Talk:Warhammer (game)/Archive 1

Archive 1

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

Pictures

This article seriously needs some good pictures of the game.

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Anon, can you try to find more wp:rs, warseer and bgg aren't reliable enough to use in wikipedia. --Davémon (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully beg to differ. Regarding the following points: (1) That the criticism centered on HE/DE is not the point in itself. The point is, that warhammer codexes are _not internally balanced_. This is a grave problem for the game. - Also, regarding another point (2) not *all* of the references I provided were internet forums. Some were acutally veteran players' opinions and very much on the mark. So please restore at least those.

And now for a personal comment: As I said, I really think that there needs to be a section about criticisms about the 7th ed. ruleset which it is widely agreed is obivously flawed. You note that the official GW forums were closed, remember why? - That's right; too many complaints of poor rules amonst the games fans! - As it is, it is very easy to find favourable oppinions of GW and Warhammer while criticism is mostly kept to forums. So there exists an obvious bias. 87.60.229.164 (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Davemon, do you agree that there should be a section reflecting players' discontentment with 7th ed. if more respected sources can be found? - Of course, a criticism section should also reflect satisfaction with the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.229.164 (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% that this section should exist if the critisisms can be properly sourced. I'd also really like to see similar sections for editions 4,5,6 as well. The problem is that Warhammer gets very little coverage in reliable sources, so some opinions, whilst totally valid, won't have a place in wikipedia. --Davémon (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This imho is a pretty good example of a lemma like WP:RS standing in the way of good information, as it seems that everybody agrees the criticism is valid, just not sourced correctly. The basic problem is: While article itself is judged by the blurry WP:REL, the criticism (which will make the information much more balanced) is judged much closer using WP:RS. Which in this case makes this article more of an advertisement and less neutral... Tierlieb (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Poorly-sourced critisism will make the article look trivial to casual readers. Forums just are not reliable enough to establish a significant viewpoint. I've actively sought out and added critical information about Warhammer, and Games Workshop in the past and have come to the conclusion that research is the answer to getting these views in wikipedia, not complaining about policy. --Davémon (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, keep on what you're doing if you think that is the way to get it done. I'll lean back and watch. I just recommend to try the following experiment: Take note of the criticism that was voiced. If, say, within 6 months, these criticism is still unsourced and therefore not included in the article, re-examine your position. If you manage to find sources satisfying wp:rs, drop me a note and I'll congratulate you officially (here or wherever you prefer) on your hard work. But if, in six months, you still omit these criticisms (everybody seems to agree on), you may want to ask yourself if you're working to improve articles or just satisfying policies. Tierlieb (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect much until Warhammer, or it's players, become a subject reliable sources discuss. There is no deadline on that. Davémon (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just returned to see that no one has taken up the mantle and provided sources for the criticisms that most players agree on. The result is that the text of this article is as one-sided as it was three months ago. Objectively, Wikipedia should be a nightmare for a company like GW that routinely denies true information about its products. - I really think WIKI's policies obstruct the truth in this case. If you want a parallel example, look a China: The state controls all the media, hence all the media report nothing bad on the state. With regards to Warhammer, GW controls the Warhammer magazine White Dwarf which is responsible for so much of the magazine coverage of the game that it makes no sense for independent gaming magazines to try and compete up that court.87.60.229.164 (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It is not Wikipedias job to challenge GW's control of its brand-assets. If Warhammer players can't be bothered to create and support their own independent, editorially rigorous magazines and journals or write and publish academic papers on the statistical modeling of the games changing army lists and relationship of that to GW's commercial activities, why should casually formed opinions on these matters be given any credence in any encyclopedia? --Davémon (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well then. It appears that we have reached a stalemate. But here is anothe road we can take: Jervis and others have stated multiple times that it makes not sense to write waterproof rules because only 'beardy' players (i.e. jerks) play to optimize and win. - But none the less, at the same GW promotes a competitive spirit, making tournaments an increasing part of the game. 87.60.229.164 (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Quotations from the designers - as long as they are clearly noted as such - would be a great addition to the article. --Davémon (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct base size

I believe I've found a false fact. The article says that WFB is played with models mounted on bases 25-28mm large, and that the 28mm base is standard. At least the modern bases from the 6th and 7th edition is normal bases either 20 or 25mm large, and the 20mm large ones are standard (Not just because most bases are this size, but also because man-sized models uses this base-size and the game is viewed from a human angel.) I can fix this myself, but just wonder if I shall. An error as large as this should be corrected fast, but the fact that it haven't been corrected confuses me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeldaalv (talk • contribs) 10:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find what you speak of in the article, seeing as how it's been a few months since you posted. I also could not find where the revision was made. Can anybody confirm that this was fixed? I also agree that 20 and 25mm are standard by measuring myself. Mythicalmonk (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Warhammer's forgotten connection to Warcraft

There is quite an interesting story here, if someone wants to pursue the citations. The way I understand it, Blizzard was contracted to make a computer game of Warhammer for Games Workshop; the deal fell through, and Blizzard took their partially completed game and made Warcraft out of it. Blizzard devolved Warhammer's four races of Humans, Dwarves, Orcs, and Elves to two forces. Years later, long after the original contract, and with a completely different project, Blizzard released Starcraft. Compare the races of Warhammer 40k with those of Starcraft. Tyrannids are a widely varied assortment of species of perfect killing machines, their bodies highly evolved to suit specific tasks within the Tyrannid collective; the very definition of the Zerg. Space Marines are, well, Space Marines. Last and probably most loosely connected, the lithe sinewy bodies (edit oops old bad habit of calling Eldar, Space Elves :o) Anarchangel (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC) and graceful features of the Eldar) belie their prowess in savage hand to hand combat, as is true of the Protoss. Anarchangel (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC).

