Talk:Warhammer 40,000/Archive 5

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 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 →

Contents

Black Templars Not Variants?

I really don't understand how Catachans come under Variant Armies but Black Templars don't. They even have their own Codex.

I think that Ultramarines and Black Templars deserve to be on the list, because they are on the Warhammer 40,000 online store list as a variant army. Also, Dark Angels has a huge new line up of models! How could you -not- include them? Also, Vostroyans should be mentioned, because they too are on the list. Praetorians and Mordians aren't on the sales list anymore, so they are iffy, but Cadians and Catachans definately are.

Thats just my two sents. Thanks. SanchiTachi 23:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A variant army for purposes of this list is an army that diverges from the "norm" for it's parent codex. Therefore, DA and BT can't be variants, as they have their ownn self-contained codexes, and UM aren't a variant, as they represent the "basic" SM army as shown in the codex. SW and BA are variants, as they have mini-codexes that are add-ons to the main SM codex, and the other chapters listed are variants because they divulge from the standard SM list to a lesser or greater degree (normally by use of the Chapter traits). If (when - this year or early next iirc) Wolves and Blood Angels get their own stand-alone codex, tey can be removed from the list as well.
Can't bee 100% sure on the IG, but I don't think any of the listed regiments use the army list unmodified (obviously, you could, but GW have them all listed as using different regiment doctrines). Darkson - BANG! 08:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think they should be listed. Consider this from a non-specialist's point of view: if he saw me playing with a Dark Angel army against a Blood Angels army, they'd clearly think that the two were related, apart from being painted a different colour. As for Ultramarines, much the same argument applies: they're the "variant" with no special rules (although what's the deal with Tyranid Hunters these days?). As another data point, the GW website lists Dark Angels and Black Templars on the main Space Marines webpage. Cheers --Pak21 09:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Then the "variant" in that section needs to be removed. Plus it does say the list isn't exhaustive. And I'd strongly argue the point that UMs are a "variant with no special rules". What are they a variant of? Another army with no special rules?
I've no problems with them being on that list, but if they are, it needs to have the variant part removed. Darkson - BANG! 10:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The way I've always classed "variant" armies is a simple one. Can a "normal" army of this type (say a Blood Angels) be made from the main army list within the codex? If it can, it's not a variant (i.e. Ultramarines). If it can't, either because it needs special rules covered in a mini-dex (Blood Angels, Space Wolves) or it's own codex (BT, DA), OR because it needs additional rules that aren't part of the main army list (Salmanders) then it's a variant.
That's way an all-Genestealer Tyranid army isn't a variant, but a Genestealer Cult army is.
By the way, Tyranid Hunters are classed as a "special character(s)", so don't make UM a variant. Darkson - BANG! 10:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand how you've classified things; I'm just not sure that this is useful for the general reader, who doesn't care exactly which rulebooks are needed to do what. Cheers --Pak21 11:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Are we trying to encyclopedic (so tell it as it is), or not (then add them)? As I said, remove the "varaint" from the section, and they can all be added without problem. Darkson - BANG! 11:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is my stance on the matter (so ha!): Games Workshop have created 4 Imperial Armies that operate as 2 distinct campaign armies. They also gave individual codexes for a lot of people. However, according to their Online Store, Dark Angels and Black Templars (along with the rest) are submissive to the overall Space Marines title, just like Sisters of Battle are submissive to the WitchHunters title, etc. A "Variant" should be a specific group within, i.e. a playing style. The playing styles are broken up as different Chapters. Some of the more popular (i.e. the ones that sell A LOT) Chapters get books. For example, I love Black Templar, so I got the book. Before, the Codexes for each chapter were tiny versions without much. They had the Space Marines book (which was basically Ultramarines galour) and then one for Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, and White Scars. I have those ISBN numbers if no one believes me. They also created separate codexes for Catachans (Imperial Guard) and Genestealer Cults (Tyranids). I think a Variant should be any of the major armors that would be -played- or -bought- in the store, and not necessarily anything that comes up in game. Thus, Vostroyans are a Variant army, but Savlar Chem Dogs are not. I just think anything divided up how they divide it in the Store is necessary. SanchiTachi 14:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
There isn't a White Scar Codex, just an entry in one of the Index Astartes. Also, although there was a seperate codex for the Catachans, it's no longer "offically" valid (although it was a better Catachan list than the Imp Guard codex makes. A Cult codex? Not an printed one I think, although I know that there was a semi-official "house-rule" one made by "Hivemind" Tim Huckleberry from GW U.S., that iirc was tourney legal for a while. Darkson - BANG! 20:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
There are many official "unofficial" codexs out there, thats what the Chapter Approved was created for. The Catachan codex is still separate, and they also have their own separate army box. The term you are looking for is supplement, which those books were supplements to the Space Marines books. However, variant still goes by how the Games Workshop people define it, and they have separate listings for those other groups (based on special troops, units, designs, and molds). Also, 3rd edition, 2nd edition, and 1st edition information still matters on Wikipedia. Remember, just because it got updated does not mean that it no longer exists. SanchiTachi 22:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The Catachan Codex is no longer seperate. The Imp Guard Codex can make a Catachan force, and that's what GW classes as the official Catachan army now. The Catachan stand-alone codex is really only of any use for the Jungle Fight rules. As for the articles in Chapter Approved, most of them are disallowed by GW at their own tourneys, which is normally the definetion they use as "official" or "houserule". Darkson - BANG! 23:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
As I stated before, it is not our duty nor our right to say that current is best, and that the history of the events must be preserved. I believe that there should be a vote held and that it should be on each and every army that everyone wants to be listed on the main page. That includes "variants." They must also have a companion page that can be linked to. I suggest that any army must be won by a simple majority and must fulfill the previous requirment that I have mentioned.
And yes, Catachans are stand alone, just like Sisters of Battle or Grey Knights are stand alone. Just like each of the different Chapters of the Space Marines are stand alone. The "army" is one of the main eleven. Variants are any inside of those main ten. SanchiTachi 02:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
No, Catachan's are not "stand alone", since the 4th edition Imperial Guard Codex was released. Since then, the 3rd edition Catachan Codex is no longer "official", in the same way the 3rd edition Imperia Guard Codesx is official. Darkson - BANG! 18:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Codex Witch Hunters, pg. 25:

