Talk:Warhammer 40,000/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

Contents

Proposed notable characters guideline

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 10:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Starcraft origins

Anyone know whether it's true that Blizzard originally meant to create Starcraft as a Warhammer 40,000 RTS? The similarities both in theme/plot AND race characteristics are staggering:

  • Protoss/Eldar, Zerg/Tyranids all created by an ancient race that appears to have either died out or left,
  • Space Marines/Redneck Colonial Marines originally oppose Protoss/Eldar but end up teaming up to counter the greater threat of the Zerg/Tyranids.
  • Zerg/Tyranids are both highly mutable superorganism races resembling insects in their hive mentality and capable of consuming raw biological material from other races to improve their own genetic strains, becoming deadlier as they go.
  • Protoss/Eldar are both older than their corresponding human races, have psychic powers and extremely advanced technology, but are dwindling in terms of population.
  • Infested Terrans/Chaos Marines are both Marines that have "turned" to another side, albeit in this case they're to different corresponding sides (i.e. Chaos Marines aren't Tyranid Marines).

To name but a few, anyhow. I think if Blizzard truely had no dealings in Warhammer 40K before creating Starcraft, it's one hell of a coincidence. Anyway, if anyone has any info on this, please do tell. And if it's substantiated, for god's sake, add it to the article :) teh TK 15:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No sources, but it's not especially uncommon knowledge in 40k circles that Blizzard were going to create a 40k RPG, but GW's licensing department apparently broke the deal by demanding too much cash (as usual, the creatives were fine with it). Proof-ish of the 'friendly feud' between GW and Blizzard can be seen in Warcraft 2 or 3 I believe, where a character mentions their warhammer cost them "40k". Slightly less concrete is the suggestion GW copied the Ravenor off of some of the Zerg designs as payback. Oh, and about infested Terrans; back in first and second edition 40k, Tyranids used to have access to mind-slaved troops from other races, that had been implanted with mind-controlling parasites. -Toaster. —This unsigned comment was added by 138.38.32.84 (talk • contribs) .

I went ahead and put changes in the article basically saying "possible influences from Star Craft here, here, and here". What is interesting to note, however, is that Warhammer40k UNLIKE Star Craft, had far more religious elements to it, whereas Star Craft did a great deal for the political side of things.

You know what... scratch all that. I'm re-changing the article.

Warhammer40k has existed since 1987, and eventually grew to similiar to what it is now in 1993. Star Craft and Brood Wars, on the other hand, was introduced in 1998.

Time doesn't match up. 40k existed a decade before Star Craft. That's really interesting.

So, it might be possible that Blizzard Entertainment took out the religeous elements out of Warhammer40k and imput them into Star Craft. Not sure if it is true, but someone told me somewhere buried some "special thanks" in Blizzard Entertainment or Star Craft is to Games Workshop. Colonel Marksman 21:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Rogue Trader could hardly be called 40k. After all, the Orks were practically allied with the humans. It wouldn't surprise me if the idea behind World of Warcraft wasn't originally World of Warhammer, as both GW and Blizzard have, for want of a better word, jaded histories when it comes to making deals. Who can forget the promise of the Bloodquest TV show that was "suspended indefinately." Every hardcore MMO gamer knows that Guild Wars is Diablo 3 set outside the Diablo Universe because Blizzard couldn't keep it's staff happy. If we take a look at the Warcraft Universe, specifcally World of Warcraft we can see parallels with the Warhammer Universe:

  • The Orks/Orcs have a fascination with spikey things, especially shoulder guards in warcraft. They also like the colour red.
  • The word horde conjures images of large numbers, poor organisation and a general lack of emotion other than the desire to kill towards anything else. There is the Orcish Horde in Warcraft and the Green Tide in Warhammer, both with similar motives.
  • The Orcs have a mysterious background in Warcraft. They arn't know what they were before Warcraft: Orcs and Humans. The Orks in Warhammeralso have a mysterious background.
  • The betrayal. Oh the betrayal! Arthas? Gul'dan? Horus? The Eldar?
  • The elves/eldar. The night elves, once proud rulers of Azeroth/Kalimdor suffer huge losses at the hands of the Burning legion and Sargeras and sink into the darknes of Ashenvale. The Eldar, at the birth of Slaanesh, sink away into their craftworlds.
  • Sargeras: He was a titan, a god and he was entrusted with the protecton on the universe. He was corrupted by and began the burning legion. He was eventually defeated and his body was sealed in a sunken tomb. Horus. Same story basically.

