Talk:Warhammer Fantasy Battle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This is not a forum for general discussion of Warhammer Fantasy Battle.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

Contents

[edit] Warhammer Fantasy/ Warhammer Fantasy Battle

I'm confused. What's the difference between this article and Warhammer Fantasy? Sure, the beginning of the other article says that "warhammer is a setting" and this article says that "warhammer is a game". If this is true, I'm going to suggest either re-labling the articles as "Warhammer (Setting)" "Warhammer (Game)"

My Vote is that we have it organized like this :

Warhammer (Company, which includes list of games owned by GW) Then we can have: warhammer (game) warhammer (setting) (this can include links to other games like mordheim Then we have seperate articles on each minor game, or one list of them.


It seems like this would GREATLY add to the cleaning up of the warhammer articles on wikipedia, which in my opinion are disorganized and terrible.

For Example, I Made a major contribution to the wood elves article, and the article has remained basically the same as i left it (last year). When I have time, I will crusade to clean up the warhammer articles. But until then, this article either needes to be renamed, moved, or merged. I'm going to add the 'merge' tag until i get a response.


EDIT: I move WHF to WHF (setting) MYSELF! Go look at the talk page for Warhammer Fantasy (setting)

[edit] Name of the game

Is the official name of the game Warhammer Fantasy Battle or Warhammer Fantasy Battles? We appear to be using both in the article. Cheers --Pak21 11:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The old Warhammer-related books (circa 1986) use 'Warhammer Fantasy Battle', and the sans-'s' spelling seems to be the most common on the web. I think that the current 'official' name of the game is just 'Warhammer'. The naming of the articles - Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer Fantasy Battle- should maybe be revisited- or even merged. --Clay Collier 00:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
According to the 6th edition rulebook, it is Warhammer: The Game of Fantasy Battles, or at least I believe so.- Gizzakk 04:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


The articles should definitely not be merged - the main Warhammer Fantasy article deals with the setting, not any particular game. Furthermore, the role-playing game is still called Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. Ausir 03:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • But that still doesn't mean the names of the pages are currently right :-) Cheers --Pak21 07:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, the name Warhammer Fantasy is still used in at least one game. Ausir 14:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
To answer the question directly, it's Battle, not Battles.
As suggested, officially it's now Warhammer: The Game Of Fantasy Battles. Warhammer Fantasy Battle was the old (now obsolete) title. Personally, I think they should both be merged into Warhammer Fantasy, with Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay also merged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.86.140.178 (talk • contribs) .

It's still called Warhammer, and Warhammer Fantasy from Games Workshop.. I never see it called WHFB in full. I think the two articles should be merged as Warhammer Fantasy. Fr0 06:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7th edition

Just checked to see what that "excessive speculation" revert was, and actually its not that much speculation, the pics of the models that will be released with the 7th edition box set are out, along with the list of the contents model-wise. Check out Warseer.com for the info, but maybe we should include something on 7th edition. -Gizzakk 04:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've got a question: What armies have had their 7th edition army books released? Can someone please tell me? -Legolas1987 9:12, July 4th 2007

[edit] Merge:

I vote we merge this page with the selected merge page, as the two are pratically one in the same. Warhammer is the overall brand, then branching off into Warhammer 40k, Warhammer Fantasy etc. Warhammer Fantasy & WH F Battle are the same! Merge the buggers! Spawn Man 00:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Definately not. They are quite different. NightFalcon90909 15:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be merged as Warhammer Fantasy is more just like the setting, Warhammer Fantasy Battle (or Battles)is a seperate game within the setting, as is Mordhiem, etc. etc. --64.12.116.134 06:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Will

