Talk:Vehicles of the Imperium (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] Titans???

I added a short paragraph and link on them, aren't they considered Vehicles? Can someone clarify and expand on my paragraph, I don't know that much about Warhammer 40k I just noticed that Titans were missing.

  • This is very important. Problem is, some of our 40k experts are, the 40k experts, not the knock-off games. Colonel Marksman 18:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of Article

What's the scope of this article? It says "Common" vehicles, but then it goes on to mention Titans and superheavy tanks - if it means "common", then there needs to be a cutoff, and if it means "all" then there's a whole load that need to be added. --Charax 22:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  • As a quick guide I'd say anything which gets a mention in the 40k or Epic rules. Cheers --Pak21 22:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • From where I stand when I first sorted out the list from the mess that was 3 different articles: Rules in a Codex is a first priority, then major Epic/Imperial Armour vehicles as a second priority. If a minor variant of a vehicle that meets my above two conditions existed in Epic or IA, I'd mention it in that article's section. Why, what did you have in mind of adding? -- Saberwyn 08:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Land Raider Spartan

Mesa suspect. Contacting contributor, although if someone can shed some light on this variant I'd be much appreciative. -- Saberwyn 10:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Here, it's me. I don't know much about the Land Raider Spartan. I've seen it mentioned at 29th.emperorschildren.net (a well-known pre-heresy site) and here and there on the Bolter & Chainsword. I felt it would be alright to simply mention it. I know it exists, other than that, I don't know anything about it, other than it was used prior to and during the heresy, but has since disappeared. There's not much information to suspect, unless you suspect it's existence. - CB319

  • The problem is that unless there is information provided by Games Workshop or one of its subsidiary companies concerning the existence of this vehicle, it would be non-canonical and as such wouldn't belong here. If someone comes forward and says "hey, that variant is in Codex:A OR Imperial Armour Book B OR Black Library novel C," I'd be more than happy to verify and keep it. -- Saberwyn 21:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Alright, I'll try to find a source...I'm a bit short on cash at the moment, but getting Imperial Armour Volume 2 is on my list of priorities, though that might not be where it is. In any case, I can try to find a source. - CB319
    • Are we talking old volume 2, or new volume 2? I know I have one, and might have access to the other. I'll have a look tonight, but I'm pretty sure it isn't in there. -- Saberwyn 22:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think it will be there anyway, but it's worth looking. I can ask around as to where it is, I'll tell you when I get information. - CB319
      • Here we go, jackpot! I was told it was talked about in a WD about 200 issues ago, so I hit the UK White Dwarf Index. Issue 119, Article: Spartan. From the index description: "The Spartan typifies the ingenuity and inventiveness of Space Marine engineers when faced with a specific tactical need. In this case, to carry a squad of fully-armoured and equipped Terminators through the so-called Ring of Death which the forces of Horus had thrown around the captured Adeptus Mechanicus city of Aries Primus. This was then the second city of Mars and the largest single source of war munitions in the Imperium..." I might buy that, would like to model it. Oh, and I have been told a little about it. It had the standard Land Raider armament, but was able to carry terminators...sound like old land raiders may not have been able to, but I won't write anything until I get that issue.
      • And now, some real information. From what I've been able to piece together, back before the heresy, Land Raiders were not able to carry terminators. When Horus set up the Ring of Death around Aries Primus on Mars during the HH, the Land Raider Spartan was devised to carry squads of terminators through the Ring of Death to re-take the city. The vehicle was the first Land Raider capable of carrying terminators. It was also equipped with a powerful shield generator. While the design was originally temporary, it eventually became official and was used (somewhat) widely, until the re-design of the Land Raider, now able to carry termies, after which it disappeared.
        • That'll do me. Your job is to now sum this vehicle up in about three or four sentances and add it to the article. -- Saberwyn 12:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Some more info, for the sake of completeness: The Spartan was one of the earliest vehicle kit conversions for Warhammer 40,000, based on the two kits available at the time, the Mk.1 Land Raider and the Rhino APC. [1] Plans for it were published in White Dwarf magazine #119 in 1989.