These are shining examples of the massive links between Warhammer and Warcraft, but they are only a few. Nayl 03:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The points listed above are themes common throughout SF and fantasy (the populous, unruly and primitive orcs, the ancient, fading elven race), or are narrative themes in general (betrayal features in a hell of a lot of stories, as do those who fall from grace). I don't see the point in even mentioning StarCraft in this article, as there is nothing concrete to base these claims on. Having had a great deal of experience of both Blizzard and GW's products, I'd say that GW's lore was more derivative than Blizzard's. Tolkein and Greek and Norse mythology, to mention but a few, have all been borrowed from in Warhammer and 40k, often more or less unchanged (compare the greek myths to the Eldar Gods' stories if you want to see what I mean). On a side note, I'd say that the protoss are less like the Eldar and more like the Tau, who they predate. Ultimately I just don't see the point; GW have a long history of making fine games with rich and enjoyable background lore and so do Blizzard (and StarCraft is one of the finest RTSs ever made). As they share genres some similarity is unavoidable and all we have to base this on is some sketchy rumours. Not enough to include it in the wiki, I'd say.

I would have to agree with that. Although It would be fun to wonder the what-ifs of the GW and Blizzard connection, the truth is that no one is really saying its that in stone. If it does come to light however, that all the "chance" likeneses of the two companies had some truth to it, well then it would have to become part of the wiki. Until then, we just have to great game companies to enjoy.

I noticed that the Imperium and the Terran Dominion are both totalitarian, xenophobic governments. you may be right about this "starcraft" thing.

The Fall of Medusa V

For any editors who don't follow WikiProject Warhammer 40,000, I've just started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Medusa V. Please contribute your thoughts as to how we should handle this summer's upcoming global campaign. Cheers --Pak21 11:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Reference

Ok, I listed at least the United States Warhammer 40,000 page as a reference (perhaps the best one of any in the future). But I must ask... why the hell didn't anyone put one there yet? That's like the first one! Colonel Marksman 18:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, that's a very good external link (although I have a tendency to link to the UK site as that's GW's "home"), but it's not actually a good reference as it isn't (directly) the source for any of the information found in the article. People can find some of the information by digging around from that page, but in and of itself, it's not really a source for the article. Cheers --Pak21 18:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
On this note, I have removed it and replaced it with the 4 rule books. Much of the information on this page can be found in those books (background, state of play etc...). It could do with being 'inlined' though... -Localzuk (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Example of a "Converted Model"

The photo example of a converted model is rather ugly and not very representational of the potential for modelling that conversion offers. Simply put: Someone could have picked a better picture. It looks like something I made with spare bits after hobbying only half a year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 153.26.176.34 (talk • contribs) .

In that case, please upload some photos of your conversions. We can only use what we've got. Please also be aware of Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks and policy on civility. Cheers --Pak21 19:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I kinda like it. A "down and dirty" conversion (to me anyway) shows the concept better than something of Golden Daemon standard. -- Saberwyn 23:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the page

I think that, especially since the Warhammer 40,000 RPG has been announced, it would be a good idea to split this page into one about the setting and one about the game (with the setting page linking to all games set in this universe) - it has been done with Warhammer Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Battle and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. Ausir 09:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggested 40k Article Guidelines

I have:

  • An overall page of general guidelines
  • A list that defines different types of articles on differt subjects
  • For Armies "Army Page"
  • For Technology "Technology Page" (equivalent to "Weapons, Vehicles, Equipment Page", or, "WVE page")
  • For Notable Planets "Notable Planet Page"
  • (User:Pak21 already made guidelones for notable characters, but a link to that is included)
  • A statement of purpose for my guidelines
  • Left room for more guidelines to come

