Talk:Warhammer 40,000/Archive 7

Scale?

Shouldn't "22 millimeters scale" read as 28mm?--14.200.37.138 (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no, GW models aren't exactly to scale, especially when you consider how they've grown slightly over the years. Originally it was about 22 mm, these days about 28mm but most experienced players standardize it to 25 mm 'cause that's basically an inch and the game is measured in Imperial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.122.11 (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the appropriate answer is "it's complicated". Ordinary humans are approximately 28mm scale. Unfortunately, Space Marines are supposed to be something like 7'6" tall, and they are the same size as the normal humans. So for a 28mm human, a Space Marine should be about 38mm-40mm. Either that, or for a 28mm marine, a human should be 20mm-21mm. TurnerConrad (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the skull?

What does the skull symbolizes that is printed almost everyhwere in the Human Imperium? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.132.41 (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt really the place for asking questions but its because the skull was always a symbol of death and mortality. since in the 40k universe it isnt a pleasant one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.16.50 (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the grimdark future there is only trolling and vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.221.45.128 (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical gameplay

Warhammer 40000 is a tactical game, and to say it requires strategical skill, is a misnomer, as there is no production or use of strategic resources in the game system. The main problem at play here is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the words strategy and tactics. Strategy is the use of resources, like metal, energy, or people, toward a political end, while tactics are the usage of small units to reach an operational goal. As 40k is mainly played with small units and of inividuals it is tactical in nature and not strategical. I hope this can be a help in clearing up this article and make it a better one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0331marine (talk • contribs) 17:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asante sana Squash banana, wewe nugu mimi hapana — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.221.45.128 (talk)

Nope. Try again. Strategy refers to a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal. Military tactics, the art of organizing an army, are the techniques for using weapons or military units in combination for engaging and defeating an enemy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.16.50 (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the the article on strategy discribes is the operational level, most who are familiar with more complex military simulations agree that there are three levels of simulations they are; Tactical, where you are dealing with units ranging from single men, to platoon size. The second is operational level which is from company sized units up to divisional/corps/army sized units. The reason for the three diffrent units are because diffrent countries use these names for units of roughly the same operational use, and over time the capability of these units have changed. On the face of it the Wikipedia article on strategy seems to most people to be correct, but the problem is that it is overly emphesized on the military aspect of the term. To use a soccer analogy you can break down the three terms into this fashion. Tactics is how you play the ball in a match, operational is how you plan on winning with a string of matches to attain the leauge championship, while strategy is how you plan on being succesful over multiple years, either. The first deal mostly with the players, their induvidual skill and the proper employment of them, the second is utilizing the team in a consorted effort in winning a limited goal the current leauge championship. While the last is more in the perview of the manager and the chairman, they utilize the clubs economical resources in getting the best players, maintaining or upgrading the clubs realestate and staff, optaining funds by attracting investors or through commercial deals. As you can see the first and last levels of the running of the club dont really have much in common, but they do affect eachother through the middle layer. Again here we are dealing with the problem that most people are not familiar with this middle level. To put it in a simple way, the president of the US dont give an individual soldier his mission in Afghanistan, he tell the Theater commander what he wants, and then that commander then forms a plan which trickles down to the indivual soldier. But the General doesnt make strategic choices, that is the perview of the president. He decides what sort of tools he wish to put at the disposal of the commander, not the other way around. Some people use the term "grand strategy" to designate the political level, I feel this is counterproductive, as you already have a term, operational, for use with the higher military manuvering that are used to resolve a task. take look here for a better and more informative article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_level 0331marine (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum. Please stop posting comments that discuss Warhammer 40,000 in general. This space is used ONLY for discussion of improvements to the article. Thank you--Cailil ^talk 15:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Planets

Does this need to be here? This is just a drop in the ocean, and serves no real purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.168.93 (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Planets as a whole are a subset of the fiction of the 40k universe, and the fiction is a subset of the 40k hobby as a whole. Devoting so much of the main 40k page to planets in general, and this particular sample of planets largely from the video games in particular, seems out of place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.84.68 (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roleplaying games

"Although there were plans to create a full-fledged Warhammer 40,000 "pen and paper" role-playing game from the beginning,[40] these did not come to fruition for many years, and a group of Italian fans started to create an "unofficial" adaptation of the "Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay" rules[41] to play in the Warhammer 40,000 universe"

this section can probably be removed as there are at least 4(Black Crusade is due late 2011) pen&paper role playing games set in the Warhammer 40K universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.150.12.29 (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Battle 12.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Battle 12.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Battle 12.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why “40,000”?

If the 40,000 refers to a year or age, it should be 40000. If not, according to the international recommendations it should be 40 000. I know that it's written with a comma, I just tell this because it would be good to mention that detail somewhere in the article.

62.57.85.193 (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why 'Science Fantasy'?

Is it an official definition? If not, whose definition it is? 90.154.75.67 (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Sisters of Battle

It is doubtful Sisters of Battle have stand-alone notability - I think they should be merged here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given a quick look-over of the article in question and some related articles, I agree. The Sisters of Battle page is practically a stub and provides precious little information. Anything beyond that is probably only useful to people particularly interested in the subject, and can be found on dedicated wikis. 208.54.40.217 (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Warhammer 40,000. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6C34T196w?url=http://www.vectormagazine.co.uk/article.asp?articleID=42 to http://www.vectormagazine.co.uk/article.asp?articleID=42

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]