about the career archetypes. Many people might not understand that each career is a unique version of it's archetype, sort of a "sub-archetype".  An example being how the tanks are essentially 3 "types" of Tank, i.e. the Aura Tanks (KoTBS, Chosen), the Buddy Tanks (IB/BG), and the Chain-Attack Tanks (SM/BO).  Every Archetype is like this.  However, a brief summary of how the sub-archetype works is one thing, a brief "guide" on each and every career is a bit much.199.91.34.33 (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Jay

Criticism Section?
Many Wikipedia articles have a "Criticism" section that shows the 2nd point of view or another perspective. Right now the whole thing looks like a big advertisement. --Zybez (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Many bad Wikipedia articles contain criticism sections. Many good Wikipedia articles manage to integrate criticism of various aspects of a subject into appropriate points in the article, together with reliable sources. This should aim to be a good article, and not a bad one. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What we need is a Critical Reception section with summaries of various reviews and ratings as they come in, as in common in other VG entries. I will start work on that in the next couple of days unless someone else beats me to it. Phrenology (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place for subjective, opinionated content; it's purpose is to provide encyclopedic, factual material. That's why the article "looks like a big advertisement", because it doesn't contain those things. --Itanius (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind criticism, a reception section period needs to go up immediately, there are numerous reviews from large publications and there's no reason for them to not be included at this stage in the article. Revrant (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I started it, since no one else was doing it. It could use many more sources though. Phrenology (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Beta Timeline
I feel bad "being bold" and just whacking the whole section without agreement when people were obviously so careful about it, but... does anybody care what the pre-release beta cycle dates are? Does that information really belong in an encyclopedia entry? Jlahorn (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I think it belongs there. It is encyclopedic and provides a certain historic look at the development cycle of the game. Does it need to stay there forever? Maybe not, but the game is still new enough that it may be relevant. -Itanius (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"Development"
I was just reading through the article and noticed that somebody has put alot of Dark Elves bullshit in the section where the development history is supposed to be. Could someone please fix it?

Lars Witter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.222.214 (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Platform(s)?
I believe WAR is slated to be Windows only. Does anyone have factual information on this? Selcouth 19:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

According to EA-Mythic's official FAQ, the release of WAR will be Windows PC only. While they will not count out the possibility of a future Mac OS X release, there are no plans for it at the moment. . TShultz 22:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed Mac from the Platform(s) box. In the answer to that question, they state they they currently have no plans to make a Mac version. --Credema 16:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for researching! --Selcouth 15:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, can't remember where, but if anyone's interested in looking for it, I believe they've said they have plans for releasing it on various consoles further down the line. 124.170.50.8 05:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They were considering releasing an Xbox 360 version, which they have the ability to do, but they have now said that they are no longer considering it and the game will be PC only. Too bad for X360 owners, it woulda been sweet. :( Wakata —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.190.217 (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference to WoW (WoW derivation from Warhammer fantasy setting)
in this article the reference to wow: "'Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning' is not in any way related to 'World of Warcraft' ..." could be elaborated; in the wikipedia article relating to the play setting Warhammer Fantasy (setting) it specifically states that themes from warhammer were adapted into WoW: "Warhammer has developed a very recognizable stylistic image set which has influenced other works, like Warcraft." Albert Cruz 19:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC) The choppa will be included again, but the hammerer has been scratched, and instead a new dwarven melee will take its place. http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211597 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.142.171 (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Classes
Was there a reason for that or a source? The official website still lists those four classes as being the right ones. TheCommodore7 (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Evidently, Mythic is removing major features in order to make their fall release deadline. I see what they're trying to do - they're trying to release in competition with World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King, which will probably be released around the same time. (Source article here. --21:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's more likely due to influence from EA. Since EA prefers to release crap now instead of quality later, and then force you to buy expansions to have for money what should have existed for free since day one. -OOPSIE- (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? Warhammer Online has been delayed somthing on the order of four times. Mythic set a release date for this October and got all the support for that release going, including box-printing, ship coordinating, et cetera. After months of specifically directed effort, they had to accept the unfortunate fact that the other captial cities aren't going to be ready on time. So, rather than delay the shipping of the game AGAIN, which would undoubtedly cost a good bit of money, or release six poorly designed capital cities, they're going to start with two excellent ones. The others will be added in free content expansions, something Mythic is known for in DAoC. As for the classes, Mark Jacobs specifically stated that they were cut because they weren't fun to play. They may be added back at a later date after an overhaul, but there's no official statement on that either way. As you can see, it's not a case of the ubercorp publisher trying to screw you out of your cash. It's a case of a good developing company making some hard decisions in an effort to release the best game possible.

198.203.191.61 (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever the case is, this is not the place to discuss WAR. This is the place to discuss the WAR article.  Thanks for so quickly adding the source, BTW. TheCommodore7 (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a point to make, I was in beta for some time. The Hammerer and Choppa were in the early-ish beta, what Mythic tends to refer to as the "Legacy" versions of careers.  The Knight of the Blazing Sun was in briefly, and the Black Guard never made an appearance period.  So they were not simply removed due to being "not fun" to play, Mythic just decided to set them aside for now and Mark is quite good at making truth do a fine jig.  However, Devs have been seen "messing around" with the 'cut' careers as recently as during the Open Beta (I cannot give any links to this because the only 'evidense' I saw was on the an inspection screenshot on the beta boards, which I cannot link).  There was even an exploit earlier this year that allowed you to create the "cut" careers and play them in beta.  I fully expect we'll be seeing, or at least hearing of, these careers shortly.199.91.34.33 (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Jay


