Talk:Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article is part of WikiProject Warhammer 40,000, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to Warhammer 40,000. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] Deathwing colour scheme

Can anyone confirm that certain Squads in the Deathwing have retained Black as the color scheme? Please cite a source if you can. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unyuzyall (talk • contribs) .

The probaly played against someone who painted his force the pre-Heresy color scheme Johhny-turbo 00:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canonocity of "Angels of Darkness"

Can someone enlighten me as to the level of canon (fiction) possessed by Games Workshop novels, when compared with the rulebooks and codicies? I'm referring to the section Conspracy Theories, where an (or possibly multiple) anon user(s) and I have been arguing over the canonocity of the "Angels of Darkness" novel.

He claims that the book is equal in canon level to all other Warhammer 40,000 novels (which I can understand), but also, superior to all other 40K canon as it is written by Gav Thorpe. I will admit now that I've never read the book, but want to know what the novel's level of canon is. If's it's equal or superior, I'll integrate it into the main history.

I don't want this to become an edit war, so I'm seeking advice. If there is no reply by the 7th November, I'm editing the section to say that this "may not be" the definite history. Saberwyn 03:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yea Deathwing Terminators no longer are painted with black armor. It is now an Egg shell white, or Bleached Bone as Games Workshop calls it.

[edit] The Lion still alive?

Okay, I've recently (as in, five minutes ago) been made to understand that Lion el'Jonson is still alive in the heart of the Rock. What's with the article saying he died? Rogue 9 12:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canonocity of "Angels of Darkness"

The novel is cannon, just like other Black Library novels. I would consider it perfectly reasonable however to keep the claim of El'Jonsons corruption and waiting for a victor as a conspirasy theory. This is because the information comes from one of the Fallen Angels during interrogation and he states that it is only his personnal theory. It is an actual question being placed into the history by Gav Thorpe; Was El'Jonson waiting for a victor, or was he actually delayed in arriving? Lost Soal14:34, 14 November 2005 (GMT)

Thanks, I asked because that there was an anon user before making the claim that the novel was the definite history of the Dark Angels, and was to be treated as vastly superior to all Games Workshop publications. Saberwyn 23:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lion El'Jonson Alive

Codex: Angels of Death, page 14.

"Buried even deeper within the rock, is the final, greatest secret of the chaper. Only one person in the entire universe knows the truth - the emperor himself. for hidden in a secluded, unreachable chamer at the heart of what was once planet caliban, Lion El'Jonson lies sleeping, waiting with the watchers in the dark for that time when he will be needed once again to defend the imperium against its enemies.

  • Unfortunately, in the same way that Arthur Pendragon waits and heals at the Isle of Avalon, waiting for the 'Final Battle'. Saberwyn 08:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Incorrect. The piece of narrative that paragraph is drawn from is reinforced by the novel 'Eye of Terror' from the point of view of the first greater daemon of Tzeentch reflecting upon what Tzeentch has told him (mainly about the Emperor's ascension).

Eye of Terror page 286 "...there are secrets not even known to the Inner Circle of the Fallen Angels and one final secret that is known only to the God-Emperor himself, Deep, deep within the Rock, at the centre of what was once the planet Caliban, lies a sealed, unreachable chamber. Here lies sleeping the Chapter Primarch, Lion El Jonson carried away by the Watchers in the Dark on that terrible day when the Dark Angels legion tore itself apart..."

It also goes on to state the unconcious mind of the Primarch is what helped guide the Dark Angel Abdaziel Magron through the story. And, yes, that 'Fallen Angels' bit is direct from the page. User:Lord Azrael

[edit] Notable characters

I have proposed a guideline for character notablity within Warhammer 40,000 articles which I believe may effect the listings on this page. Please see the proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Notability and comment. Cheers --Pak21 10:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

We have now agreed some guidelines, and I believe that Brother Bethor does not meet any of the criteria specified. If you believe he does, please give the reasons here. (If you wish to discuss changes to the guidelines, please do this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Notability). Cheers --Pak21 10:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure Bethor is a Codex special character, and had a miniature in the past. I'll have to confirm, but I think he scrapes through per the policy. -- Saberwyn 19:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Bethor was a special character in Codex:Angels of Death in second edition, he may have been mentioned (though without rules) in 3rd edition and is mentioned again by name (though again with no additional rules) in the 4th edition codex: Dark angels -- miagel 12.29, 19 February 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Removal of Template:fact template and addition of Template:verify template

First, in the paragraph describing the Space Wolves/Dark Angels rivalry, somebody added a few lines saying this rivalry ended during the 13th Black Crusade. Someone else slapped a "citation needed" template on it.

I have removed this section as incorrect, or at this time unverifiable. To quote White Dwarf 287 which has a small section on a successful combined action between the Angels and Wolves... (emphasis mine) "The incident proved that the two forces united presented a force many times more powerful than the sum of its parts, yet few believe the two chapters will be able to put aside their differences for good."