Witch Hunters units can be included as allies in any of the following Codex armies:

  • Space Marines, including variant armies such as Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Black Templars, Salamanders and other loyalist Index Astartes Chapters.

Black Templars stay in. Its in the Codex as such and is thus, a canonical variant. SanchiTachi 21:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Then given if we're using the Witch Hunters Codex as the precedent, then we need to remove White Scars, Blood Ravens and Ultramarines, as they're not specifically listed. And if you say "but they are, as they're loyalist", then we have to add Flesh Tearers, Storm Lords, etc to the list. Darkson - BANG! 18:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I have to say that I agree with Darkson on this. Only current, actual variant lists should be mentioned. By variant, my interpretation is that they cannot be re-created using the parent list. Thus Cadian Shock Troops should be mentioned as they are allowed a greater number of Doctrines than a normal Guard army chosen using Doctrines. Similarly, Salamanders, much as I rate them more highly than any others, should not be mentioned since their specified list of traits can be re-created using the normal Codex rules. The Witch Hunters example given above is not currently correct. Codex: Witch Hunters was published when Codex: Space Marines (for Warhammer 40,000 3rd edition) was supported by the actual variant army lists in Codex: Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Eye of Terror and Armageddon. Of all the variant Marine lists in these, only Blood Angels, Space Wolves and 13th Company are actual, current variant lists. Dark Angels and Black Templars are now a parent list in themselves and Salamanders, as mentioned, is a set of specific traits that must be chosen, but there is nothing to distinguish them from another Marine army choosing the same traits.
However, having said all that, I don't think this particular article is the place to list them. I think we should maybe just choose a couple (at most) of very different examples and incorporate them into the paragraph. For example, replacing the sentence which starts "Most races have variant armies. For example . . ." and the list which follows with something like "As well as the army list in the relevant codex for each of these races or factions, each which can be used to create a wide variety of compositions of force, Games Workshop has also published variant army lists based on these which impose further restrictions, additional options or special rules in order to create a force representative of a more specific faction or to represent the general faction when operating in a specific theatre of war or at a particular point in history. A copy of the parent list from which it is derived would generally be required as, for example, options which have not changed from the original army list would not be detailed. Examples include a variant army list to represent a force of Ork Speed Freeks (a socio-cultural faction of the alien race) which was published in Codex: Armageddon, based on the parent list previously published in Codex: Orks. The Speed Freeks army list introduced new units only useable with the variant army list, added new options and compulsory additions to existing units in the parent list, restricted the use of some, removed restrictions on others and altered some of the original list's special rules to take into account the different range of available units." Just a rough thought. - Heavens To Betsy 16:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds reasonible to me. Darkson - BANG! 17:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry guys, but you need a verifiable source in order to put it on Wikipedia. Any removal of Dark Angels or Black Templar will be corrected, and those will be placed back, because I have a verifiable source for it and -you- do not. I do not want to get into a war over this, but thats how the Wiki rules work. SanchiTachi 22:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
If you're referring to your exerpt from Codex: Witch Hunters as the source, it is out of date. As mentioned, Codex: Witch Hunters was published at a time when Dark Angels and Black Templars really were variant army lists of Codex: Space Marines. This is no longer the case. Since Codex: Witch Hunters was published, a new edition of Codex: Space Marines has been released as well as Codex: Black Templars and Codex: Dark Angels. The army lists in the latter two are not derivative of Codex: Space Marines at all, like the previous lists were. I don't see how they can be considered variant at all. You're quite right about needing a verifiable source. Surely the existence of these two recent codexes and proof from White Dwarf that they were published after Codex: Witch Hunters counts.
Anyway, that's by the by and only relevant for how the list of variants stands at the moment. What do you think about the above suggestion of replacing the list with a more descriptive paragraph and including as the example a variant list about which none of us have any dispute? - Heavens To Betsy 09:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course, using the example of the Witch Hunters codex as a out-of-source, then I'd be prefectly within my rights to remake the Ultramarines article to say they're not a 1st Founding Legion, but a 2nd Founding Chapter, and use Rogue Trader as a verifible source.