No, the overall page containing these should be "Warhammer", which then branches off into Mordhiem, 40k, WH Fantasy etc. I've been playing many years, & although we normally refer to the game as Warhammer, I know the correct name is Warhammer Fantasy. In the rule book, it is still referred to as Warhammer Fantasy. Spawn Man 22:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC) BTW, You should be banned from voting as you are, 1) A vandal & have been warned many times, 2) Not a registered user, infact only an IP address, & 3) Have few edits of substantial meaning...
I don't see the need for the merge. Warhammer Fantasy is the setting. There are then separate games such as Warhammer Fantasy Battle, Warmaster and Mordheim. Some mention should be made of the fact that the "main" game is WFB, but the distinction between the setting and the game itself is very clear. From a Warhammer 40,000 perspective, that shouldn't be mentioned at all in Warhammer Fantasy: despite the vast amounts of fancruft on the subject, there is no official connection between the two universes. Cheers --Pak21 08:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the two articles need to stay seperate. The "Warhammer" universe is home to multiple sets of games, and to merge articles would simply mean that the same background information would have to be repeated in each game system. In addition, Warhammer "lore" has a 20+ year history, with countless short stories and books based in the setting. That alone makes it distinct from the game systems it is based on.
I don't see how the proposed merge is really practical without discarding large amounts of information. There are quite a lot of games in the Warhammer Fantasy setting, and encapsulating all of the current material in one article would be unwieldy at best. Stellmach 22:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Armies of Warhammer

merge - the AoW page is redundant, and should be merged with the WFB page. --Davémon 18:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The AoW page is pointless. The limited information it offers is inaccurate, whilst it informs of less than half the armies mentioned. Do no merge it. Delete it.

User:theDistant

creating a list of warhammer armies strikes me as a reasonable ideal, and a list in a seprate place keeps the size of the main article down. GraemeLeggett 16:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


I've been working hard in this article (sometines forgeting to log in). Just today (March 5, 2007) I added information about Warhammer 40,000. I created this article for fans to apriciate the armies of the games that are discontinued and curently avaliable. Tag Leader] 13:10, 5 March 2007.
Its supposed to be an article so that anyone can find out information, not just fans. GraemeLeggett 09:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to propse a structure something like:

Warhammer Fantasy Battle Armies by Edition
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th
Rules FoF Rules RH Rules WA
Chaos Dwarfs
Amazons Y
Orient / Nippon Y Y Y Y
Araby Y
Slann Y Y
Lizardmen Y Y
Red Goblins Y Y
Night Goblins Y Y
Great Goblins Y Y
Orcs Y Y Y Y

to organise the army lists. I only have access to early editions (1st, 2nd and their army list supplements), so can put that information in. Can somebody else cover the later editions? Also some suggestion of how to format the 'merge' of when armies were merged (ie, the Slann and Lizardmen merged, and the Orcs and Goblins merged).--Davémon 19:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternate merge proposal - It would seem to me that the correct destination for a merge of Armies of warhammer (for at least the Fantasy relevant section) would be to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy rather than to here, Warhammer Fantasy Battle. R&NofWF is already main article of WFB section "The armies" and contains better developed info than AofW. In the Warhammer world there are no pacificist, basically each Race/Nation is an excuse for a new army (or at very least a merenary unit) so race/nation is basically the equivalent of army in the context of this game - Waza 20:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I support Waza's proposal of merging Armies of Warhammer with Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' T a l k 13:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It's all getting rather confused, with a lot of articles all having the same information. I agree with Waza about 80% - the remaining 20% is reserved for creatures which appear in WFRP and not WHFB, and that the "setting" is only the product of the games and merchandising, not really a thing in it's own right. I've put my updated and more correct 'which armies appear in which edition' table on the talk-page for Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy. --Davémon 20:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

SupportWhile I agree that this might be a good decision merging the pages, it might make this page just a bit larger than we'd like it be. It could be done well, but would be a lot of effort. I'm willing to help but there has to be more to support. Descriptions of the armies will have to be shortened. Fr0 04:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

'Support alternate proposal' This seems to be the best option, after reviewing the articles in question. Waza is correct in every jot and tibble as far as I can tell. I also feel that merging it into the main page is likely to extend the article beyond reasonable length JEOC 19:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Expansion

I'm a gamer from way back who hasn't looked at Warhammer for 7 years. I'd just like to suggest an expansion of the previous editions, which editions contained what, what their major flaws were, what GW tried to emphasise. This is touched on but I'd liek to see more info. PS. This should definitlely merge with WArhammer Fantasy DrDisco


Agreed, much of the historical differences are glossed over, from what I've seen the 1st & 2nd editions magic systems are very different, and the whole Toughness rating shifted from a letter to a number, lumping them together seems to come more from editors not knowing the material. £rd editions leadership rules totally changed. However I'm sure that an article covering this would be WP:OR, as only the rulebooks themselves would be sources? --Davémon 18:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
This might help much but one must remember that the majority of wikiers are not Warhamemr players so I am not sure how much that would help.Spacedwarv 02:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Games Workshop Online Community

I haven't worked on this page, but I thought someone here might want to expand the Games Workshop Online Community section on WHFB.