Secondly, the section titled "Successor Chapters" needs to be verified or removed. If kept, it should either be split out somewhere (to the List of Chapters or even its own article), or renamed "Angels of Retribution". This section is entirely about the AoR, and in a hell of a lot of detail. One of the sources listed in the text is the "Warhammer 40,000 Fluff Bible", which in my personal opinion is a very unreliable source. -- Saberwyn 12:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Master Belial notability

Anyone know if Master Belial is notable or not? Cheers --Pak21 10:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Given a lack of evidence, I have removed Belial from the list. Please re-add if appropriate evidence can be shown. Cheers --Pak21 09:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Successor chapters

I have reverted the recent additions which use the 40k fluff bible as a source for the information on Successor Chapters, as our current inclusion guidelines say that the 40k fluff bible should not be used as a source, as it is not reliable. Is anyone capable of separating out the information available from Rogue Trader from that from the fluff bible? Cheers --Pak21 11:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added fluff taken from the 4th edition Codex: Dark Angels pertaining to 3 new successor chapters with a small amount of background. angels of Retribution are still not in the codex and have remained absent from this section -- miagel 12.34, 19th February 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Keep to the facts!!!

I've noticed a whole lot of information in some sections of this wiki that I've never heard of before and it's stuff that smells like fanfiction... especially the second paragraph of History - Lion el Jonson.

And a whole lot of that stuff under Successor Chapters. The Angels of Retribution are not even mentioned in the codex, there are the Angels of Vengeance, Angels of Absolution and Angels of Redemption. This chapter is probably a fan creation and, therefore, not a part of this article.

Kill it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.138.22.70 (talk • contribs) .

There are multiple requests, both on the article page and this page for somebody to sort out the Successor Chapters section; there's only a few of us editing Warhammer 40,000 articles and we can only do so much. Given that you clearly have at least some of the knowledge necessary, why not be bold and do it yourself? Cheers --Pak21 12:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I have myself been bold and removed the information on the Angels of Retribution. If anyone has a canonical source for it (specifically, not the 40k fluffbible), then please re-add it with source. Cheers --Pak21 08:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cipher and other

There should be at least a small section concerning Cipher and the possibility that he caries Lion's sword.

  • he a pears out of the blue and his mere presence seams to incite others to rage
  • whenever he is about to be killed he is whisked away by some lesser chaos god who he is in the favor of
  • He caries a sword that he never unsheathes, Johnsons sword, unlike his helmet and much of the rest of his equipment, was never found.

Additional info Also in the old Blood Angels/Dark Angels codex "Angels of death" it says that Luther is actually still alive, completely mad and grieving in the deepest dungeon of the rock. This is only known by the chapter head and the highest inquisitor Chaplin.

The Rock, although now a ship, rather than flying places like most other ships in the imperium, seams to appear and disappear randomly throughout the galaxy. It might stay in the same spot for a month and then almost instentainiusly move to the other end of the galaxy. Their is some speculation that it has the ability to sense fallen and teleport to their vicinity.

I don't know if they still exist in the new models but the small cloaked figure holding Jonson’s helmet is a watcher. Apparently they are guardians of the rock, and no one really understands what they are.

I hope I could be of help

And the planet is described in the Codex angels of death and it’s description of the planet seams to match that of the second paragraph of the history section.

[edit] One big metaphor for repressed homosexuality?

Well, the article already explains the Lionel Johnson connection, and it is widely believed that the poem 'The Dark Angel' was to express his frustrations with his homosexual urges.

Now consider the history of the Dark Angels chapter

The theme of the Dark Angels space marines is "shame and secrecy". Their Primarch had been touched by 'chaos', and many of their number turned to chaos, now known as The Fallen.

As for the fate of Lion El, only the secrative Inner Circle know. And the Dark Angels are ever vigilant in seeking out the fallen, hence their many confessors, who's duty is to reform the fallen through torture and death.

Now, pretty much switch 'chaos' and 'fallen' for homosexual urges, we have a strong metaphor for repressed homosexuality, the shame and the shame and secrecy which follows it.

  • on a lighter note*

the Space Wolves say "they wear dresses" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.246.211.204 (talk • contribs) .

Do you have any reliable sources you are intending to cite in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, or is this in fact original research which has no place on Wikipedia? Cheers --Pak21 11:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
nice theses but I don't really think it can be in any way proven. Then again as frued once said, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Like the above guy said "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Don't look for meaning where there is none.

[edit] What the hell is with the Conspiracy section?