Ridiculous? Absolutely, but RT is canon, so why is that any different to using any other out-dated source book? Darkson - BANG! 09:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, fella. Can't quite tell if you're supporting my comment or countering it. :¬D In any case, there's a difference between using an out-dated book as reference for in-universe information and using it as a reference for real-world information (i.e. which army lists are valid). Any reference to an out-dated edition should be made clear. I suspect most people would expect any unqualified reference on the main 40k page to be relevant to the current edition. - Heavens To Betsy 10:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(Going back for less indentation) Supporting. Thoug this isn't about which army lists are "valid" (real world), it's about which armies are "variants" (in-universe), and as you pointed out, SanchiTachi is using an out-dated source to claim as reliable, which makes my (deliberately) ridicolous proposal for rewriting the UM article valid as well (imo). I wonder wheter the Codex page should be re-ordered to point out which codexes are more "up to date" (i.e release date), because obviously, the Witchunters codex will point to variant SM lists which at that point didn't have stand-alone codexes. If the WH codex was released (2nd printing, much as the old DA mini-dex and the Dark Eldar codex), it would have to mention the DA and BT codexes sepearately, as they're no longer covered by the SM codex. Darkson - BANG! 11:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Witchhunters and Daemonhunters Codexes are still valid in Fourth Edition. They will remain valid in Fourth Edition. They are not out of date, and their information is correct. Your definition of a variant army is not Gamesworkshop. Until you can produce some other source, I have the only actual sourced information. SanchiTachi 05:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please actually read what I wrote. I did not say that Codex: Witch Hunters is invalid or out of date. It's clearly still a current, valid codex in itself. What is out of date is the extract you are using as your verified source to say that Dark Angels and Black Templars are variant lists. The lists referred to in that extract are the lists from the old Codex: Dark Angels (a variant list which is out of print, out of date and replaced for all purposes by this year's Codex: Dark Angels which contains a full, non-variant list) and Codex: Armageddon (whose Black Templar variant list is out of date and replaced for all purposes with last year's Codex: Black Templars which contains a full, non-variant list). You can use that extract as a verified source to say that Blood Angels is a variant list, since the only extant list for Blood Angels is the variant list in Codex: Blood Angels which is what your extract is specifically referring to. - Heavens To Betsy 08:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but if that was true, then they were inaccurate to cite Catachan as a variant, because they had their own, stand alone, codex. Variant means smaller group used within the bigger group. A variant is any group that the game puts forth, such as individual Chapters of Space Marines or different Armies of Imperial Guard. The variants of GW conform to their Online Store, which lists those as sub categories. Yes, a Variant Army of Witch Hunters is all Sisters of Battle, as a variant army of Daemonhunters is all Grey Knights. SanchiTachi 17:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
"Sorry, but if that was true, then they were inaccurate to cite Catachan as a variant, because they had their own, stand alone, codex." - Incorrect - check again. Although the Catachans had their own mini-dex, it still referenced back to the main Imperial Guard Codex (for example, Commisars - See Imperial Guard Codex), exactly in the same way that, at the time, the BA, SW, BT and DA were mini-dexs of the main Space Marine list. Darkson - BANG! 19:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The Witch Hunters codex has you get rules from the Imperial Guard codex to use inducted Imperial Guard troops which are absolutely Witch Hunter units, which means that just because it refers to a separate codex does NOT make it not part of the army or anything that even matters to what you are saying. The book, by GW definition, calls it a variant army! Accept it or leave. Thats how Wikipedia is. You have to source it or it doesn't go in. You are using fan opinion, not encyclopedic sourcing. The citation comes from a reliable source. YOU are not a reliable source. This discussion is over. SanchiTachi 19:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Who put you in charge? I don't see your name as the "be all and end all" on the Wiki frontpage. This discussion is not over, at least from my side.
