FANDOM

A FANDOM user
  Loading editor
  • Armoured Personnel Carriers are not generally considered tanks. Please do not apply the tank categories to them like the Razorback. If you want to check on the armaments of the page, drop a line to VforVendetta and ask for a fact-check on what you believed to be a mistake. Thanks.

      Loading editor
    • What if it is classified as a tank in the rules?

        Loading editor
    • Doesn't matter. The wiki's classifications have nothing to do with the game rules but are based in real-world military terms and real-world military history.

        Loading editor
    • Warhammer 40k's vehicles and races certainly blur those definitions, though, not like they're exactly clear in real life either.. 

      The primary point of the APC role, I think we can agree, is to carry infantry into its combat staging point (which very well may be at the front lines, or behind them, or into the thick of combat itself) with a degree of relative safety (safe from infantry squad weaponry in general at least, I would think).  Everything else could be considered secondary.  That said depending on the modern nation in discussion, you end up with some rather extensive definitions of what 'secondary' is.  The Russians have a line of APCs that are functionally light tanks, if not outright MBT hunters.  The Canadians use wheeled APCs for virtually every role that is not better handled by a MBT (Leopard 2, to be exact).  On the other hand, you have the Israeli Merkava, which despite being a MBT, is also an APC.

      With W40k, you end up with a blending of the tank/APC role in a bunch of tanks.  The Land Raider fluff is pretty clear it's an APC, but with armour and firepower that easily exceeds most of the Imperium's MBTs.  The Eldar have the Falcon MBT with it's mini-personnel compartment.  Orks have...well, whatever they've lashed together from spare metal and big guns, and have stuffed as much  green orky grumpiness into and still move (certainly not 'tank' and not 'APC', just orky WAUGH silliness....).

      I would suggest, as a topic of discussion, or maybe to reduce conflict, is that as a rule, if its main role is to transport infantry, its an APC only and has no Tank catagory added to it.  If it's an APC turned into ehmahgerdGUNS assault weapon platform (aka Land Raider Ares, Land Raider Terminus Ultra and the Hammerhead in a sense), it have the Tank catagory added (since it can't carry troops anymore yet is used to go blow up other tanks).  If its main role is to shoot other tanks, it's a tank, regardless if it carries people, and gets the Tank catagory added.

        Loading editor
    • This reply has been removed
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hi, I have a question to ask about the tau energy shields. In your article about the Manta, you mentioned that the tau energy shields do not collapse, unlike imperial void shields. However, I have read the tau codexs and the Imperial Armour Apocalypse second edition, and they do not mention that the shield does not collapse. Instead, in the Battlefleet Gothic Rulebook, it says that the tau energy shields are the same as the Imperial void shields in every respect, which means that they do collapse. Hence, I am wondering if what is said in the Manta article is an error.

      Loading editor
    • Tau Energy shields work differently to Imperial Void Shields in that they don't absorb incoming fire, but rather seek to deflect as much force away, or spread it out over the wider surface area of the field (based on inference from various Tau sources of Tau spacecraft). Blasts can still penetrate the shield though, but this won't collapse the shield itself unless the shield generators are damaged (again, based on inference; this can prove entirely false).

      The Apocalypse expansion, though, represents Energy shields in the rules by using a set invulnerable save rather than the standard void shield rules; which is the biggest clue. The rules in Battlefleet Gothic, however, are simplified to make gameplay easier (as I don't think there is anything similar to a armour/invulnerable save equivalent rule in BFG). Also, Battlefleet Gothic is somewhat outdated in terms of timeline (as it uses the old Tau ships) and also only featrues Mantas in the fleet lists as escorts without complete rules/fluff for them.

      However, it would help if you can help clarify the rules for void shields in BFG as I only have the Tau section of the book and I'm not familar with BFG's gameplay. If they state that shields do collapse and can be raised again on spacecraft, then it may be a error. As the Manta is more akin to a Titan-level construct, however, I am merely basing my comparisons around that level of shielding, that is; Manta energy shields and Titan Void Shields.