Seriously, who wrote that garbage? It states clearly and in no uncertain terms in every source on the subject that it was Caliban that turned to Chaos and El'Jonson from the get-go was for the Emperor, he and Russ have even put aside their rivalry and rushed to Emperor's aid immediately upon receiving the news of rebellion (which forced Horus to gamble with direct attack on Earth). And here we have utter nonsense of the Conspiracy section claiming that El'Jonson was perhaps tainted and Caliban was innocent and just got wiped because they misinterpreted the signs. Just because the last paragraph says that this verison is "desputed" doesn't make it OK, it is not disputed, official sources have exact explanation for what happened. Conspiracy part (at least the last 2 paragraphs) should be removed. No story or novel can override Codex and the Rulebook, especially since the author of the novel says it doesn't. At best a section should be created for the Fallen, as a Chaos version of events (kind of like the Iron Warriors blaming Regal Dorn), but it must be clearly stated that that version is false.

You have to realise that people who visit this page are probably not in possession of the appropriate Codex, thus we mustn't litter their view and understanding of the chapter with outright false claims.

Keije 01:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"No story or novel can override Codex and the Rulebook". Do you have a verifiable source for that? As far as I am aware, the official Games Workshop position is that all material bearing the 40k logo is equally official; see Marc Gasgoigne's statement: "anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex". --Pak21 09:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
That's how I've always heard the policy as well. It's all the same. --Falcorian (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
But it is still a direct lie to call it a Conspiracy Theory, the novel author himself is quoted in that section as saying that it's a questiobable view, and the book presents the view from Chaos point of view. Thus it is not a conspiracy, but the view of the Fallen at best, false nonsense at worst. To call it a conspiracy you'll need a verifiable proof that there is a faction of Dark Angels (not corrupt) that holds that view (i.e. belive they are mislead) Keije 15:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
To add to what I said above, even the link to the official response is not a counter argument to my view. It only concerns events that are added by the novel authors that are not in "official" timeline that codexes have. It doesn't say that novels override sources in case of contradiction. Furthermore, this isn't a matter of a personal character of El'Jonson, this is a point of faith. Emperor is a god and his primarchs are his sons and prophets of his word. This is exactly like Christianity vs. Muslim, they both teach a path to the same god, but their view of that path is different (as is their interpretation of events). Those are not Conspiracy Theories, they are different views. To have a conspiracy you need for example a Christian, who is still a Christian holds all the tanents of faith, but suspects that one of the saints is an evil schemer and murderer/torturer who bribed his way to sainthood. Notice that a Christian has to hold that view, not a Muslim/Buddist/etc, just like it is a Dark Angel that needs to hold the negative view of El'Jonson, not a chaos warshipper, for it to be a conspiracy theory. Lastly my verifiable source to back up all my claims is the dictionary definition of the words "rules" and "codex". So unless someone is going to provide an official statement by either GW or BL saying that there are non-corrupt angels who hold that negative view of El'Jonson, a new section called something like "View of the Fallen" will be added and the last two paragraphs of the "conspiracy" will be moved there, with proper rewording. Keije 12:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Woah. Take a step back there: the Emperor is not a god. He is a fictional entity, who is viewed by some members of the in-game universe as being a god. Other members of the in-game universe view him as a powerful psyker, nothing more. There is no "matter of faith" here: we can (and should, per WP:NPOV) present the views of other factions in the game as well. --Pak21 13:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Pak you have to get your bearings straight, you need to keep the real world separate from the fictional. We are not discussing real world, we are discussing WH40K, the Empreror is a God there in every way imaginable. This is a dispute of faith thus a comparison with other religions is fully justified. And I do agree that we should present the views of other factions, you have to read my entire post I'm not saying we should cut it out, I'm saying the way it is labeled right now is a mistake. Keije 14:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:WAF: "Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself." --Pak21 14:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
first of all I didn't say we should alter article to make it from the point of view of the in-fiction person, I only provided proof that you wanted that my comparison is valid, if you not going to read second half of every post I make, I'm not going to bother with you. I'm gonna give you time to come up with a proof that conspiracy exists in any wh40k work of it's getting changed to reflect accurate view of the fiction. Keije 14:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's take a step back here: all we can say in a Wikipedia article is "Some sources {{cite Codex: Dark Angels and others}} present one view of the Dark Angels (insert view here). Other sources {{cite Fallen and maybe others}} present a different view (insert view here)." We should not attempt to emphasise one view over the other or anything like that. Whatever you may think, the novels are not any less canonical, or set in a different timeline from the codexes; to again quote Marc Gasgoigne: "if it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40k universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it." That applies equally to the codexes, the novels, the artbooks and everything else. All Gav Thorpe's statement says is that Fallen is one viewpoint; the Codex presents another. Both are equally valid. If it's just the "Conspiracy theories" subhead you have a problem with, change that. And as to why I don't read the second half of your posts, try reading that last sentence you wrote again: it makes no sense :-) --Pak21 14:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to think we may have a miscommunication here. Because you just described precicely my point of view. Let's try in point form, here is what we have.
1) Article presenting view as Conspiracy
2) Point (1) implies in no uncertain terms that there are Dark Angels who are not corrupted by chaos who think that El'Jonson may have been corrupted
3) We have no source to back up that claim, even the author of the referenced novel is quoted directly in the article as saying that view presented is a view of Chaos, not of subgroup of Dark Angels loyal to the Emperor (it is the necessety for this subgroup's existance that my analogy with religions was meant to illustrate, not that I belive in the Emperor as a God)
Conclusion 1 - We have no source to back up claim that a conspiracy exists
Conclusion 2 - We do have a source that show what the Fallen (and possibly other Chaos chapters) think
Conclusion 3 - The section title is wrong/misleading, we must rename it (and reword the body to match) to "View of the Fallen/Chaos" or something along those lines
Consider further that that section has to constantly explain that it is a questionable view from the poin of view of the Imperium (from which "reliable" history is said to be drawn), if we state right away that it is the view of the Chaos we descuss here (which according to the author we rely for Source it is), we can make the section clearer.

