Talk:Space Marine (Warhammer 40,000)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Question

With all of the different Chapters and Legions. Which do we as the gamers field the most often? I personally field the Ultramarines, but and thinking of repainting them for a different chapter yet to be decided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.43.81.134 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 17 March 2005

I field Black Templar. I most often see Blood Angels but I presume that will change in the short term due to Dark Angels getting a new box and Codex and long term due to use of the nerf bat in the future. --BenWoodruff 20:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I agree with A Man In Black that this article needs a cleanup. As a first pass, I suggest that basically the entire Dawn of War section can go: I see it as just a reference list from one specific computer game and non-encyclopedic. Any other views on this? Pak21 11:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Getting rid of it gets my vote. I've moved some of the lists from this article into other ones (the gene-seed organs to Gene-seed and the list of Chapters to List of Space Marine Chapters). The more info we can reorganise, and the more pointless crap we can cut, means the better this article can be. Saberwyn 13:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I have just deleted the section (replacing it with a stub on computer games featuring Space Marines). What's next? Pak21 14:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, without those three lists cluttering up the page, the article's starting to look pretty good. If anything, I'd shift the list of weapons to a new article (kinda like the Warhammer 40000 Imperial Guard Equipment and Weaponry one) and maybe replace it with a broad rundown of the various kinds of "Squads" available (ie Tactical, Assault, Devastator, Terminator) and the various specialist roles (Chaplain, Apocethary, Techmarine, etc). I say next person to do a major edit of the article should remove the Cleanup tag. Saberwyn 07:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
      • As I was also thinking of breaking out the weapons section into a separate page, Warhammer 40,000 Space Marine Equipment and Weaponry now exists. I've left the Cleanup tag as the page needs a decent copyedit first, but after that I think it can go Pak21 08:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Fair call. I'm going away for a few days, but when I get back I'll have a good look at the article. If the additions I suggested above sound reasonable, I'll add those, give the article a thorough once over, and declare it clean. Sound like a plan? Saberwyn 10:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Sounds very much like a good plan to me. Pak21 12:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

My Grandoise Plans

What I would like to add to the Space Marines article is a 'chain of events' leading from recruiting to Chapter Master. It would be a series of paragraphs with headings (probably renaming of the Creation of a Space Marine section, explaining the various squads and characters. It would follow this basic (crude) pattern.

  1. Recruitment
    • Geneseed
  2. Neophyte/Scout
  3. Battle-Brother
    • Tactical
    • Assault (both bikes and jetpacks)
    • Devastator
  4. Veteran Status
    • Veteran Squad
    • Terminators
    • Veteran Sergeant (?)
  5. Specialist Roles
    • Apocethary
    • Techmarine
    • Chaplain
    • Chapter Master

This, I feel, would add further context to the article, along with allowing us to merge in and redirect Assault Marines, Chapter Master, and any other articles along those lines that may be added in the future. Let me know if I missed any.

I know I said I'd try this before, but I became distracted by shinier things. This time, if there is approval, I will do it. Saberwyn 12:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't like this idea. This approach mixes game terminology with background material and as such isn't accurate. There's never been GW canon material on exactly how progression within a Codex chapter works, so best left alone. Many, many chapters have vastly different structures and to generalise wouldn't be appropriate. Sojourner001 18:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Main weapon

What is the main space marines weapon called, the one you mostly see the marines useing?

Pece Kocovski 09:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Action Heroes list

Hey does anyone know what the reference to the Action Heroes Army List is? Google search returns zero hits. does this thing exist? novacatz 06:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

  • White dwarf, recent Australian issue. Don't know the exact number, but I'll find it and add it as soon as I can. I will admit that I may have the exact title wrong; if so I will fix this at the same time. Saberwyn 08:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Whit Dwarf 301 (Australian Edition). Will check article and post details here on the talk page in the next two days. Saberwyn 12:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason behind this has been explained as to maintain game balance; all armies are on an equal enough footing that the skill, tactics and luck of the individual players have a greater effect on the results than any fictional stereotype. However, a set of rules was created by Pete Haines, published in White Dwarf in early 2005. Titled "The Movie Space Marine List", these rules strove to match the Space Marines portrayed in the fiction, resulting in 'armies' of ten or less Space Marines that were more than capable of taking on 1,500pt armies from other Codexes. These rules were made completely unofficial, and players were warned to be careful when using them against opponents.

The Article is "Space Marines In The Movies", and is written by Pete Haines. It was published in the January 2005 edition of White Dwarf Australia (Issue 301), from page 72 onwards.

