Talk:Weapons 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] Mega Battle Cannon

Do we have a source for this? The Epic rulebook lists the Baneblade's main gun as just being a "Battle Cannon" with exactly the same stats as that on a Leman Russ. Cheers --Pak21 17:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering this. There do seem to be some references to the Baneblade and 'Mega Battle Cannon' when you do a search for 'Mega Battle Cannon' in google. However they seem to be forum posts and a reference to a computer game? -Localzuk (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The original Imperial Armour book lists it as a "Mega-Battle Cannon" in the tech-specs, and as a both a "battle cannon" and a "Baneblade Battle Cannon" in the rules. I don't know about the updated rules, but comparing the Baneblade weapon to a standard Battle Cannon (per Codex Imperial Guard 2003) shows an increase of both Strength and AP values. -- Saberwyn 06:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
That's good enough for me to keep it around in the absence of any newer evidence. Cheers --Pak21 09:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popularity of Mortars

I feel that mortars are not "One of the more popular choices of weapon for the Imperial Guard." If you agree or disagree with me, please reply to this. I'm going to make that change now, so if no one says anything, I will leave the change reflecting that mortars are not always a popular choice. Feel free to change it back. Two Cent 23:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  • You did the right thing. How popular mortars are is just opinion. Heck, I'm yet to encounter or use an Imperial Guard army with any at all. Colonel Marksman 14:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree as well. I just removed mention that they are popular; whether they are popular (or not) is not relevant (I always try to field all five that I own, but that doesn't matter in this article). I also just did a bunch of other edits, removing unnecessary things like any mention of "in game terms..." or statistical analyses (ie "it hits X out of Y times" or "it compensates for IG's poor accuracy"), as well as off-topic things like Swooping Hawk lasblasters or the pointless list of all plasma weapons which was tacked onto the end of that section. Lastly, in the current ruleset, Dark Angels don't have more Plasma cannons than any other Chapter (not counting dreadnoughts, but that's pretty minor), so I removed the part where it said they do.
Cheers --DarthBinky 06:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incredible Size Kept Down

I'm very happy that we have sensible people in the WK:40k who know the dangers of incredibly long articles. This is, to my surprise, not very long (for what it features).

But might I suggest that the titles of these pages be "Technology" instead? Colonel Marksman 14:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • The problem with "Technology" is that we open ourselves up to 'everything' from STCs to Plasma drives. By limiting the list to the specific technology used by the military (which is by far the most commonly encountered aspect of the fictional univeres), we drastically cut down on the size of the list. -- saberwyn 00:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C'tan Phase Blade

Where does the recent fluff about there being only one C'tan Phase Blade come from? Because there's a passage in the Necron Codex about the Deciever reclaiming one from a Callidus Assassin. Plus the Phase Knife that Cypher lost in the same way. I think the Inquisitor rulebook mentions them, too. SAMAS 02:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


I'd agree it seems a tad stupid to make it standard equipment for an assasin in the field if theres only 1 in existance doesn't it?

[edit] Armor from commons

Think we have any use for these in here? --Falcorian (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Mk1

Mk2

Mk3

Mk4

Mk5
Yes :-) I've put them in, but I'm not particularly happy with the formatting. If anyone can find a better way of doing it (floating the gallery to the right somehow?), please feel free. Cheers --Pak21 15:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
That's the same problem I ran into... I might fuss with it later. --Falcorian (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy Stubber

According to the Gaunt's Ghosts series, the Heavy Stubber is a .30 calibre weapon, NOT .50 as is stated in the article.

A Heavy Stubber is not a single weapon, it's a category of man portable machine guns. --Falcorian (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Bolter

Changed the entry for the hurricane bolter. It is 6 linked bolters, not 6 linked heavy bolters.

[edit] Thudd gun

Access Forge world website - they produce one - glean some information - Slaterj


Where is it? GraemeLeggett 14:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exitus Sniper Rifle

I was thinking that the Vindicare temple's Exitus rifle required special mention, but I don't know where it would best fit. For more info, check the Officio Assassinorum page.

[edit] Headings

We have far too many headings on this page. For instance there are many sections with a heading which are either a sentence or 2. I think we should try and remove some of them and work the sections with tiny subsections into a more fluid singular section with paragraphs.-Localzuk(talk) 01:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd bullet and indent myself. I'll try a quick test on the laser weapons section. No text change just that. It can always revertGraemeLeggett 13:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nova Cannon

User:Lothlanathorian made a good point on my talk page. In this article the Nova Cannon is a laser, but in BFG it is clearly a projectile weapon. However, I'm slightly confused, are they even the same weapon? I think there's a different ground based laser version used on Titans and whatnot. Any ideas? --Falcorian (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boltgun Rate of Fire

I notice that the rate of fire for Boltguns is listed on the page as Single Shot, Semi Automatic 4 shot, and Automatic.