 * Two blog sites reported getting mystery packages from EA Mythic, heavily hinting some kind of important announcement on the 29th of this month. Because these are just powerful rumors, they have no place on the Wiki right now. However, if they are what they seem to be, expect an update to the article in three days. --Lygris (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Call to Arms section?
Not sure if there should be another section on the sarticle about the Call to Arms content update(s). Though it will unveil two new classes, as well as a new dungeon and quests. Yes, no? A major content update for sure though but is it worth mentioning seeing how the previous two classes that were released were nothing compared to the size and update of this scale. --VertigoOne (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Latest player subscription numbers
According to some WAR websites, some information about subscriber numbers was released recently, and it gives the number of subscribers as 300,000, down from 750,000 in October 08. Maybe somebody should put that in? -OOPSIE- (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Come up with a legitimate source (not a fan site) and add it. Be bold! ;)  -Itanius (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Why no mention of the game's glaring technical problems?
Myself and many other players are simply unable to play WAR even with system specs well above the recommended specs. This article could use some mention of this.12.206.222.20 (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:SOAP. WP:WEASEL. WP:WEIGHT. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because YOU are having problems does not mean EVERYONE is having problems. You and "many other players" - that's weasel words in the exact form.  While I understand your troubles and I suffer from them as well in the game, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Slinky317 (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of the game's technical problems have been fixed in the last months. A few issues remain, but they are getting stamped out quickly. --Lygris (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The technical problems have not been addressed. Memory leaks, incessant crashing, poor performace are all still rampant unfortunatly. By all means, visit the official forums and read the "bug reports" section. Funforall666 (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Funforall

Regarding "Critical Reception"
Please discuss your changes using edit-summaries, or here on the talk page, rather than reverting my changes without comment. Please do note that forum posts by players are not generally accepted as reliable sources on Wikipedia, as it is very easy to create a forum post and then use it as a citation. Please also avoid generalising terms such as "many players", as it is unfair to assume a majority of the player-base are represented by three forum posters. Finally, please attempt to use neutral terms to describe the critical reception of this game, or at least provide suitable citations to prove that EA Mythic are "vehemently refusing" to publish data and such. Thanks. --Taelus (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Any bias should be removed from the editing and contribution process. This includes claiming that only "three" individuals posted on the most recently linked forums ex - http://forums.warhammeronline.com/warhammer/board/message?board.id=pts_ff&thread.id=39448&page=1. Funforall666 (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not assert that only three people posted on the forums regarding the topic. I was merely pointing out that linking to three topics is not a sufficient source when attempting to prove usage of the term "many players", or attempting to verify the weight of a point. --Taelus (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the last paragraph of the Critical Reception section be removed completely or rewritten. It is very subjective, not encyclopedic, and does not add any value to the article. Wikipedia is not the place to complain about the current state of the game and should only include objective, encyclopedic information. --Itanius (talk) 03:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, in its current state it is not suitable for inclusion. --Taelus (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It adds value to the perspective of a potential player. Any individual who is unfamiliar with the game and the current state of the game has every right to know what his/her $15.00 is being paid for. This is a business like any other. In return for Mythic/EA's services, players pay a sum of $15.00 a month to play the game. How are direct links to developer posts and annoucements subjective? It's interesting that when "praise" is concerned there is no problem linking the articles or accouncements. However, posts which are made by employees of Mythic which may be viewed upon poorly by a naked eye are "subjective". The paragraph that was removed contained facts on the state of the game backed up by posts from developers. This is wikipedia not the warhammer official forums. A representative for Mythic does not have the jurisdiction to police this website. Funforall666 (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No one said the information couldn't be there. It was defined as subjective and not to Wikipedia standards. If you insist that it stay, then rewrite it objectively from a neutral point of view and not from the point of view of a bitter customer. Use legitimate references that follow Wikipedia guidelines and use Edit Summaries when making changes to the article. Additionally, instigating edit wars and ambiguously removing other information in the article as retribution for not getting your way will only result in negative administrative actions. Please remain civil and professional. Thank you. --Itanius (talk) 06:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, any subscription figures quoted my Mythic are more subjective than figures calculated by players. Simply announcing a blind number does not make it accurate, regardless of who the source may be! When a business releases it's quarterly losses/gains, documentation is thoroughly analyzed by third-parties to verify accuracy. As long as websites like "Warheap" and "MMOCHART" exist and continue to provide explanations and calculations on how they arrived at said figures, they will remain more accurate than Mythic. Once again, I would like to emphasize that Mythic nor it's partner EA has provided any documentation or proof that the subscription figure for Warhammer Online is what they claim. It's in their best interest to announce an exhaggerated figure.Funforall666 (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you take the time to read those references, they are legitimate investor-related numbers. If you're accusing the company of lying to its investors, then that's another matter that also does not belong in this article.  --Itanius (talk) 06:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There're already 73 posts in the linked thread ,it is also American Servers only (EU'servers player can't post there )official forum,and most important  players,mainly,read and post on warhammeralliance forum. Edelward (talk) 10:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edelward (talk • contribs) 10:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Current Subscriber Figures
The most recent quarterly earnings from EA reveals: http://news.ea.com/portal/site/ea/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20090203006591&newsLang=en 300,000+ subscribers as of the fiscal close. With that order of magnitude, we can assume they're between 300k and 350k and much closer to 300k on that range. Still, it can be officially extended to say "300,000+ current subscribers as of February 2009" Groat (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC) What the EA total revenue figures have to do with one game from 32 ones they run? I find it irrelevant to have such information in topic concerning this game only. Suppose,for example, EA would get high profits from incoming Dragon Age, it still had no direct impact on WAR and must not be in this topic,either their losses in other games. —Preceding Edelward (talk) 10:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)unsigned comment added by Edelward (talk • contribs) 10:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Post Launch Development
Would it be a good idea to expand the article with information on major patches? These are effectively expansions to the game and feature many changes and improvements from the initial release. --206.83.87.227 (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)