There's your source, someone want to fiddle with this text and add it back in, please? - Saberwyn 08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to adjust the text slightly. There is more than one viewpoint over the disparity between the fictional depictions and the Wargame. Game balance causing Marines to be "downpowered" is only one. The other is that the Tabletop representation is accurate and the novels are heroic exagerations. 84.92.80.169 12:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know what issue number it was printed in the UK, or a website where it can be obtained? Thanks. FredTheDeadHead 14:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Marinesmeg.JPG has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Marinesmeg.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Gene-seed purity

Could editors please cite some sources for the claims of gene-seed purity? At the moment, we have this article and Gene-seed saying different things! Cheers --Pak21 11:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Error in article

Section "The Legions and Chapters" claim that 2 of the primarchs were never found. Please cite a source for this. There were 20 first founding chapters, but two were later expunged from records (the 2nd and 11th, from memory). This implies that all 20 primarchs were located. It is later stated that the lack of the primarchs are why the chapters died out, but all chapters were founded on genetic material from their primarchs. No Primarchs would mean no chapter, rather than the chapter dying out.

Also, I believe the cursed founding (referenced in the mention of the legion of the damned) was the thirteenth founding (GW being subtle like that)

It would also, I suggest, be better, to present the list of the first founding chapters in numerical order (back of 3rd edition space marine codex, for a reference)

I would also suggest that the history of the space marine chapters, particularly with reference to the split caused by the horus heresy, could be better presented. By starting the article with a discussion of the first foundings, that seems to be the way the article is going, but it doesn't get there.

--- in response to first point, there is no evidence to suggest the 2 other primarchs were found and it is possible they were killed before they could be found, or were just never found - the legions were allready created before the primarchs were found and they relied on the primarchs geneseed to continue which would explain why the legions died out, the use of the word chapter is probably misleading, there were no chapters created from the other two legions to the best of my knowledge which could further suggest they were weakened so much during the Great Crusade they played no real part in the Heresy or event preceding it i think the 2nd point is correct and the last two are matter for opinions Lowris 20:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence to suggest they were *not* found, either; the whole point is that all records on them and their Legions have been expunged, and thus nothing can be said specifically of them for certain. I'll second the suggection for ordering the list of First Founding Chapters in numerical order. The list can also be found in the 4th Edition Codex, as well as here on the Wiki I believe. --Utsanomiko 02:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting this. The supporting text clearly states that the Legions were created from the geneseed of their respective Primarchs, and states that said chapters were deleted. "Deleted" does not mean "did not exist". Chris Cunningham 11:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

--- For clarity, the Emperor created the first legions from the genetic material he had left over after the Primarchs were taken. It has been inferred, but not spelled out anywhere, that until the Primarchs were recovered, the legions were named numerically. For example, the First Legion, was called the First Legion, until at some point they become the Dark Angels (I think). No confirmation that I have ever read though.

As for the lost Primarchs, there is no proof that they were found or not, although it has been put forth that they were either not found, or found dead, since nothing could be more terrible then the actions of Horus, and those records were not expunged. One theory is that Sigmar from warhammer fantasy was one of the primarchs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.149.102.61 (talk • contribs) .

The 2nd and 11th Primarches were found, otherwise Alpharius wuld have been the 18th Primarch instead of the 20th —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.81.177.61 (talk • contribs) .

In the Horus Heresy series of Warhammer 40K books the lunar wolves 3rd captain (icaton qruze) is said to be not a son of horus meaning he wasnt created using the primarchs genetic code but was made a marine in a different fasion. this means thaT two legions could have existed without primarchs.

You are getting into the area of OR. You can only use what your reference material says, and it is not correct to negaticely infer from those. That said
  • The primarchs numbered 20 before they were lost.
  • That Qruze was not a Son of Horus marine doesn't mean he that wasn't a marine from another legion.GraemeLeggett 14:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
"Not a Son of Horus" doesn't mean he didn't have Horus' DNA, it means he didn't look like Horus. More of the Luna Wolves didn't look like Horus than did, yet they all were implanted with organs developed from his DNA. Darkson - BANG! 15:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The Cursed Founding was the 21st Founding. Just so you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.111.219 (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2008 (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 20:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to seperate all wikis into either 'background' or 'game' along the lines of "This is an article about the fictional setting of the Warhammer 40,000 games systems and their derivatives. For a discussion of the games systems themselves, please refer to whatever".Sojourner001 18:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Length of Article

I see why the article is long. It's because a lot of information that should be in other articles are dumped in here.

1. Loyalists and Traitors. This is a super long list... um... why is it here?

2. Progression of a Space Marine is incredibly long as well. Is all of the information really necessary? Just copy everything the Codex says!