[edit] Discontinued vehicles

Is it worth me digging out my old copies of the rulebooks for Epic and Titan Legions to add a section on Imperial vehicles that have existed in the past but since apparently vanished from the 40k Universe, like the Hellbore, Ordinatus Machines and Capitol Imperialis? It might also be noteworthy that the modern version of the Stormblade is significantly different from the original [which had a large single-barrel gun with a mounted anti-Titan missile, a sponson mounted battlecannon and a rack of 4 'barrage missiles' on the opposite sponson]. Thoughts? Hrimfaxi 06:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Stick to the ones that were pretty major, but otherwise I don't see why not. I reserve the right to change my mind after witnessing the additions, however. -- Saberwyn 08:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organization

Are these vehicles just thrown in here, or are they organized into anything? They don't even look to be in alphabetical order. If anything, let's at least make them that. Colonel Marksman 18:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Scratch that. I reorganized the materials into 3 Sections: Imperial Guard Vehicles, Space Marine Vehicles, and Battle Sister Vehicles.
  • Also, for purposes of links to vehicles from certain armies, I'm not sure (and I do/don't suggest it, I'm for both, but more against) if adding a link to their specified section of vehicles would be a good idea. I think that the reader can make his way through the vehicles just fine himself. Actually, my main concern is doing that for the Inquisition. Colonel Marksman 19:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leviathans?

could someone give us info on leviathans? I've been look and haven't found anything. Right now we just have an empty header.

The Leviathan is given a full page of detail in White Dwarf 144 (December 1991), and was issued as a model for the second edition of Space Marine. Bonifacius Bibaculus 13:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Land Raider Arbalest

Could somebody please confirm the source for this? Cheers --Pak21 08:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's fake. A Google search brings up only this page. I took the liberty of deleting it. --Pariah Press 08:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Land raider

Info from http://uk.games-workshop.com/spacemarines/land%2Draider/1/ .Surley it can be used somehow?

Why not split the vehicles into seperate articles and create a directory to them here?

Where are the pictures mate?!


The Land Raider is ideally suited to the highly mobile warfare employed by the Adeptus Astartes. Like Space Marines, the heavily armoured Land Raider is capable of fighting in almost any conditions, including extremes of climate, total vacuums and high gravity worlds. The Land Raider offers vital protection and transport for a squad of Space Marines, and has enough heavy weaponry to lay down considerable supporting fire once it has dropped its passengers at the battlezone. On deathworlds and in other harsh environs, the Land Raider's on-board stores allow the Space Marines to replenish the environmental and energy systems of their power armour, giving them a greater operational span.

In battle, it is common practice for the squad to disembark, leaving the Land Raider to fight independently. The Land Raider's mix of armament allows it to fulfil a variety of battlefield roles. In many respects it is used as a mobile emplacement, its thick armour able to withstand all but the most destructive land-based weaponry in the galaxy. In this role, several Land Raiders can form a defensive line against a counter-attack or create a near impenetrable enclave inside enemy held territory. Its twin-linked lascannons are the best tank busting armament found on a vehicle of such size, so much so that the Orks often refer to Land Raiders as 'Kan-blasterz'. Combined with its heavy bolters, the Land Raider is always capable of dealing with squadrons of light vehicles and can tear a swathe through even the most heavily armoured infantry squads.

Black Templars Land Raider Crusader

The Land Raider has advantages over nearly every other battle tank in the Imperium. Its troop carrying capacity means that it can always bring its own infantry support, regardless of how far from the battle line it must operate. The Land Raider has everything on board to tend to the needs of its crew and passengers, including medical facilities, life support and a shrine to ensure spiritual purity. Its rugged engine design can be adapted to use almost any fuel type, including a variety of gases, fossil fuels, liquids and even vegetative matter. A triple-redundant bank of analytical engines and communications arrays provide for excellent command and control facilities, allowing the Land Raider to act as a base of operations for the squad it carries, giving it an unequalled capability for deep range strikes behind enemy lines.