I quote from the back cover of the Codex Catachan - "This is a supplement for Codex: Imperial Guard. You must possess a copy of Codex: Imperial Guard in order to use the contents of theis book." I believe the important word here is "supplement". Is that encyclopedic enough for you? That's GW word in print on their own codex. It was not a stand-alone codex, it was a mini-dex to use with Imp. Guard. Darkson - BANG! 19:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
And the Witchhunters book says that you need to use the Imperial Guard or Space Marines books in order to use inducted or allied units, even though they count as the Witch Hunters army unit, so what does that mean? Nothing good for you. It proves that you aren't right, and that multiple books are needed for different rules because they didn't feel like being redundant, gesh. And supplement doesn't mean its not an official codex or an official army. It just means that it doesn't have the full rules. They are ALL supplements of the Core Rulebook. Furthermore, Witch Hunters codex was written after the Catachan and still calls them a variant, so you are wrong even more so, as they considered those within the guide and those outside of the guide still variants. I sourced a link for it, you have not, that is the rule for what stays in or not. Deal with it. SanchiTachi 23:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Wiki rules, you must cite sources for your knowledge, even in talk pages. Since I am the only one to quote any source, I am the only one who is dealing with verifiable material. I ask you to obey the rules and do not proceed to try and argue anything else unless you can come up with a legitimate published GW source on the matter. I have, and I have been the only one to do such. Thanks. SanchiTachi 00:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to Is original research ever permissible? and in particular the first bullet point "This does not apply to talk pages". Please do not misrepresent the position in order to advance your PoV. Thanks --Pak21 08:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Pak, original research does not apply here. Furthermore, your link does not exist and the page at hand does not give any "permissible" times. Therefore, you, not I, have misrepresented Wikipedia. If you want to quote a rule, please actually quote a rule, instead of putting up links that give no support for what you say. You have done that for over a year now, and it is very tiresome. Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Maintain_Wikipedia_policy
"A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research. There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is a serious misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements."
Now please apologize, because once again, I was right, you were wrong, and you have accused me of something unfairly. I expect your apology soon, and I expect the above original research to be removed by their respective owners. Thank you. SanchiTachi 14:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
If you check the edit history of the page Pak21 linked to, you will see that there was a section with the title he mentioned that has been removed (in the last few hours), so I hardly think he can be accused of "misrepresented Wikipedia" when said section was on an official Wiki page at the time he linked to it. Darkson - BANG! 17:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
And if you checked the reason why the page was changed (against the will of those at Wiki and done by a rogue person), then you would know that what was put in was not official and was only there for a tiny period of time. Furthermore, if you looked at the talk page of said page, you would have seen why it was removed. Also, that page is not the page for talk pages. I linked the above page as talk page guidelines. That would be the -only- place to go for those guidelines, which Pak failed to do, which makes me suspicious of Pak's involvement with this whole matter. SanchiTachi 22:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I know the reason it was changed (I can read), and I never insinuated it was removed wrongly, I just pointed out that it was shown on the policy page at the time Pak linked to it, and therefore Pak did nothing wrong in pointing it out at the time. Darkson - BANG! 08:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It was some coincidence that Pak went to look on the page right when it was changed abruptly and for almost no reason to include such a dramatically opposite view of the actual rule. SanchiTachi 16:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The Dawn of War game has two variants for Tau, does anyone remember their names? (you have to pick one or the other, and you get special units based on which you picked). SanchiTachi 16:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Tanchi, the strategic variants are translated as "killing blow" (Mont'ka) and "patient hunter" (Kauyon), but are mainly tactical variations using the same forces in the table top game. They are not differant armies for the discussion of the table top game. Translations and sourcing are from the old codex and the tau page on here. JEOC 19:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yarrick