--Grimhelm 11:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I expanded it up from nothing a while ago so. I can not think of what else to scribe.Spacedwarv 21:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The List of Factions

Do we really need two separate lists, one here and one at Warhammer Fantasy, both of which state the same information about the various factions of the Warhammer world? It seems to me that one or the other should be cut out and left in the other- my gut feeling is that the one here should go. Or perhaps have a daughter article detailing the factions separately, with a link in each of these articles. But having a big list of the same info in each article just seems very wasteful to me. --DarthBinky 19:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Logically an introductory paragraph explaining that there are a large no of different armies availble for the game , more thna one isn some cases for each race and then use {{main}} to direct to a List of ... page. The list of can then give links to wherever the army is mentioned even down to Race#section_name wikilinks. The list can also then have space to give active dates and editions for armies that have gone by-the-by GraemeLeggett 09:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Would there be any objections if I made a "Factions in Warhammer Fantasy" page, and linked to the appropriate Warhammer Fantasy articles? I think moving the table from Warhammer Fantasy would be best, because it seems the best organized. I added split section flags to each article, just in case. --DarthBinky 13:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Not sure about the page name (i wouldn't describe the source text as a table either) but so long as summary remains I am happy. I would say that for this article though that a simple list remains of the Currentarmy list books and decribe it as that. GraemeLeggett 13:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm open to suggestions for the article title. As I said, I think the summary from the Warhammer Fantasy article is the better of the two, so I'd basically just be moving that straight over. I don't think there's really anything mentioned in the WFB article that the WF one doesn't have, but I'd take a look and merge anything that pops up.
I don't think leaving a list here is really necessary- otherwise, what's the point in making a new article listing the factions? We'd wind up right back where we already are, with the same info in two places. Also, see other pages like Necron and Weapons, equipment, and vehicles of the Necrons, or Weapons and Equipment of the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) along with all the Imperial/Chaos Marine factions- it's common practice to link to a common page with the list rather than having it in multiple places. We should leave a short summary saying something to the effect of "there's a bunch of factions, each is different and strongly resembles a nation/faction from earth's history, blah blah etc" and provide the link. --DarthBinky 13:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Understand your concerns but there is a difference between a list of the army (book)s which is particularly pertient to WFB and less so for the general setting of Warhammer which also feeds into the novels, WFRP etc. The two Chaos books cover the same faction, while TK and VC are both elements of the Undead. Perhaps a general WFB bibliography would be the best place for the specific list of the army books. It would also act as deveopmental timeline for WFB as a whole.GraemeLeggett 14:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Who said anything about having a list of army books? I wanted to just do a big list of the factions of the Warhammer world. There, it could be noted which faction has an armylist/book for WFB and which doesn't.--DarthBinky 14:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Pictures

This article seriously needs some good pictures of the game.

- Finding them will be as easy as finding the Loch Ness monster...