--Nothing offical will be done with the guidelines (moved or put to use) until several Wikipedians involved in the Warhammer 40,000 project have verified it.-- Colonel Marksman's Proposed Guidelines Colonel Marksman 20:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Interesting. I just looked way back on the first archive, and and ol' user said he looked up and down the copyright policy, and it looks OK to put their pics into the articles. Anyone want to verify this? (PLEASE! The pictures in every 40k article is SERIOUSLY lacking!) Colonel Marksman 22:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Its fair use for GW images, and I personally don't want to go overboard. However, if you have your own minis and a digital camera... go nuts! -- Saberwyn 04:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes I do. (Eldar, Tyranids, Battle Sisters, Imperial Guard as a matter of fact) Problem is that all paint schemes are completely different, (IOW, everything is original)
  • .... that is, unless, nobody minds having a picture of a Hive Fleet Metal Tyranid Warrior or Elati Craftworld Eldar Falcon.
  • If that is undesired, I am also a sketch artist who cheats by editing colors and fixes lines on the computer. Colonel Marksman 15:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • "These are Space Marines". "These are Eldar". Who gives a rats where they're from? As long as you don;t specify where they're from, nobody will know or care that they're a non-canon miniarure, provided you don't try to give the impression that your homebrew forces are canonical. I'll help you fiddle with captions when you upload them. Now... go nuts! -- Saberwyn 21:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Cost

I collect an IG army, it's cost over £200 and it's still not finished - Slaterj


I think the estimate of 100-160 quid for an army is a little low-a 'small' 1500pt IG army that I'm thinking of collecting will cost at least $600 --Gunny01 07:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's largely a factor of it being IG: GW basically charge a cost per model, not a cost per point, and the IG have lower points per model than (say) Space Marines or Necrons. Cheers --Pak21 09:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This isn't true at all. At least, not in the US. For example, a basic straight-out-of-the-box squad of Tactical Marines (with the included limited upgrades) will cost you $35 but at an average points cost of c.17.5 you can see you get 5 points per buck. Compare that with the IG, who get two basic straight-out-of-the-box Infantry Squads (with limited upgrades) per box for the same cost, at an average points cost of c.6.7, or 1.9 points per buck. There is no cost ratio per model at all, as you can see. And, of course, the Space Marine player now has one Troops choice. The IG player does not and has to spend more.

IG armies cost more, hands down.--Stu-Rat 20:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to write up a basic IG army and a SM army (being one of the largest and one of the smallest), and then 'go shopping' on the UK website. I will rewrite the section per that research. -- saberwyn 01:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Gunny's right by light years. I've gone and written up an army list for an Imperial Guard and a Space Marine 1000 point army, using only plastics, and no upgrades beyond whats available in the box sets. These armies can be played in any mission, with at least one option for each Force Organisation type. I took advantage of no online deals.

Including the rulebook, the Codex, and the starter modelling set (paints, clippers, flock, etc)[1], the Space Maines come in just under 195 pounds, and the Imperial Guard a little over 235. I am going to rewrite the section on cost to reflect this. -- saberwyn 02:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say even more than that. Over here in the States, the average (small numbers) Space Marine 1,850 army will still cost you $500+. An infantry-heavy IG army will easily cost $700+. (1,850 is the recognised standard here. You can play less, but not at tournaments.)

Even so, an IG army of a mere 1,000 points can cost $220+ without any upgrades whatsoever, save what comes in the basic boxes.

However, the fundamental point that's being missed is the cost:effectiveness ratio. That $220 sounds cheap but it's useless. The army is terrible and won't win anything, and the cost is still exorbitantly high compared to similar games (SST or WM/H, for example).

This, along with the fact that the high cost turns off many people and infuriates players, should be noted. --63.165.234.2 14:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Only if there is some verifiable evidence from reliable sources to that effect. What do you suggest quoting? Cheers --Pak21 15:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Any of the many, many forums out there. All - except the GW EoT forum, which has a ban on price discussion - have frequent threads on the sheer distaste of GW's constant price hikes (and their constant lying about doing so). Dakka Dakka springs to mind as one example.--Stu-Rat 20:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources says "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources" (emphasis original). Why do you feel that this is such a special cae that this guideline should be ignored in this case? Cheers --Pak21 07:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, like most online forums Dakka Dakka isn't a bulletin board, Usenet, wiki or blog. Besides, the high cost of GW's games is a very important factor as is it's fanbase dislike of the price hikes. It should be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stu-Rat (talk • contribs)
I think asking for "reliable sources" for a popular opinion is a bit silly. You don't get sources for popular beliefs, because they're not worth researching. Common knowledge, yeah? Mark it down as an opinion: "it is thought by some in the WH40k community that the pricing structure discourages new customers and limits the appeal of the game", something like that. Basically like the Games Workshop article does. Of course, that mention might render such a comment here superfluous, although not necessarily. I notice that the way the paragraph over there works is by price comparisons over time. IOW, you give the reader the till receipts and let them do the maths themselves. I think that should satisfy evidential requirements while permitting the addition of the claim. Wooster (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