added Yarrick to the list of important characters, he's just as important as Thraka was in the history of Armaggedon Shas'o sodit 15:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Its kinda weird to have the people there without explaining -why- they are important. Thus, each race should have a main person and list about 3 or four lines. Doing that, you could put Thraka and then have Yarrick in the paragraph. The two go hand in hand, but the Emperor always trumps Yarrick in terms of humans, but is more important in Ork history. SanchiTachi 16:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

just looked (not read) the link the character discussion, what a pile of endless dribble! at a quick glance i cannot see any clear guidelines, please sort out that mess! & worse yet, i see another IG character that had a great impact on the Imperium, Lord Macharious, he helped rebuild the Imperium! i'm re-adding Yarrick, make those 'guidelines' offical & clear! Shas'o sodit 19:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Notability/Main Character debate space for a very clear discussion on which characters should and should not be included and start a debate on Yarrick if you believe he should be included. Cheers --Pak21 21:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


Do Not Remove Any Names From the Variant List

All names that are on the list are "notable." Some may be less notable, but any at the Online Store are definately notable in terms of Wikipedia (as they have their own individualized marketing line under the subheading of their main Army).

There is no argument to be made that chapters are not variants, as two books make it clear that "all loyal chapters" are variants of the Space Marines, and the heading says "The main playable armies in the game are the Chaos Space Marines, Daemonhunters, Dark Eldar, Eldar, Imperial Guard, Necrons, Orks, Space Marines, Tau, Tyranids and Witch Hunters" which makes any individual Space Marine groups variants of the main line.

Furthermore, Ultramarines, as with the rest, use the generic model base and then have additional special units.

I suggest that if someone wants to add a variant army, to list a legitimate reason why its there. Such reasons are it being listed on the website, has a "Chapter Approved" article based around them, is mentioned in the Codex (like the Genestealer Cults), or something similar. The inclusion of variants is to give someone new to the game a chance to find different army lists beyond just the main ones (and their supporting Wikipage).

The problem I see with your logic here is that the Ultramarines are considered to be the most Codex Astartes-compliant Chapter (for quite a few rules revisions now), and are therefore the base from which all other Chapters diverge to a greater or lesser extent. So, the Ultras cannot be a variant, because then there is no base from which to vary.
There are also plenty of non-notable variants, partially because there are (supposedly) "unnamed" First Founding Chapters, and partially because anyone is free to make up any Chapter they want and call it a variant of something else. By the above statement, you could pretty much find a few mentions here and there in a White Dwarf of one person's painting scheme and claim it as a legit variant, which is simply not on. As for notability based simply on mention, Rainbow Warriors, anyone?
I see a similar problem here now as was before, and that is that one person is attempting to redefine things the way he sees it, rather than taking into consideration the way everyone else sees it, and I suggest that this be addressed before we have another issue. MSJapan 03:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
What you say has nothing to do with the Warhammer page and is in-universe only. I put forth the fact that they have their own colors, have their own special characters, have two unique units (Honour Guard and Tyranid Hunters), and their own history that makes them a variant, as the book even says, all Space Marine Chapters are variants. The Codex Astartes has nothing to do with an army in the game being a variant or not of their "general" army. They are not the generic Space Marine. None of the officials chapters are, as the Daemonhunter and the Witch Hunter books introduce what the "generic" Space Marine is (i.e. no special rules, no special units, which Ultramarines now have both). Thanks. SanchiTachi 03:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
And for your information, it doesn't matter what you say about redefining, as the armies listed were the original armies listed and agreed to way before you and anyone else came along editing it otherwise. Furthermore, I put up evidence supporting my case. Verifiability is a powerful rule on Wikipedia. Please respect it. SanchiTachi 03:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