3. There is a description on every single unit and what they do! It doesn't hurt to limit to 2-3 sentences on each.

If these can be brought down (or virtually vaporized down to a few sentences each section), the article wouldn't be so long. Colonel Marksman 22:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I find the volume of information in these Warhammer articles to be somewhat disturbing. Modulus86 12:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • If you have any suggestions for information which could be removed from this or other articles, please feel very free to make suggestions here (or on other appropriate talk pages, including that for WikiProject Warhammer 40,000. Cheers --Pak21 12:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Dumping literal stuff from the later Codizes in here

I really don't want to have to split off a pre-3E version of this article. Please stop dumping random specific pieces of fluff from the current edition in here if it doesn't make the article any better. The Black Legion is a specific example: prior to Abaddon the Black Legion were pariahs who spent most of their time fighting other Traitors. Save stuff which is obviously contradictory or which is very game-specific for the individual articles rather than lumping it in here. Chris Cunningham 22:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Space marines strength comapred to normal humans

Should there be some text explaining how tough and fast a space marine compared to a human? --Eldarone 18:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

GW have never stated this definitively. A statement to the effect in any discussion of their capabilities in general would suffice. Sojourner001 18:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for point of reference. Look at the armor of a rhino. Now look at a marine with his unarmed fist versus a guardsman with his unarmed fist. A character with a str of 4 has a chance of plunging his fist into the side of a rhino transport and disabling it, albeit small. Str 3 has no such chance without a weapon of some sort. Marines can walk with weapons that it takes a team of Imp. Guard to man. ChonkE (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Using Background form Horus Rising and False Gods

In both novels said above, the Space marines are said to not age, but also contradicts this by the line "None of us have lived long enough to find out" about marines and ageing. False gods hints at the origins of the primarchs and also suggests that the pantheon of Chaos Gods aided the emperor in creating them, though this was during Horus' corruption. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.81.177.61 (talk • contribs) .

Space marines don't seem to experience much in the way of age-related degeneration. This doesn't mean they don't age. They may never become weak, arthritic and senile but their bodies will gradually accumulate cellular failure and physical trauma that can't be repaired. There's a difference between a body's metabolism gradually losing the ability to repair damage (normal human aging) and damage accumulating that the human body has never been able to repair (disintigration of cartilage, seperation of nerve endings, calcification of various body parts, blocked lymph vessels, and so on). Eventually a marine will be rendered unable to fight by accumulating system failures compounded by drug acclimatisation. This probably won't last long until he dies suddenly. Sojourner001 18:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Tables

Just had a look through the article and I have to say that I don't like the way there are 2 tables in the middle. They look awful IMO. We don't need to go into much detail on each of the chapters here, as it is included in the individual chapter articles. Why not turn these into prose instead?-Localzuk (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the first founding loyalist legions are all mentioned in the list of Space Marine chapters (which is linked in the article), and the Traitor Legions are mentioned in the Chaos Space Marines main article. I'd say get rid of the charts and leave a shorter explanation of the legions, with links to the Space Marine chapters list and the Chaos Marines article. The charts are just redundant (as well as ugly) and I agree completely that they should go. Cheers--DarthBinky 18:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If we are going to keep these, can we order them according to the designated legion number, rather than having them supposedly random ? E.g. Emperor's Children come first in the Chaos list and the Dark Angels first in the Loyalists list.Philpill 23:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Whats up with the First section

The first section in Space Marines seems really awkward and rewritten, I have seen it done much better in the past, and there seems to be some points of opinion and extreme vagueness. I'ld like some one to look it over and either revert it back to its old style or rewrite it to make it more consistant with the rest of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.79.187 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 14 November 2006

I've given the first section a shot, in my own oppinion it's much better now.

If you disagree, and for some reason revert to the old first section, please explain why.MigB (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits on 4/1/07 by MechaEmperor

Chapter Masters - surely it's the Chaplains' role ( and possibly Librarians) to teach the Chapters' stories and histories to new recruits, not the Chapter Masters'? At least that's my understanding from all the SM codexs.

Librarians - There can be more than one Chief Librarian in a chapter, at least under the3rd/4th editioon "fluff", and do we really need a list of all the named characters? Darkson 09:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Black Hawks First Founding Legion

Can I get a citation for this ? I've been out of touch for a while but I can't imagine GW would change something as core as the official list of original legions, not to mention giving it such a blatently influenced name of a certain blockbuster war movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philpill (talk • contribs) 22:17, 4 February 2007

There were only 18 named legions in the First Founding with two deleted from history. I have been out of the loop regarding 40k for a bit but this does seem to change long standing GW history. As for the Black Hawk name is the name of the UH60 helicopter. I doubt even Hollywood could win that case :-D -- Death666 21:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Librarians

Other than Black Templar what chapters don't take Librarians? --BenWoodruff 20:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