The Land Raider’s survivability comes from its many layered composite armour which, thanks to Magos Land's STC data, can be manufactured from a wide variety of different resources and materials. Its size makes it less unwieldy in battle than the Super-heavy Baneblades, Stormhammers and Shadowswords used by the Imperial Guard, without any significant reduction in protection.

User:Dfrg.msc 10:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. Using the information from the GW website "as is" would be a clear copyright violation.
  2. Because there isn't enough information on most of the vehicles to be worth them having their own articles. I assume you've noted Leman Russ and Titan already.
  3. If you have any free pictures of the vehicles, please feel very free to upload them (probably to commons).
Cheers --Pak21 10:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging 'Dreadnought'

Disagree. I'm not keen on the format of this article as it is, and the Dreadnought article is a general thing connected to the format and history of the game, rather than the fluff.Sojourner001 10:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the information should be merged one way or the other. Having two (sections of) articles on the same subject is just silly, and confusing for readers --Pak21 08:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed on that count, but I'm not sure that merging it into this article is the best way to go about that. This probably means that there's a contextual issue with this entire article. I'm not sure that 'Vehicles of the Imperium' is a particularly encyclopaedic subject - it would be more appropriate as 'vehicles in Warhammer 40,000' with subheadings for the various factions, and a heavily cut-down level of detail compared to what there is now. Nobody needs to know how many Forgeworld Hellhound variants there are, or the fluff behind the Vanquisher. With this in mind, I'd simply provide an overview in the following form:
  • Main battle tank - Leman Russ battle tank, plus Conqueror, Vanquisher and other variants produced by Forge World
  • Infantry Fighting Vehicle - Chimera APC
  • Support vehicles - Hellhound, a Chimera with a flamethrower; Demolisher, a Leman Russ with a heavier, short-barreled cannon
...and so on. I'd be more concerned with having a bit more information on the models and their use in the game, and a little less on fluff. Sojourner001 09:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of dramatically reformatting the Chimera section using the above as a reference. Shall the format be applied to the other sections? CABAL 15:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Better to strip text from this article and put it into the Dreadnought one. GraemeLeggett 12:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Even more now that I've added some more to this thats missing form the other.GraemeLeggett 16:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
But by formatting "variants" of xxx vehicle together when they have completely separate game stats, aren't we treating fluff-as-fact? I'm not referring to the Leman Russes, which are variants namewise, but the chimeras/hellhounds/griffon/basilisk/manticore/etc. Shrumster 09:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Format and content of this article

I'm unhappy with the nature of this whole article, given the ethos of wikipedia. The article is describing fluff - that is, it's a fact-as-fiction policy bugbear - and it's on the whole too detailed in unencyclopedic areas and doesn't have enough detail that's relevant, like the real-world development and use of the products which the fluff describes. This is one of the reasons I'm hesitant to the pending decision above about merging Dreadnought. I'd rather have the rest of the article's content rewritten in a similar style. Sojourner001 13:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think this article is more interesting to a wider audience as it is than it would be if it covered simply game mechanics and game history. --Falcorian (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
In principle I prefer having fluff discussions too - it's interesting to read these things, even though I personally already know most of it having been in the game for a long time. However, I think we'd have to invoke Ignore All Rules for that to fly with wiki policy. It's more the article format that i'm objecting to though, not the content - though that could be improved too. Sojourner001 09:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I am unclear on what you mean by the format then. Could you please explain? --Falcorian (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the article reads like a list of information which, as far as I'm aware, it isn't supposed to be. It's monotonous and doesn't emphasise the significance of the various entries. Sojourner001 15:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Sojourner01's assessment, this article's worth to Muggles is questionable. --Agamemnon2 20:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I wouldn't say so. I stumbled over it while having only superficial knowledge about WH40k and found it quite interesting. In fact it and other articles here where among the reasons for me to delve deeper into the topic; now I don't say thats what the wiki is here for and won't delve into how this is in accord with wiki policies or not, I'm just saying that the kind of person that looks up info of this kind (generally we can assume more "geeky" types) can be trusted to be able to handle format and data here easily. Count Uebles 16:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little on the fence about it. I do understand the need for some out-of universe perspective (I just added a paragraph to the beginning to start, but I'm sure it could be expanded further), but aside from those needed additons, I don't see any need to remove or rewrite the present information. SAMAS 19:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Scratch that. I changed my mind a bit after reading the Land Raider Spartan discussion. I think a good number of the sections could use a second paragraph detailing the actual model's history. SAMAS 19:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gorgon