And the above person's argument on notability is absurd. To be notable, you must be a central figure in a book, have your own special model line, etc. That was agreed in the Wikiproject. The Ultramarines are clearly notable, as if you look here: http://store.us.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.us?do=List_Models&code=300866&orignav=10&GameNav=10 You can see how they are noted along side with the others that are notable: http://store.us.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.us?do=List_Models&code=304651&orignav=300866&ParentID=254788&GameNav=10 and http://store.us.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.us?do=List_Models&code=304917&orignav=300866&ParentID=254993&GameNav=10 "Marneus Calgar with Honor Guard" and "Ultramarines Tyranid Hunters"

They can only be used in an Ultramarine Army. Not a Space Marine Army. That makes Ultramarines a Variant. SanchiTachi 03:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


By your logic this time, there are no generics. Every army has particular characteristics, their own colors, characters and history. As you say, if we don't know what a generic Marine is, how do you have any basis for a definition of a variant? So if everyone's a variant, no one is. Furthermore, what is the value of determining a variant outside of the game? none of this stuff is real, so I could easily argue that you're complaining about removing nothing from nothing. That should sound like nothing but semantics, because that is precisely what you are arguing about here, and that your semantics don't match everybody else's. Pursuant to your last statement, read WP:OWN. MSJapan 03:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, any army that doesn't have special units or break from the traditional rules falls under the generic Space Marine according to the text. And no, the only one "owning" the page are you and anyone else who tries to remove groups from the page. They are cited. They are notable. They were put there by people before you and you can't stand them being there. I defended them from being removed like so many others. You can't stand them being there and obsess with their removal. I don't think you understand the rules of Wikipedia, which include notability and verifiability, which the list all meets, and there is no legitimate reason to remove them. Sorry, but you are just showing that you are here only to express your own Point of View, which seems just to obsess and dominate groups off the page because it satisfies you in whatever strange way. If you don't like the variant section, go and leave. Just because you don't seem to enjoy it doesn't mean that it hasn't met verifiability and notability standards and must be included according to Wiki standards. You speak for only two people. If you look at the history, I speak for quite far more. SanchiTachi 03:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Because MSJapan likes to claim that everyone supports him (without any proof), I will repost Pak's statement from above: "Personally, I think they should be listed. Consider this from a non-specialist's point of view: if he saw me playing with a Dark Angel army against a Blood Angels army, they'd clearly think that the two were related, apart from being painted a different colour. As for Ultramarines, much the same argument applies: they're the "variant" with no special rules (although what's the deal with Tyranid Hunters these days?). As another data point, the GW website lists Dark Angels and Black Templars on the main Space Marines webpage. Cheers --Pak21 09:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)" SanchiTachi 03:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't claim support, I merely pointed out that other people have their own opinions that you should consider before passing unilateral judgment on article contents. If you want to do this "your way or the highway", use your own webspace. MSJapan 03:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as how I didn't put it originally in there, only cited sources and defended it from being maliciously edited out, you are the one pulling the whole ownership, feeling that you have the right to delete what other people put in without even having a legitimate Wiki reason, and you ignore legitimate Wiki reasons why its there. SanchiTachi 04:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
"Examples of variant armies include the following (however, this list is not exhaustive):" - so why do we need every army there? Darkson - BANG! 11:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
My "Wiki-proof" is that the newest Codex: Space Marines, as well as many of the other SM-related codexes for years have stated that Ultramarines are "generic marines" - their army is the one everyone else's is based off of (that's why they have their own section in the Store, BTW). Therefore, there is no way you can claim them as a variant, because it's everybody else that's the variant (which is why if UM are a variant, as you say, then somehow there's no generic template. That's a pretty obvious indicator that there's a mistake there). I'm not ignoring reasons at all, the fact is that what you say makes no sense when you do look at sources, and you are deciding to use your interpretations of things as opposed to what the sources say (you say "in-game usage has no value", for example - if it has no value we can say nothing about the game whatsoever, and we might as well AfD this article, the whole project, and every other article dealing with anything that's not "real.") MSJapan 13:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Thats not proof in any kind of way to consider it. I already put forth the burden of evidence for why it is there. You only want it removed so you can dominate the page. You don't have a consensus to remove it. There are over 4 people so far that put it back in. There are only two who have removed it. Even the paragraph above states that all chapters are variants! And I looked through the whole Space Marine codex and not once did it say they were generic, especially with characters that can only be played by the Ultramarine armies and have special rules! And yes, there is a generic template. See the Witch Hunters book and the Daemonhunters books. It says that you cannot use any special rules or special characters. That means that you cannot use Tyranid Hunters. That means that you cannot use Ultramarines as Ultramarines. How can you not understand something as simple as that? What the hell is your problem that you are obsessing so much about removing Ultramarines from a page? It doesn't make sense and you are going crazy trying to delete what others have wanted in for a very long time. Its not your page, get over yourself. SanchiTachi 14:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Darkson, we need the armies that are notable. I put forth why those armies are notable above, and it conforms to the standards that we already determined. Now, to prove MSJapan wrong (from the Space Marines Codex):