I’ve taken the liberty of changing the cost information under the Collecting subsection. Here’s why:

As of February 2006, new players wishing to start playing should expect to spend upwards of £200,

This is plainly ridiculous and not substantiated by any source. Take, for instance, the limited sample army given on the GW website (here: http://uk.games-workshop.com/spacemarines/getting%2Dstarted/6/). Now, not only is this a Space Marine army so the model count is remarkably low compared to others, it's also pretty basic. It is only 547 points, of course, but if we double everything save the Master, we get 1,003 points which is as close as we can wish to your suggested target. This army would cost you £130. Adding in the rulebook (£30), the codex (£12), at least the small number of paints GW themselves recommend to be used in painting these Marines along with a single brush (one Standard Brush (£2), Chaos Black Spray Primer (£6), Ultramarines Blue (£2), Regal Blue (£2), Shining Gold (£2), Scab Red (£2), Mithril Silver (£2), Blood Red (£2), Chestnut Ink (£2), Gloss Varnish (£2), Boltgun Metal (£2), Skull White (£2), Codex Grey (£2), Bad Moon Yellow (£2)), plastic glue for assembly (£3), pva glue and flock for very basic basing (£7), and we have a grand total of £214.

Close, right? Nope. Not even.

On the modelling side, this is ignoring snippers, saws, drills, greenstuff, etc. And transfers. And extra paint required. And a decent non-gloss varnish. And the extra brushes needed regularly. Sure, you don’t need this stuff. But you don’t need the paint either. You can field non-painted minis. But that’s not the point, is it?

On the tactical side, this army sucks. It sucks bad. It’s very easy to make a cheap GW army (this one being a case in point) but it won’t be effective (and thus won’t be fun – no one wants to lose continually, after all). To add punch to this army you’ll need to spend a lot more money. And this is a Space Marine army, so it has some punch regardless. Other armies suffer much more greatly.

And finally, on the army-choice side of things, this is a Space Marine army. It’s the smallest model-count army out there, save perhaps for Grey Knights (who are Space Marines of a sort, I suppose). To be fair, it is one of the starter armies, but even so the low model count indicates a low cost, which is not reflective of armies and/or the GW hobby as a whole. The starter IG army will cost roughly the same amount of money but for less points-return.

And, on a related note where on earth did anyone get the idea that ‘A typical blister pack with one to three models will cost from £4 to £12’? Just picking three armies at random (Space Marines, Tau, and Imperial Guard) and looking through their catalogue of blisters, I figured out these numbers:

£4 for one figure = 7 £5 for one figure = 11 £5.50 for one figure = 1 £5 for two figures = 6 £6 for one figure = 4 £6 for two figures = 12 £6 for three figures = 9 £6 for five figures = 1 £7 for one figure = 8 £7 for two figures = 5 £8 for one figure = 2 £8 for two figures = 5 £9 for one figure = 2 £12 for two figures = 1

As you can see, the median is going to be around the £5 to £6 mark. The average per blister pack is also £6. The average per model is £3.61.


With all that in mind, I’ve changed the text to read:

As of late June 2006, new players wishing to start playing should expect to spend at least £200 but in all likelihood will need to spend much more (in the region of £300 or more), for a basic playable army with little or no room for customisation (1,000 points). This figure includes costs for the rulebook, the army's codex, and modelling equipment such as paints and glue. Players must purchase units which are available individually, in squads or in boxed sets. The cost of boxed sets varies widely (£18 to £75), depending on the contents. A typical blister pack with one to three models will cost around £6, although this can vary too. Typically, however, GW does not provide all available options with the boxed set, thus encouraging you to spend more on separate blisters (which is only good business practice).

In addition to the current line of units, Games Workshop makes available past model lines as a part of their mail-order-only "Classic" series. These are models that have been used for earlier versions of the game. This is the one of many way to get certain miniatures which have been discontinued.

