User talk:Guilliaman

Genestealers
Regarding your recent edit. The reason it's been changed back to "Cult", and not "brood" is because that particular section of the article is for variant army lists, not the main ones. Yes, in the Codex 'Stealers come in Broods, but the variant list for them is a Cult one. Hope this clears up why your edit has been reverted twice. Darkson - BANG! 23:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

But it still doesn't. Find me a Games Workshop authorized document stating that Genestealers are a Cult, because quite frankly, they shouldn't be a variant army at all. They are still created from the same hive mind, and the fact that they are different would mean that Hive Tyrands and Carnifexes would also fall into the variant army list. Genestealers are broods, plain and simple, and under no circumstance, until I have seen authorized proof of it, will I falter in my belief.
 * The variant army (I believe it's on the GW US site) is based on the old 2nd edition Cult idea (Patriarch 'Stealer, Hybrids, Brood brothers), updated for the 4th edition codex, It's called the Genestealer Cult list, and therefore is named as such under the "variant army" section.  There is no variant army named "genestealer brood". Darkson - BANG! 22:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite. When the Genestealers were edited to fit into the new army lists and rules, the Patriarchs, and the Magus (way old school) were all taken away, leaving just the normal Genestealer, and the Broodlord. Not Cultlord, but Broodlord. Simply in the miniatures list, 'Stealers are classified as broods. On the second edition, calling the genetealers and everything in that range WOULD be a cult, but as soon as the new information was added and the other models were taken away, Genestealers no longer became a variant army, but as much of a normal tyranid as a hormagaunt or a Carnifex. The only thing in the GW US site that even remotely resembles the Genestealers as a cult, or variant army, is in the Classic Tyranids section. Now call me crazy, but I do believe that Classic would mean old, or "not in use unless you just so happen to want a whole bunch of old miniatures to sit around and gather dust"
 * For yet another example, in the Tau Empire codex, the variant armies listed include Vespid Stingwings and Kroot Mercenaries. Each of these have their own section, and their own bios. For someone to call a Genestealer a variant would lead me to believe that they would have a biography composed to their name, not just a normal, broad "Tyranid description"--Guilliaman 09:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to be completely missing the point. Yes, there is a Broodlord in the codex.  I'm not disagreeing with that.  But that is a unit listed in the main army list.  It is NOT a variant.  The Vespids and Kroot you mentioned are not variants either, as they are part of the main army list.  There IS a Kroot variant list, in a UK White Drawf (and others?) that allowed for different types of Kroot to be added, but in a list that was Kroot-only, and isn't mentioned in the main codex.  The same is true of the 'Stealer Cult list.  It is based on the old 2nd edition Cult list, but updated for the 3rd/4th edition rules.  It is a Cult, with a Patriarch, Magus, Broodbrothers, hybrids etc, and is a variant list.  It is not mentioned in the codex, it is not referenced in the codex, and it doesn't matter what the codex calls the "super" 'Stealer, as it is not from the same list.
 * For the purposes of the list on that page, a variant list is not "odd" units from the relevent codex, but a complete army based on troop-types from that army, but in a way that isn't covered from the codex. A complete 'Stealer army, led by a Broodlord, isn't a variant, because it is covered in the main codex.  A Cult army, with Patriarch, Magus and Hybrids, backed up by 'Stealers and Broodbrothers IS a variant, because it cannot be formed from the Codex. Darkson - BANG! 09:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, please don't respond on your own Talk page - reply to mine, as I don't get any notification that you've replied if you reply here. Darkson - BANG! 09:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Movie Marines? Sorry, you've lost me there. I've no idea what you mean by that.

As for the marines, actually agree that some on the list shouldn't be there - specifiacally the Ultramarines (as they're the "bog standard" SM chapter i.e. the Codex) and the Dark Angels (as they have they're own full codex now). The rest I think should stay, at least till they get their own full codex (Space wolves and Blood Angels specifically). Darkson - BANG! 22:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

codexes / codices
GW uses codexes; the correct form is codices - The Morphy hunter 00:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

So then, if using the Games Workshop codex, would I refer to them as Codexes, as they do, or the proper term? --Guilliaman 21:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Future of WP:40k
Hello. As a member of WP:40K I ask you to share your thoughts and opinions on a matter that I feel will shape the future of the project. Thanks. --Falcorian (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Warhammer 40K Project updated
The Warhammer 40,000 project page has been updated! Protonk (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Sent with Auto Wiki Browser to all 40K project members.
 * Assessment tags have been added to the project banner.
 * New material, including transwiki instructions and an organizational chart, has been added to the main project page.
 * Please help us get the Warhammer 40K project back on track!

Project activity
This message is a test to check to see if members of the Warhammer 40K Project are still online, active and interested in helping the project. If you are no longer interested in the project all you need to do is...nothing! If you don't respond to this I'll take your name off the list and you'll never here from us again. If you're the proactive type you can remove the name yourself or talk to me and I'll do it.

If you are still interested in helping out the 40K project or otherwise still want to be listed there you can say so in response to this message on your talk page or on mine. Alternately you can add our new userbox (User WikiProject Warhammer 40,000) to your userpage and I'll take that as a response. The userpage doesn't automatically include people in a category of members yet, but it might in the future.

We've assessed most of the articles in the project on the Version 1.0 assessment scale (the table on the project page should take a few days to update) but we need to push to get the core articles in the project up to GA status. Thanks for all your help. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help the project along. Protonk (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)