...no apparent differences

Unless I'm mistaken, the lions share of info on the SM page and the Librarians page is cut and paste. Any reason why we need two seperate pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.64.2.76 (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The main Librarian article is much more in-depth then the bit on the SM article. We shouldn't merge the Librarian article into the SM article b/c it would make the SM article even longer and convoluted. I say we should leave them how they are now. That way, people can read a little bit about the Librarian on the SM page and if they want to learn more, they can click on the link. It keeps things from getting too messy.--Renegade Replicant|leave me a message 05:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The Librarian article is going to have to be merged in here, because it does not have 3rd party sources and so fails WP:N. --Falcorian (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but that can be easily fixed (a lot easier than transferring the article over). Besides, there have already been concerns about the length of this article. We don't want to make it even worse. Basically all we are going to end up doing is cause more problems and have an eventual removal of information. I'd rather have two good separate articles, for easier browsing, then one mega, convoluted article.--Renegade Replicant|leave me a message 04:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting stats

Under the structure section, it lists 6000 chapters in existence. This conflicts with information under "later foundings" totaling the number of chapters at 1,000. Can some one give the true number?

--MercZ 04:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I see it mention 1000 chapters, and later that The Black Templars have 6000 Marines in their chapter. I don't see a conflict with number of chapters though... --Falcorian (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

backwards

before i go any further, i want someone to tell me it's not the right place to discuss this item. i'm sick to death of reprimands.

Umm... It's not the right place to... Oh, I can't do it. If you need help though, feel free to reach me on my talk page. --Falcorian (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else?
Anyone else what? Darkson - BANG! 18:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Neophytes

Under the Neophyte section it has the following line "(Please note that Black Templars are the only Space Marine Chapter to call their Scouts Neophytes)" I this is untrue for two reasons, 1. Black Templar don't have "scouts" like other chapters. 2. All chapters new recruits are called neophytes, during this time they play the rule of scout on the battle field till they are promoted to Initiates. The templar codex is the only one to call them Neophyte in the army list. The section only talks about the Templar as well, and looks like it was copied from the codex, it needs a rewrite. --71.179.25.200 01:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Manifestations of Librarian Power

I was reading "Warrior Brood" by CS Goto and I found some really interesting manifestations of Librarian powers that aren't listed in this artilce. In the novel, Librarians were capable of: wreathing themselves in a flaming warp barrier, stopping in midair during freefall, limited verticle flight, lightning projection, projecting burning shockwaves, and energy lance (beam) projection. WOW! Adding this would give readers a better undertanding of the potency of these beings. With these guys, who needs an army? --Exoviper

Add in the Hell (or whatever it was called) that Sarpedon (spelling?) from the Soul Drinkers had.
Ah, somedays I wish we could all go back to the more complicated, yet more satisfying 2nd edition, or even RT. Darkson - BANG! 23:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Legions

Would it not make more sense to list the legions in the order of their founding (obviously still keeping the loyal/traitor split)? For example, it says the DA were the 1st Legion, yet they're listed third. As far as I recall, the list is in the Ultramarine Codex, and I believe the Chaos one also (neither to hand atm, else I'd do it myself). Darkson - BANG! 19:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it made sense to me, so I've rearranged the list myself. Darkson - BANG! 21:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Translation of 'astartes'

What does this word mean? I can't find it on any translator. :/ Blast [improve me] 21.05.07 1440 (UTC)

I don't think there is a real translation, it's bastardised latin that GW uses.


Games workshop has said it is higher gothic (the main language of 40k) they made it up lower gothic is wht we speak and the guardsmen usually

Glossary: Adeptus = Space Astartes = Marine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurcourt (talk • contribs)

Adeptus is latin for "Skilled in" (which is how we get the English word "Adept"), Astartes is latin for "Heaven". -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
GW uses bastardised forms of Church Latin and Classical Latin for a great deal of its language "High Gothic". Other examples include Adepta Sororitas (Adepts or learned ones of of a Sisterhood, Soro = Sister in Latin) Church Latin is subtly different in its meaning to classical Latin, though GW doesnt seem to know that sometimes! Most imperial machines are given Latin or Latin sounding names as further examples. Gingerwerewolf (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Space Marine Codex.jpg

Image:Space Marine Codex.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove "Criticism"

Is this section necessary? This is an article about a fictitious unit of genetically altered humans...if you don't like them, don't play as them. It's a waste of space. Hardcorps103 06:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, even if the section is relevent it is still worded inappropriately, has POV issues and is unsourced. chris_handforth 21 June, 2007

New image

Image:Spacemarines.jpg Marvel do a 40K strip? Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 21:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a copyrighted image and can't be used on talk pages. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Space_Marine_(Warhammer_40,000)/Archive_1&oldid=1137196639"