Hi chaps, seeing as Forge World has resurected the Gorgon Super-heavy transport, I've taken the liberty of adding a short entry describing it after the Baneblade variants. Getztashida 14:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Baneblade's "11 barrels of Hell"

Just a query after noticing something about the Mars-pattern Baneblade in the Dawn of War game series, which proudly proclaims that it has eleven weapon barrels. A quick count yields one main cannon, the mortar, six heavy bolters and two lascannons; that's 10 barrels in total. I see a little barrel sticking out next to the main cannon, is that the 11th barrel? And if so, what is its name? CABAL 12:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The official weapons count is:

  • 1 turret-mounted Mega Battle Cannon(1) with Coaxial Autocannon(+1)
  • 1 Hull mounted Demolisher Cannon(+1)
  • 3 Twin-linked Heavy Bolters(+(3x2)), one in a mini-turret, two sponsoon-mounted.
  • 2 mini-turret-mounted Lascannons(+2)

For a total of 11 guns. The Autocannon is the one you missed. SAMAS 15:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. CABAL 16:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All IG vehicles are now Chimeras?

I strongly disagree with the rewrite of the Imperial Guard Vehicles, that essentially reduces all of their artillery to simply being "variants" of the Chimera. Although all of them use the Chimera chassis, from the point of view of a general, one would think of them as their own unique roles and attributes first, and then make a passing reference to Chimera. In my previous rewrite[2], I made an attempt to distinguish between the different functions and uses on the battlefield (i.e. the Basilisk versus the Manticore). GoldDragon 05:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I see you have taken the liberty of reintroducing the useless fluff. CABAL 05:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree also that lumping them all under Chimera is not the way to do it. On the other hand the fluff needs trimming. GraemeLeggett 09:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I do like CABAL's idea of a summary, including type, weapons, and detail. On the other hand, there is too little detail, considering that the Epic Armageddon living rulebook is available (and some of it is pretty humourous. GoldDragon 04:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
That would just be rephrasing readily available content. The in-universe/out-universe writing convention would also require attention. More useful would be rules edition introduction dates, model availability, game usage. All the latter usefully compressed - eg (2nd Ed, out of production, Epic only)
The only real problem I see with the article, is that the fluff is still too heavy. For example, do people really need to know that Hellhound crews are all completely off their rocker? CABAL 11:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
My recommendation is removing all fluff initially. Then only that which is material to the topic goes back in. That Hellhound crews are pyschologically disturbed is pertinent only if it affects gameplay - do they have special pyschology rules?. Repeating the specific rules or vehicle stats would be a copyvio issue but mentioning that vehicles are restricted within standard or compeition play would not.GraemeLeggett 11:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd disagree with that: Warhammer 40,000 is more than just a game; the background fluff is also important, as is evidenced by the large number of Black Library novels out there. They don't affect gameplay at all. What would you do with them? Cheers --Pak21 12:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Fluff is perfectly welcome here - WH40K Lexicanum otherwise take heed of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and more important "notability". GraemeLeggett 12:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I've read it, and I note that it explicitly includes "a summary of the plot or elements of character and exposition, treated briefly, and clearly defined as fictional." "Hellhound crews are frequently represented in Warhammer 40,000 background materials as being somewhat unstable, although this has no effect on gameplay [ref to Codex: IG] [ref to some novel or other]" would seem to me to be entirely in keeping with that. Cheers --Pak21 12:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. That's what we don't have at the moment. I note that Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) is a serious offender too. GraemeLeggett 12:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Working on it. I'll be splitting the chimera section into its component parts, like I did with the Rhino section. Approaching the tanks from an out-of-universe view, if they have separate army list entries, then they are different units. I'll just make a note that they use the xxx chassis. Shrumster 20:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article size

The article far surpasses the recommended 32KB ceiling for an article, and is almost unwieldy to navigate. I move that the Imperial Guard and Space Marine subsections be split off into separate articles, with a short general summary of the vehicles remaining in this article.