Could someone source that? Because in the Inquisitor game Boltguns don't have 4 shot semi automatic fire or automatic fire. Also in the Fire warrior game the bolt gun is depicted as being either Single or double shot, but not 4 shot or Automatic. If it isn't then it should be changed

Thanks

I believe that's in the 40k 3rd Ed. Rulebook, but I don't have mine with me. --Falcorian (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split Article?

Hey guys, I was thinking if it would be more appropriate to split the article into Weapons of the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) and Equipment of the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) since the list is a bit long. With the split, we could merge other stuff, like the Tactical Dreadnought Armour section in the Terminator (Warhammer 40,000) article into the equipment section and have the termie article point to this one (instead of the other way around, which we have right now). That way, we could have more space to showcase the other, peculiar Imperium tech that isn't already here. Shrumster 09:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me - then the more "exotic" equipment (mainly from the Rogue Trader era) can be mentioned (suspensors, sky boards, etc). Darkson - BANG! 13:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll be on it in a while! By the way, how does one get a wikipedia page renamed? Shrumster 16:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:MOVE --Pak21 16:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Neat, thanks! I'll check which one (weapons or equipment) this article is linked to more and move accordingly. Shrumster 18:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

ʂ

[edit] Bolter Pattern Differences

An explanation of the differences between the various patterns of bolters would be nice. Anyone? KingGorilla 15:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to be on it after I split the articles and after I get myself a copy of the Inquisitor rulebook (that IS where those are, right?). Shrumster 16:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think there was any difference, apart from visual (remembering a cover from an old Citadel journal here). Been a while since I read Inquistor though, so I might be wrong. Darkson - BANG! 23:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Even if the difference is merely visual, a reference of some sort would be informative and helpful to those who paint Warhammer models. KingGorilla 16:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
But, I would argue, not relevant information for an encyclopedia. --Pak21 16:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to argue it any further, but I would say it's much more encyclopedic to actually demonstrate the differences between things than to briefly mention that differences exist. KingGorilla 19:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I would agree. In an article that details fictional weapons, it would seem encyclopedic to detail the differences. --Falcorian (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
After looking at the Inquisitor Rulebook, it appears that the differences between bolter marks (MkII, MkIII, MkIV 1&2) are more than in-fluff...there are actually differences in rules. I'll do some more research on which figures are supposed to have which ones (sisters' boltguns are different from 3rd ed marine boltgun vs 2nd ed boltgun) and when I rewrite the section, I'll address them from an out-of-universe, game-rules/model-POV, inserting interesting game fluff appropriately. As a non-WP-related side note, wow, I had no idea there was a "bolt carbine". I wanna see what this looks like...might convert some of my boys to use them. :) Shrumster 20:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title of Equipment PAge?

What should be the title of the new page? Would "Equipment of the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000)" suffice? Shrumster 17:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Simple sounds good. So yes. --Falcorian (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate pictures

Just recently, a picture of a Fire Warrior with a chainsword was added. Does anyone else think this inappropriate? IMHO, as a "weapons of the imperium" page, it should stick to imperial troops. Chainswords aren't solely imperium tech anyway (eldar striking scorpions, some choppas), so we should stick to "imperial chainswords" and their users. Shrumster 05:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Didn't think Fire Warrirors could take Chainswords anyway? Darkson - BANG! 19:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rearrange/relabel

I'll rearrange some stuff on the page/relabel the weapons so that we can have easy redirects to specific weapons' sections (i.e. lasgun going straight to the lasgun part instead of las weapons). Shrumster 18:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good way to start taking advantage of wiki's new ability to redirect to sections... In fact, it might be worthwhile to go through the 40k related redirects and see if we can point them better... That's something that should be proposed on the project page though I guess. --Falcorian (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed format for Weapons articles

Here's the format I've been following so far for the revamping I've been doing.

  1. Description of weapon, how it works (in-universe), some fluff about it.
  2. History of the weapon (if applicable), including any major rules changes between editions, etc.
  3. Some notable units that are known to carry the weapon (units that have carried it might be in the history section, or they might be merged).
  4. Possible variants of the weapon (if it does not warrant its own section).
  5. Appearances of the weapon or its analogs in other armies. Please remember, this is the Weapons of the Imperium page.

