Category talk:Age of Sigmar/Tactics

Yeah, this thing needs to be cleaned up! I think removing all the old lists, or make the old lists have their own sub-category. TheWiseDane (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

What with three different playmodes, shit is about to become a LOT more of a clusterfuck than before. But renaming everything since its clear there isn't going to be a 1.6, 3.1, etc. style system is probably the first step. --Thannak (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

What do you think about "Tactics/Grand Alliance:" pages? Instead of focus on the individual factions, a page dedicated to help with the Grand Alliances Order, Chaos, Death or Destruction as a whole with tips and tactics dedicated to them. --Korvalus 15:58, 24 Dec 2016 (GMT)

About Sylvaneth to DoT battletomes

They are all have the exact same detail level. Should every Battletome between the Sylvaneth and DoT be labeled as 1.2? if 1.0 was the Compendium and 1.1 are all the Battletomes without allegiance abilities? or just because since DoT they are adding matched points on the same book too?

Just my opinion, have a good day. 22:13 30 mar 2017‎ User:CMLR

Categorizing These Pages

Perhaps we should start working on making this page easier to manage, like categorizing them in the Grand Alliances and maybe giving the Old World pages their own category? This page is absolutely unwieldy! TheWiseDane (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Another idea would be to simply remove the older Articles. We don't need a 1.0 and 1.1 versions of the Stormcast Eternals page for example. This is what's bloating up the page and making it extremely unwieldy, especially given most of these "Factions" can be best summarised on a Tactics page for their respective Grand Alliance.--86.9.123.204 02:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm on board with removing the older 1.0 and 1.1 versions too... it's not like the actual AoS game has moved between editions the same way that 40k has (which would necessitate new pages). Removing all repeated pages at the very least would go a long way to cleaning the category up and make sure that all links go to the same place and that future edits are all done to the same page, rather than scattered all over the place. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Then the best thing to do is to remove those pages, keep only up to date, complete pages for the factions that actually have a Battletome (Stormcasts, Maggotkin of Nurgle, Ironjawz etc, etc) and have a single comprehensive "Grand Alliance Tactics" page for covering all the smaller sub-ranges that aren't quite fully fledged factions (Wanderers, Greenskinz, Deathrattle (shudder)). It worked for the 40K side of things after all. If only I knew how to do such a grand mass edit, I'd do it myself -_- --86.9.123.204 11:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not so certain about consolidating what you call the smaller sub-ranges. It worked for 40k (IMPERIUM specifically) because those factions didn't have any battle-forged abilities, or warlord traits or relics. Conversely, Adeptus Ministorum has its own page even though they don't have a codex because they are significant enough on their own.

Since the General's Handbook came out, factions like the Free Peoples, Dispossessed, Wanderers, Nighthaunt, Clan Skyre to name but a few were all given Allegiance rules, relics and command abilities of their own, and some are even more substantial armies than those which actually have their own battle-tome (looking at Sylvaneth and Clan Pestilens specifically) so consolidating any factions would have to be considered very carefully, else it becomes messy if you put them on the same page, especially when they aren't actually allowed to ally with each other. (for example: Free Peoples cannot ally with Darkling Covens and keep either allegiance so putting together under "Grand Alliance" can't really do either faction justice.) Simply removing repeated pages at the very least will remove a significant portion of the redundancy without causing any great loss. We may be able to return to the issue of consolidation later. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

You make a fair point I've not thought about. Okay so, revising the above - if it has supported rules in the General's Handbook or a Battletome, it gets it's own page. If it doesn't, it'll go on a "Grand Alliance" page. Actually by that same logic, we might want to make those pages anyway since the Grand Alliances do have their own separate Allegiance Abilities, Warlord Traits and Relics - and this is before Firestorm had the City State rules for Grand Alliance: Order armies (among others).--86.9.123.204 14:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's give it another day before we go making big changes, so that others might see the discussion and give their views. If we started moving/redirecting loads of pages now some folks might get pissed. Though I'm thinking if we are going to give them new page titles, it might be neater to rearrange them like Age of Sigmar/Tactics/Order/Wanderers and Age of Sigmar/Tactics/Chaos/Disciples of Tzeentch. This would look much nicer as a category since things will naturally place themselves next to relevant pages. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, gonna give it a little more time, else I'll start reorganising pages in a few hours. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