1. (p 21) Ultramarines Honor Guard. Not Space Marines. Not Generic Marines. Ultramarines. A generic unit can be used by any other army, but the "one Command squad in an Ultramarines army may be made up of Ultramarines Honour Guards... In addition, up to one member of any Tactical, Devastator or Command squad in an Ultramarines army may be replaced with an Honour Guard" makes it obvious that only Ultramarines can. Where is the term "generic" in there? Hmmm? 2. (p48) "Chaplain Cassius is a special character. He may be used in Ultramarines armies of at least 1,5000 points as a HQ choice." It does not say generic armies. It specifies clearly which army. 3. (p49) "Tigurius is a special character. He may be used in Ultramarines armies of at least 1,5000 points as a HQ choice." It does not say generic armies. It specifies clearly which army. 4. (p50) "Tyrannic War Veterans are an Elite choice that can only be used in Ultramarines armies." It does not say generic armies. It specifies clearly which army. 5. (p51) "Marneus Calgar is a special character. He may be used in Ultramarines armies of at least 1,500 points as an HQ choice." It does not say generic armies. It specifies clearly which army.

Combined with the fact that they are the central variant in the Battle for Macragge box set, central organization in many books, and have 3 special characters and 2 special units. According to the definition put forth in Daemonhunters and Witch Hunters codex that says all Chapters are variants, and that generic Space Marines can't have any special rules, special units, or special characters, Ultramarines fits the definition of both a variant and a notable variant and deserve to be on the list. SanchiTachi 14:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What it shows is where the Ultramarines were first put in. As you can see, Pak didn't mind it, as I didn't mind it. A third user put it in. Afterwards, Darkson removed it without justification or cause, only citing personal knowledge and not a book. I put forth citations to rationalize why they are included. This came with argument. Why? Because it was just his opinion. So its two people vs more. Thats not consesus or anything even close. SanchiTachi 15:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC) I will correct myself and say it wasn't the first time. Many others have put it in before and had Darkson remove it without just cause. That shows that the people removing it are not going for a consensus and represent a minority who wont abide by Wiki Verifiability and Notability guidelines. He has shown that he has removed other people's ideas of variants and substituted his own. I believe that the page should only be added or removed based on consesus, as I provided simple guidelines above. How is that so hard to follow? SanchiTachi 15:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Well, needless to say I disagree. Under your definition, any and every army you can think of that has ben mentioned by GW at one point or another "deserves" to be on this list. But I can't be bothered to argue about this anymore. I admit I didn't realise that this was your project, and that you had the final say on all matters pertaining to 40K on Wikipedia, but now that I realise that your word is final on this project, I shall leave you to organise things as you like. Have fun. Darkson - BANG! 15:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Why do you purposely ignore that I put forth notability requirements? Furthermore, you can claim I am taking over the page all you want, but its proved that you acted without looking for consensus and removed what four other people have put in or reput in. Furthermore, you ignore both verifiability and notability and you see to control the list for whatever crazy idea. SanchiTachi 15:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)