[edit] box art

Isn't it standard practice to put first edition art in the infobox for books? I think we should extend that here - not least because it's amusing to see how the 7th edition reflects the 1st. The later editions could also appear beside their mention in development. --Davémon 18:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I vote for keeping the current edition cover in the info box. A game, even when published in the format of a book, is a very different beast to a book. Alternatively it may even be better just to put the current Warhammer logo in the info box. -Waza 04:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how a game is different to a book in this regard. In my opinion it would be more encyclopedic and less like an advert to have the first edition cover - just a logo wouldn't really help people identify the game itself as much as the wider brand. I'll raise it as an idea around the RPG and boardgame projects. --Davémon 19:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopedic my left-most metatarsal! The First edition cover is several years out of date, and no longer in use. A game is differant from a book in that when the edition changes, the previous edition holds little to no bearing on the actual end content on the newer edition, with major changes the norm rather than the rather frowned upon exception. JEOC 19:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The issue was raised with the Board Games group and some other good reasons why the 1st edition covers shouldn't be used as the main picture were raised Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games#Infobox_images. If there are sources that quote how many of each edition were published and how many were sold, that would make great content and help define which edition was the most in use - we can't assume that every Warhammer player upgraded to the latest version of the rules. Putting the latest edition in the infobox up as soon as it is published looks a little like over-zealous fanboy promotion to me and should be avoided. In my opinion - the easiest way of avoiding the article looking fannish and retaining relevance is to show the 1st edition. The earlier editions are (slowly) being illustrated with box & content images as it shows the evolution of the product, and that's all for the good. --Davémon 17:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move Collecting & The Miniatures to Citadel?

Suggest these are moved to the Citadel page - these are both as true of WH40K as they are of WFB - and putting this information into Citadel would stop duplication. Also, this article is about WFB the game, not Games Workshops "The Hobby" concept. --Davémon 19:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warhammer map

Is it just me or does the warhammer fantasy map look so much like a normal world map it aint funny. Europe Aisa Africa. It's all there. Just google the map and see if you think the same as me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.148.98 (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

I've explained this in my expansion of the Warhammer World section --2p0rk 11:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Warhammer World Section

This was flagged as needing expansion, so i've done so. Perhaps somebody would like to go over it and if you agree on the content, remove the expansion flag? --2p0rk 11:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removal of criticism section

I've just removed a criticism section that was added by User:Cybergroover at 05:54, 2 July 2007[1]. The section was in violation of wikipedia's policies on verifiability, reliable sources and neutral point of view. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not forum & not blog. Only reliably sourced, notable and verifiable criticism can be added to articles. Please review these policies before re-posting material like this on wikipedia, other wise it will be viewed by the community as original research and removed--Cailil talk 15:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

there was another section removed "critical reactions to 7th" - it was written in NPoV language and the claims are verifyable if people look em up. Why remove that? Its incongruent with the section: "Critical reactions to 1st edition" 87.60.229.164 (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The 1st (and now 3rd) Edition criticisms appear in reliable sources and are cited in the article. Have a look at: verifiability and reliable sources - it's the job of the editor adding content to provide these sources. If you can provide reliable, published sources for the opinions, please add them and the content can stay. --Davémon (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

All the critisms seemed to be aimed at the Dark Elves Army book, and not the Warhammer game itself, so none of it is terribly appropriate for this article. With sources, it should be added to the Dark Elves page. --Davémon (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Nono, the criticism amounts to three main points:
  • 1: That army selection beats strategy in the field.
  • 2: Codex Creeping (Warhammer veterans know what I am talking about).
  • 3: Poor Codex design (specifically Dark Elves and High Elves).
I know the references were not the best but the claims are definately justifiable and often repeated in the warhammer-milieu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.229.164 (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind but I reformated your comment a little. All I can say is that if you have reliable sources for 1 & 2, then please add the critiques into the article - unfortunately online forums aren't reliable enough, reviews or articles in magazines are more reliable. I appreciate that finding reliable, published sources on gaming subjects is extremely difficult, especially now that the forums are so popular - but perhaps there are independant gaming magazines out there that are reporting on this? Or perhaps academic papers on game-theory or statistics that discuss these issues? Regards point 3 - both the High Elves and the Dark Elves have their own articles, and properly cited opinions about the current design of the army lists would be better placed in those articles. --Davémon (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why was this moved?

Why was the Warhammer Fantasy Battle page moved to "John Waayne"? The name does not appear anywhere within the article. Is this vandalism? The move was done by User:Carlosmontoya and his change description says "somebody vandalised the John page". Who is John Waayne and what does he have to do with WFB? Should the move be undone? 12.22.250.4 22:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is clear vandalism - DaoKaioshin 03:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism. I've moved it back.--Jorm 05:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)