Keije 15:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

(post-edit conflict) I think I see the problem. I read the "Conspiracy theories" subhead as referring to theories among fans, not to conspiracies among the Dark Angels themselves; I don't see the jump from your point 1 to point 2 as being as obvious as I think you do. This probably means we should reword it to prevent future confusion... I don't particularly like the "View of the Fallen" text, as that feels too much in-universe to me, but I'm sure we can work something out. --Pak21 15:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I just looked over that section again, and I realise that about 30% of it is simply disclaimer to make sure people know that it's a unofficial/biased/dispute/etc view. If we make it clear that it's the view of Chaos, all of that fluff will be gone and paragraphs 3 will disapper and paragraph 2 will dwindle somewhat as well. Seems kinda a waste to have it there then. What do you think of including it as another reason for uprising on Calaban in the Luther's Betrayal section, as another reason for him turning on El'Jonson? That is what the whole thing in that novel basically amounts to, give another reason for the schism in the legion. This way we don't have the view of the fallen, but rather the view from Calaban as they saw El'Jonson return, and the view from the fleet as it returns to Calaban. And besides even if we look at it as conspiracy theory among fans, there is even less ground for it. Look at Cypher article, now those are conspiracies, because they are based on incomplete and largely indirect information, this allows for fan speculation (reminds me I have to squash one of those, since 3rd edition rules killed it). Here we don't have room for speculation, we have two views stated explicity and exactly, neither one is open to interpretation. Fans can't have an opinion, it only affects fluff when you try to play in character so you can separate Imperium vs Chaos Angels (mission design and novel plot hooks). Keije 21:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don’t see why there’s such a problem with the section. It sates clearly where the alternative view of events comes from and why it could be disputed. Ok the title might be better as something other than ‘Conspiracy Theories’ but if so then suggest something. The text itself is fine. Bombot 16:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That's all I ever wanted, I never said there was a problem with the text, and I did propose a new name, pak and co wouldn't budge and started the whole discussion thing. Alternative History or View of The Fallen or Chaos or at the least Disputed Information would be more appropriate. As it stands we have a conspiracy theory section with no conspiracy, that is my one and only gripe. Keije 23:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why are there rules quoted?

Just because 4th edition codex hasn't been released, doesn't make the rules for it any less subject to GW copyright. That section for the 4th edition updates should be removed. Fluff can be added (if there is an update), but those rules weren't quoted for earlier editions and they have no business being quoted now as per Wikipedia policies. That section should either contain only fluff or be removed if no fluff is available. Keije 15:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Lion El' Jonson

I really think that If Lion El' Jonson is still alive, then we should post it under the Dark Angel's section. I am a HUGE fan of the Dark Angel's. I play them on the Table Top, and I love the information that I have recieved about them off of Wikipedia. If The Lion truly is still alive then I think that we should have it added into the section for Dark Angels. Before I read the previous Articles about The Lion being alive I was under the impression that he was dead because of what I read off this site.

Athruun

[edit] Plagiarism?

I admit I don't have it to hand, but by the look of it the history section is word for word the same as in my old copy of Codex: Angels of Death. Can anyone confirm whether this is allowable? mattbuck 20:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly not allowed, and if you can confirm that it's plagiarized, then it should be removed! --Falcorian (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It'd be a couple of weeks before I can do that since I'm at uni and codex is at home. Can anyone with a copy of the codex confirm for me? mattbuck 22:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I've requested help on WP:40K, hopefully someone there will have it. --Falcorian (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to look for mine. I know I have one around here somewhere. Shrumster 07:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Its the same as the Codex but dont remove it just reword it. Rocks Lotus 00:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/r/Talk%7EDark_Angels_%28Warhammer_40%2C000%29_b7e5.html"