--63.165.234.2 13:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverted to original entry due to unneccessary changes.

--63.165.234.2 20:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the changes I made were definitely necessary. Just some examples of why:
  • "thus encouraging you [...]". Wrong person: Wikipedia articles should be written in the third person.
  • "(which is only good business practice)." Original research and theerefore inappropriate for Wikipedia.
  • "A typical blister pack with one to three models will cost around £6, although this can vary too. Typically". Repetition of "typical[ly]": bad writing style.
  • "GW does not provide": who are GW? Remember this article is for the general reader, not for people who already know everything about Warhammer 40,000.
  • Far too many paragraphs, introducing far too much blank space.
I'm very happy for changes to be made to what I wrote, but a blanket reversion is not the way to do it. I will reverted to my version; please discuss here before reverting. --Pak21 08:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

OMG- do you people realise that my wife might read this and work out how much my armies cost? Seriously- is it necessary to be detailed? I'm not deleting, just asking.--Grant McKenna 18:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Just pointing out, that the new-ish Space Marine Tactical squads come with all the special weapons, and most other arimes have at least two..but remember, IG boxed sets don't even come with heavies. Before I collected GW, I used to make model planes, soldiers, etc. These plastic models are just as detailed as GW's, and a hell of a lot cheaper...($11 Aus. for 40 1/72 scale guys). Problem is, there isn't much vertifable sources documenting this, and you don't hear GW blurting it out either... --Gunny01 04:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Because there are some boxes that come with all available options, i am changing the text to read : "doesn't always..." Mr Zephy

Just thourght I'd draw your attention to this, GW's annual report. --Gunny01 07:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is all the currency in pounds? Is this an U.K. origin game? Thrustinj 22:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. Games Workshop is a UK company. It used to be in pounds, dollars and euros but that was silly - as we aren't a currency exchange site. The rest of the article uses British English also.-Localzuk(talk) 00:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a rough price in US dollars (USD) hopefully helpfull, was also going to add the price of the rulebook and/or paints as well, yes or no? 63.230.167.170 02:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)ED-1/26/07 6:54pm (pst)

I hate to sound like a jerk, but I unfortunately have no choice. Didn't you read the discussion where it said we weren't going to have multiple currencies? What was the point, therefore, of going ahead and adding them in again? MSJapan 04:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

hey no problem, actually i posted that beofre reading it fully-sorry-63.230.167.170

4th edition?

4th edition has only recently been referred to as 4th edition. When it was first released (and all during the buildup) GW/WD made a big point of calling it a new version of 3rd edition, not a 4th edition (and they hated the 3.5 edition label, hence the eventual u-turn in policy).--63.165.234.2 14:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As no one has raised any objections to this, I've changed the entry on 4th edition accordingly.


Its been 4th Edition since its release, hence the four on the skull on the rulebook cover (in Roman numerals). Shas'o sodit 11:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

See also

I've just reverted (for the second time) a change adding Games Workshop to the "See also" section of this article, as I don't see that it really adds anything, given that GW is already linked in the very first sentence of the article. Does anyone else have views on this subject? Cheers --Pak21 20:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but forgeworld is also mentioned in the article - shouldn't see also provide links with extended information - therefore Games Workshop would be quite a main 'see also' as it links to all other games and relevant items. Lee 21:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Points limits

I've changed the following:

Common game sizes are usually between 500 and 2500 points, but can be much larger. The games generally run from half an hour to several hours depending on the size of the armies.

very slightly to read instead:

Common game sizes are usually between 400 and 2,000 points, but can be much larger. In addition, there are rules for much smaller games.

In Europe, the generally accepted tournament points level is 1,500. In North America it is 1,850.

Games generally run from half an hour to several hours depending on the size of the armies.

This seems straightforward enough to me. The rulebook contains rules for Combat Patrol, which is 400 points. The Kill-Team rules are also worth a throwaway mention, as are the tournament standard levels. Also, 2,000 tends to be the recognised limit set by GW, although players often go higher. I've no idea where the arbitary 2,500 came from.--Stu-Rat 19:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverted to original entry due to unneccessary changes.