Interesting, but not particularly useful to editing the article (unless you can find a reliable source). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Chris here, yes its interesting but shouldn't be included with the reliable sources. Having said that, I recall reading somewhere on IGN that Warcraft was based on Warhammer - I think it was something to do with their comparison of WAR and WoW. If someone does the legwork, there bound to be enough information available to add this to the article. Govworker (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

1st Edition is titled 'Warhammer' and subtitled 'The Mass Combat Fantasy Role-Playing Game'. 1st Edition expansion is titled 'Forces of Fantasy' and subtitled 'A Warhammer Supplement'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.85.4 (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Problems with subjectivity

"Despite many rules inconsistencies, inadequate roleplaying rules, typing errors and poor presentation, the battle system was thought to be excellent[1] and exceptionally simple and playable in comparison to other miniatures games of the time.[2] The psychology rules - for determining how classic fantasy racial types behave towards each other - and the fumbling of magic were well regarded and thought to enhance the fantasy feel of the game and provide entertainment.[1][3]" (from the article)

This section I believe to be too subjective as well as poorly written syntactically and grammatically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhark (talk • contribs) 21:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"was thought to be and "were well regarded" makes it clear that this is the view of the reviewers and Wikipedia itself is not advancing these ideas, so there isn't really a subjectivity issue. The content is properly cited, one of the reviewers being Ken Rolston is as close to an expert in such matters as you're going to find. As for it being poorly written, feel free to rephrase it, so long as the meaning isn't lost and it still accurately reflects the original sources.Davémon (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Original creators of WFB - 'Graham Eckel' was not involved

In the section "Warhammer First edition (1983)" I have changed the entry from "The first edition, written by Bryan Ansell, Richard Halliwell, Graham Eckel and Rick Priestley" to remove the reference to 'Graham Eckel' as no-one of that name was (or has ever been) involved with any edition of WFB. Sadly the name seems to have disseminated throughout the internet on pages copying text from this entry, hence my pointing it out specifically as even if this is a vanity or 'comedic' alteration it is factually incorrect.

Citational postings (from the 'Oldhammer Community' Facebook page) where this attribution was first noted by Tony Ackland

Rick Priestley: Of all the very many things I don't remember I'm sure I really don't remember any Graham Eckel...

Anthony Ackland: As the studio at Victoria Street consisted of Rick and yours truly, with occasional visits from Richard Halliwell, John Blanche, Tom Meier, the Perry twins and, Al and Trish. Nick Bibby and Jez Goodwin called once or twice. Mr Eckel was most noteworthy for is nonexistence.

If anyone comes across this erroneous information elsewhere please correct it as WFB 1st Edition was written by Bryan Ansell, Rick Priestley and Richard Halliwell with great input from Anthony Ackland.

Many thanks

Tim Pollard

Here is the edit where Graham Eckel was erroneously added. It dates to Feb 2012, and was done by an anonymous IP user. This is the only edit made to Wikipedia by that IP address, so it looks like some self-insertion vandalism. -Stelio (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

9th Age Reference

Someone changed the previous reference to the follow-up game Age of Sigmar to point out to a fan-created game called The 9th Age.

Without considering wheter 9th Age is something worth of being pointed out or not, it feel extremely misleading as the intented successor by its creators is another product, specially because wikipedia should only rely factual information. If The 9th Age should be related to Warhammer in any way it should be on a subcategory about the influence of Warhammer on other wargames.

Also, adding the links to that fan-created group seems really suspicious. Wikipedia should not be used for publicity.46.25.198.109 (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Reply: First, a game is a game, regardless of whether it is fan-created or not. The type of organization behind a game does not diminish its legitimacy. Second, intended successor is not the same as actual successor. One is the intention of the creators, the other is what the community accepts to be successor. The 9th age both looks like and plays on a much more similar level to Warhammer Fantasy. At the very least this page should acknowledge the relevance between the two game systems at a much higher level than an "influence". Its CONSIDERABLY closer to the original game than Age of Sigmar, by an immeasurable margin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninepaces (talk • contribs) 17:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

This is an article from BOLS identifying the three main successors to WHFB. https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2016/01/age-of-sigmar-vs-kings-of-war-vs-9th-age.html These three games deserve mentions on this page. I'm going to make the edit to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninepaces (talk • contribs) 17:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Please discuss before removing my content.

Ninepaces It's not discussion before removing content, it's removing disputed content, discussion, consensus. The WP:ONUS is on you to establish that it should be in the article, not the other way around. Praxidicae (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok so, lets open the discussion! I have a reputable source. BOLS is one of the biggest names in the war-gaming hobby. Does anyone dispute the possibility of the 9th age being the spiritual successor to WHFB? I'm trying to add information, not remove.

The End Times and Beyond

The main page is woefully lacking any information on the current campaign, which is baffling as it's more or less shaking the setting to the core, and as of this post, at least four "parts" are already out (Nagash, Glottkin, Khaine, and Thanquol). Nevermind the fact that it's leading to the game's 9th edition... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.244.6 (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This article mentions that the game was discontinued after the End Times but does not mention that Games Workshop launched Age of Sigmar as a direct consequence. I realize that they aren't technically the same but that sentence could probably extended a few words and provide a link to the Age of Sigmar page... I assume there's an Age of Sigmar page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.22.19 (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I came here to get more information on the world behind Warhammer, as I have long known about it, but never directly interacted with it. It would really be nice to get some details on why they decided to end the core game and transition to Age of Sigmar. Livingston 14:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Games Workshop Logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)