Hope these are all cool and stuff.

Shrumster 06:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frostblade a chain weapon?

I'm not sure that's correct. Afaik the only "Frostblade" mentioned in the Space Wolf series of books is a Power Sword presented to Ragnar Blackmane after his commendable service as a Wolfblade to House Belisarius. Anyway, I'll venture to verify this :)

Greets,

Savant —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Savant106 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

According to my C:SW 2nd ed, Ragnar's sword there is frostfang. Lemme find the appropriate wargear card. Shrumster 18:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why add all the non-Imperium info?

The title says "Weapons of the Imperium". Looking at this article from an non-40k players POV, adding all the info on Ork, Eldar and Tau versions in confusing (I know, I asked my wife!). Either the info needs to be removed, else the article needs to be expanded (and renamed) to cover all weapons in the 40K universe. Darkson - BANG! 22:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As I've mentioned in the talk section above, the non-Imperium info is being kept to a minimum but is part of the article as well. If you look around Wikipedia, there are various "see also" sections and as this is a List and not an Article, the "see also" sections belong in the article space itself in the way that they are. As you might have noticed, the info on non-Imperium info is strictly limited to mentioning the name of the weapon. No further information is there, and a wikilink is properly provided to the real article where the weapon belongs to. Shrumster 03:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
And remember, this is a weapons of the Imperium article. It focuses on the weapons, not on the Imperium per se. If non-Imperium forces happen to have access to Imperial weapons, it doesn't really matter because it's the weapons that are the focus. Shrumster 04:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV on popularity of various weapons

Meltas are "very popular"; "Plasma Pistols are rarer than the Plasma Gun in Imperial armies" - do we have references for these? Personally, I probably agree on the melta gun over plasma gun, and disagree with the plasma pistol vs gun (I've had more, and faced more, plasma pistols than I've faced plasma guns), so without some references to back it up, I think it should be removed as POV. Darkson - BANG! 23:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Until references are found, those should be out of article space. Just to show you another POV though, I've never fielded plasma pistols and meltaguns in my entire 12 years of 40k gaming. In fact, if you look at the sheer number of slots where you can arm weapons, there are generally more special weapon slots than characters, which would explain the lack of plasma pistols over guns in any army. The only armies that can actually field a comparable number of plasma pistols over guns are those that allow them in special weapon slots, like Space Wolves and Black Templars. Shrumster 03:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Most of my veteren sargaents (I can never spell that word!) carry plasma pistols - normally the only exception being sgt. on devestator squads, so in my 40k gaming (2nd ed - I don't count 1st as that was a completely different experience) plasma pistols have always been more preveleent than plasma guns, especially so in 2nd edition when I could arm my assault marinnes with so many more funky weapon fits than now. Darkson - BANG! 09:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Which perfectly illustrates why the prevalence of weapons changes from army-to-army. In my case, every single one of my command squads have four plasma guns and each platoon squad has one plasma gun. A minimum of 16 plasma guns for 2 troops and 1 HQ. As a constant opponent of marines though, I haven't seen a single codex space marine army that didn't include at least 2 plasma guns in the form of 6-man las-plas squads. My gaming environment is pretty competitive, which leads to the prevalence of min-maxed armies. :) Shrumster 11:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are the computer games "canon"?

I see a lot of reference to computer games (Dawn of War, etc) but are they counted as canon? Having never played any of them (my current PC isn't up to spec, not for any moral reasons) I always taken them with a pinch of salt regarding the "fluff". Darkson - BANG! 10:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, it is not out jurisdiction to decide which is "canon" and which is not. If it exists, then it should be here. But to answer your question, we all know how strict GW is with their intellectual property, so anything that has their stamp of approval is "canon". Shrumster 12:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Ulysess Bolt Shells

Is there an official source for Ulysess Bolts? there are Odysseus Bolts which contain psychic tracking beacons (Codex: Necrons) but I don't remember a mention of Ulysess bolts anywhere. I know they're named after the same person, but shouldn't exact naming be important? --Charax 09:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contents section

The contents section of this page seems different to the ones on other pages in its format and appearance. My guess is that it is a throwback to an earlier version of wikipedia and hasn't been updated to current formatting rules. Has anyone else noticed this, and is it possible to change it? ----Da Willmeister 13:41, 3rd March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I took it from a customized Wikiproject to make the text more compact and smaller. At the current amount of items on the list, the ToC will be ungainly and long if we use normal WP formatting. Shrumster 17:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/e/a/Talk%7EWeapons_of_the_Imperium_%28Warhammer_40%2C000%29_61fb.html"