        Loading editor
    • Actually, we cannot tell if the tau shields are the same as void shields since gw did not describe the tau shields in detail. So, whatever we say is based on assumptions.

        Loading editor
    • Tau shields are described as using gravitic energy to repel incoming fire. Void shields use some sort of Warp technology to do something that neutralises incoming fire. They are different. The rules in Apocalypse are also very different

        Loading editor
    • Oh okay. Thanks for clarifying my doubts.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • The Quote already has the source in there, it's from the 4th Edition of the Eldar Codex. Unless an exact page number is necessary than it should be fine.

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Thank you Shas'o for adding the disclaimer I forgot to do it.

      Loading editor
  • Shas'o, you need to become more careful about adding categories. You are adding incorrect categories to a lot of pages. The Sons of Sek, for instance, are not Space Marines. This is obvious from their lack of a Chaos Space Marines template even if you do not recognise them as enemies from the Sabbat Worlds Crusade novels which do not invvolve Space Marines. You need to read the articles more closely before adding categories, please, as I have gotten several complaints from users about this and I generally do not check category additions unless a mistake is brought to my attention. Just a heads up. Thanks.

      Loading editor
    • Bugger, I saw "Chaos warband" and assumed they were marines. Sorry bout that; won't happen again.

      However, you mention I have added incorrect categories many times before and numerous users have complained. However, this has been the first time and only one user has complained.

        Loading editor
    • Unfortunately, I have had to alter the categories you have added to pages many times before; I just don't bring it to your attention because it's an easy fix and I don't want to waste your time. The point here is please be more careful. Thanks.

        Loading editor
    • Ok.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Please do not replace canon pictures with coloured pictures until you are much more of a veteran of the process.

      Loading editor
  • I have fully updated the Howling Banshees page to make it a model for all of our Eldar Aspect Warrior pages, including the addition of a new template. Please take a look at it so that you can use the same format in case you are ever upgrading other Eldar Aspect Warrior pages.

      Loading editor
  • Shas'o, you are not an administrator or a member of the staff of this wiki. It is not your place or your job to castigate another editor like Brother Protius or Lecolius. You may offer friendly advice on improvement, but do not present orders to other editors as if you held authority, please. That is not yet your role, and only produces enmity against you by other editors who know you hold no legitimate authority. Thanks.

      Loading editor
    • I don't think I presented it that forcefully, but ok.

      Reprimanding Lecolius was a big mistake and I take full blame for that. Won't do it next time.

      I also wasn't 'commanding' with my words. I was just making it clear what needs to be added next time, as dictated by the wiki guidelines.

        Loading editor
    • Just please make it clear that you are offering advice, not making demands for compliance and we will be fine. If I was a first time user, and received such a message, I would naturally assume I was being told to do something officially by someone in charge or with some form of official authority. It's the phrasing. When you are raised to an official position, you can be as direct as you like.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Do not add the Galaxy category to any page save for sectors, sub-sectors and star systems. Planets are not included in this category.

      Loading editor
  • I would hold off on the Tau Weapons pages for now and continue your work on the vehicles. Your Manta page was probably the best you have done, and you have come a long way. But as we discussed, you are still having problems with clear phrasing and organisation of your information. You can see the edits I made to the Airbursting Fragmentation page to get a better sense of what I mean. While there was a lot of good information there, it was poorly organised and somewhat difficult to understand.

    For instance, in the page's introductory paragraph you need to clearly state exactly what the weapon is and what it does; that was not clear. My advice is this: do less paraphrasing and more direct copying of the information you see to get a better feel for how to organise the information. I will edit it and prevent the problem of plagiarism from occurring. You need more practice in getting the information clearly onto the page; this is best done by copying the work of others who have already done it properly. As such, the vehicles pages you are doing are coming much closer to meeting our standards right now; perfect them first before you attempt to move on to an entirely different type of article. Thanks.

      Loading editor
See archived talk page
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.