-- Sasuke Sarutobi 21:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Split the article into smaller ones. IG & Marine vehicles it is? Shrumster 17:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I'm going to try rewriting stuff to get that "in-universe" tag knocked-off. I'll do it bit-by-bit over the next few...days? Everything's backed up in previous versions anyway, right? So if I accidentally whack something important, anyone can just either revert or copy-paSte old text. Shrumster 17:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Finished with the Rhino entry (just need to know how to site non-wed sources). Tell me what you think. If there aren't any complaints and stuff, I'd like to start doing this with the other vehicles as well. I'm trying to do an out-of-universe approach, yet still mentioning fluff and in-universe stuff using the "According to published background information sources..." style and the like. Shrumster 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm also alphabetizing as I clean up. Shrumster 19:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, almost done with the Land Raider section. I'm using indents to specify what sections I've been through with. Shrumster 20:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. Just a few hours after I cleaned up some entries and somebody has already rearranged the Land Raider section into another fiction-as-fact POV article. GWe shouldn't have a "model" section, instead, we should integrate the real-world history of the kit with the background aspect of the model itself. I'm trying my best to clean up these articles so that they can conform to Wikipedia's out-of-universe POV standards. Shrumster 08:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Phew, I'm satisfied with how the Land Raider section has turned out so far. Thanks to GraemeLeggett for the corrections in style and prose. I think I'll do the rest of the marine vehicles first before and of the IG/AM/etc ones so that they can be packaged off into a Vehicles of the Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) page to trim this one down. Shrumster 11:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Razorback and Vindicator section cleaned up. Shrumster 21:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hope the article now passes WP:WAF. There are still some straggler sections I'm going to fix, but I removed the tags now. Shrumster 07:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proper Vehicle Notation?

I've noticed that in some of the articles, the name of the vehicle is in bold text or sometimes in italics. But this convention doesn't seem to be uniform or consistent. Do we have a general consensus on this? If there isn't any, I propose that we use bold text to refer to the full designation of the vehicle i.e. "Rhino MkIIIc" while we use normal, capitalized text for informal mentions of the vehicle i.e. Land Raider. Shrumster 09:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that apart from firs tmention where bold would be appropiate thereafter I would avoid it and just use quotes for entirely fictious entities like "Rhino MkIIIc" as opposed to Rhino (the model or its use in game play). Otherwise we are headed backj towards fictiona s fact again. GraemeLeggett 09:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, will do! Shrumster 11:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Land Raider Hellfire

What's the source for this? I can't seem to find this anywhere online or in my 40k sourcebooks. Was it mentioned in an IA article for the White Scars? Shrumster 11:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any sources mentioning this either. Can the OP cite some source please? Take care --Xasf 12:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to check the Index Astartes articles and a bunch of indices for White Dwarf and the Citadel Journal later. If I can't find anything on the Hellfire, I'm going to have to kill it. Shrumster 12:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Killed it. Shrumster 21:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Can we include pictures/is it allowed? I know we can't upload anything official like boxed art, codex entries, etc. How about photos of our own miniatures? Shrumster 12:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's been done before, with Nork Deddog, for example. It might be advisable to get an official comment for GW, I think they have an email address for queries of this type, legal@games-workshop.com or similar. A case could be made for it falling under "fair use". --Agamemnon2 14:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
So long as it is your own picture and you can create a fair use statement you are OK. While GW are happy for you to put pictures of your own miniatures on non-commercial sites and the website states this clearly, the requirements for wikipedia do not accept GW's limitations so it has to be fair use rather than one of the other licensing tags. GraemeLeggett 14:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In-Game Use