--63.165.234.2 20:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think it's arbitrary. On page 78 of the 4th Edition rulebook, it states that, by design, at 2,500 points the Force Org Chart becomes unwieldy (or something to that effect). Seems to me that that's why 2,500 was listed here, and it seems like it's reasonable to mention it- at least it can be cited. :) --DarthBinky 06:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Fluff

To me, one of the attractions of the game is the fluff- the storyline- and I have many models that are no longer used because they were killed during a campaign. I suggest that the "Background" section include a reference to the fact that the storyline has developed over time, and that many players like to create 'fluff' based rather than 'competition' based armies. --Grant McKenna 18:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

I have removed the "info"box that was added to this page, for multiple reasons, but basically because I don't see what it adds to the article. Also, please use the preview button: the players link was broken and "arithmatic" is not English. Also, what basis do you have for claiming that random chance in Warhammer 40,000 is "medium-high" and that "dice rolling" is a skill (if nothing else, these two seem to be contradictory!). Cheers --Pak21 08:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


Dysartes

This has recently been added to the external links section, which I removed as linkspam as it doesn't really seem to be 40k related or notable to me. The adding editor, who I note here has their only edits to Wikipedia to Dysartes and adding the link to this article, has e-mailed me and confirmed that the site is run by a friend of theirs, and using the justification for adding it that "the link is already in the similar Games Workshop product entry". None of this convinces me that the link should be there, given WP:EL and WP:NOT a directory, but I'll float it here for other opinions. Cheers --Pak21 08:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Hey, as the 'Dysartes Wiki Editor' & the person whose added the links, i must further point out that the Dysartes link is in the Warhammer Wiki Entry. Now Dysartes has articles for both WHFB & WH40k on the main website (not including forums), at present of the 10 latest articles listed on the front page, 5 are WH40k articles, 1 WHFB article & 4 modelling articles.

without going into further articles on the website (which by the looks of it, of all the sites articles, around 2 thirds of them seem to be WH40k), and the fact we're on the Warhammer Wiki Entry, i fail to see why there is a problem with this being on the WH40k Wiki Entry?

and if we're gonna go on about links, the 'Warhammer 40k Forum' links to a WHFB forum, which has less then 350 40k topics in the whole 40k Section, even Dysartes has over 500 in 40k general discussion alone. Shas'o sodit 12:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


I visited the site last night after it was re-added here (this page is in my watchlist). It seems to be relatively small (much smaller than Warseer or Critical Hit), but it is no smaller than the Warhammer 40k forum listed (http://www.warhammer.net/board/index.php?c=11); and I found myself strongly disagreeing with just about every conclusion of the author of the Chaos armory commentary (but that's neither here nor there). I'm not sure... what criteria are being used to determine that it shouldn't be listed here? Also, the name is a bit confusing for me, because there's a gas station/restaurant chain here in New England also called "Dysartes". --DarthBinky 15:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Essentially, WP:EL#Occasionally acceptable links, point 3: "On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such" (my emphasis). I know we have more than one fansite already listed, but let's not make things worse by adding more of dubious value. In my opinion, an argument which says "it's better than <other site>" is specious at best: maybe that link shouldn't be here either (and personally, I'd have no objection if it did go away). Cheers --Pak21 18:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Well i have nothing to do with the name, its from a man who lives in Sheffield, but comes from Cheshire, so has nothing yo do with this restaurant chain. But if you comparing 40k content/quantity of the site, Dysartes beats the Warhammer Forum with almost 1,500 topics in the 40k section of the forum, even our 40k Army List forum beats their complete 40k topic count. As for the articles, most of the barracks/armoury need updating, if you want write up your own article for the website, go ahead, another persons write up on the same subject is a good thing, but this is a another matter.

If there is still a problem with Dysartes being on the 40k entry, then why are we on the WHFB entry when the site does more for 40k then fantasy? Shas'o sodit 16:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


I still fail to see any problems with this? i put the link up as i was asked to do so by another Dysartes member because we were also listed on the WHFB entry. While i do agree posting links to advertise the website is a bad thing for this site, i was only putting the link up as it was already up from another article.

And as the person who said to put the link up, we have interviews with the studio staff, & Dysartes himself is heading the Adeptus Titanius project for Epic:Armageddon, if that's not important enough, then what is? i could easily put the Dysartes link on the Games Workshop & Epic Armageddon entries Shas'o sodit 19:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)