After I fix the existing stuff on the articles, I was wondering if it would be entirely appropriate to add a bit more details (maybe a paragraph or so) on the in-game use of the vehicles. I believe this could be important, encyclopedic information and it adds real-world-relevance to our beloved fictional vehicles. Some like the Rhino have had a big enough effect on the game so as to cause GW to change rules (trial vehicle rules->4th ed) because of a particular tactic associated with them (the rhino rush). Shrumster 21:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Space Marines Split

Almost done with the marine vehicles. Just the predator left. I'll be splitting the space marine vehicle sections off as the article is becoming too unwieldy to work with now. Shrumster 20:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imperial Guard Split?

Should the Imperial Guard have their own article as well? As I can see it, the article would be pretty large even without the IG vehicles. Shrumster 18:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be a reasonable idea. That would make the list more manageable.GraemeLeggett 12:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll be on it in a while! Shrumster 12:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright, almost finished with this article. I'll be moving to the IG vehicles in a few. Shrumster 13:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft?

I'm a bit torn with what to do with the aircraft/spacecraft. I'm thinking of creating an "Imperial Navy" section and putting the aircraft there, but moving army-specific ones like the Thunderhawk/Drop Pods to the Space Marine page and the Vultures/Valkyries to the IG page. Any suggestions? Shrumster 19:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We currently have Imperial Navy (Warhammer_40,000), maybe merge in there? --Falcorian (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, why not either split the Imperial Navy article in two making and aircraft section and a spacecraft section on two separate pages (saying something like Imperial Navy Aircraft, and Imperial Navy Spacecraft) or merge them together and make these two sections in that, but the aircraft one would have to have a lot more content for both, and place the whole Imperial Navy article in the Imperial Guard, Space Marine, and Inquisition "See Also" section. It would make sense either way, and to be honest that Imperial Navy page is a bit confusing. It doesn't tell much about the individual Spacecraft on the page. Death Korps 19:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, I'll transfer the Space Marine stuff over to the Space Marine page. I'm thinking about doing what I did to the Sisters' vehicles. i.e., leave the Vulture/Valkyrie/etc with Imperial Navy Aircraft but put small blurbs with links to the main sections on the IG page. Shrumster 20:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
What about the stuff on the Imperial Armour book on the Imperial Guard tanks and aircraft, someone with the book could use the info on that to beef up the info on the planes to a degree. Is there anyone out there who has the book? I think the Valkyrie at least should be with the Imperial Guard Vehicle section as its not a fighting air vehicle like the vulture, its like the chimera, it is used to transport troops across a battlefield and has a weapon or two to give it a little protection while on the move and to give supporting firepower for the infantry. Death Korps 20:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Yup, I'll be putting some of that info in after I clean stuff up. I have all the IA books so I can cross-reference stuff from them. Shrumster 05:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Updated the aircraft, feeling kinda lazy so I didn't go in-depth yet. The Valkyrie stays with the Aircraft. According to IA:Vol1, it's still operated by the Imperial Navy even though it ferries Stormtroopers and Drop Troopers. Now the question is, what to do with the spacecraft...these are the old ships...if there's a section for them, the BfG ships'll want in as well. Shrumster 13:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedicability

I hope anyone doesn't mind, I might strike or edit out some of the past few edits to the article. While I believe that the info was added in good faith, some of them (such as "most players see it as the Sisters of Battle equivallent to the Space Marine Whirlwind" or "(Which would make it pretty much the same as a Razorback in terms of statline and points)") are original research. (while common consensus of playing players would agree, there is no verifiability for these statements). Just trying to keep the article(s) as encyclopedic as possible, maybe someday reaching a GA/FA list status. :) Shrumster 05:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/e/h/Talk%7EVehicles_of_the_Imperium_%28Warhammer_40%2C000%29_66f4.html"