From first look, I reckon I can condense at least forty-six pages down to eighteen. There will definitely be more than that, but I wouldn't want to cause keyword issues, especially with older legacy lists that don't share keywords so would largely leave them alone.

Right now I'm focusing on pages which simply repeat information and in many cases are actual copies of each other with only minor updates. This assumes that we take similar armies such as "Khorne Bloodbound" to be "Blades of Khorne" and "Nurgle Rotbringers" to be "Maggotkin of Nurgle". Other pages, particularly the DEATH and DESTRUCTION pages which tend to jump in and out of each other will probably have to be examined a bit closer to see whether they can actually be condensed. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I think "Khorne Bloodbound" and "Nurgle Rotbringers" and such could be condensed onto a "Blades of Khrone" and "Maggotkin of Nurgle" page, since those books cover those factions as well as their respective deity's demons (which can share the page with them). With the Grand Alliance pages, as far as I've thought it though, I think they should still exist as these still have Relics, Warlord Traits and Alligence Abilities. Infact between the City-States and groups like the Wraith Fleet, Grand Alliance factions can have two Allegiance Abilities. As for unit discussion on those pages, perhaps we can keep those without a Battletome/Rules in the General's Companion to this page for the time being, and then split them off when they get more official rules? We could also use those pages to talk about how - say - mixed armies of Dispossessed, Kharadron and Fyreslayers would work together under a Grand Alliance. People do still build those sorts of armies (an example would be Chris Peach's Defenders of Hallowguild army from November 2016's White Dwarf).--86.9.123.204 10:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the least radical approach would be best for just now, then look at what we have afterwards. Right now there are 102 tactics articles and a LOT of redundancy that can be trimmed massively without pissing anyone off. I'd place old legacy armies (those factions no longer supported by the GHB) under their own sections and leave each distinct faction as detailed by the GHB on their own. Then we can look about creating a single "Grand Alliance" page for orphaned units like Aleguzzlers or Chaos Gargants, but I certainly wouldn't put Fyreslayers or Kharadron Overlords on a single page, though certainly a space for allies would be included anyway (just like on the 40k tactics pages) for people who want to build those armies. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 11:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I think there's been a slight miscommunication there. I threw those factions out as an example of a Grand Alliance: Order army. Sorry if that wasn't clear before now -_- --86.9.123.204 11:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Have made a start, thats the majority of outright repeated pages moved to one place for now. Haven't touched most of Chaos pages yet, I just want to make sure certain entries aren't missed before I move things over, which will require actually reading them... same goes for the 1.0 Seraphon page. I don't want people to think their contributions have been deleted, just moved to the same location. -Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

One interesting phenomenon popped up while reorganising the pages. "Death" had its own page: Age of Sigmar/Tactics/Death which is probably suitable for use as a "Grand Alliance" page. Can't see why other over-factions wont get their own Age of Sigmar/Tactics/Order or Age of Sigmar/Tactics/Chaos pages added eventually, pulling in all the orphaned units like the Firebelly or the Shadowblades. Think that will have to be done later though. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

...So unless these changes were on the pages themselves, I'm not seeing any changes to this page at all, and it's been several days by now. --86.9.123.204 01:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? 104 tactics articles have been reduced to 75 and I'm still going. This is, and has always been the talk page for the entire tactics category, not any individual article. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Very funny, but I can see the changes you said you'd made were made only today, and only after I mentioned this on this page.--86.9.123.204 11:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

learn to read edit histories, my own user contribution page shows that I'd done hundreds of edits on the category before you even posted, no matter what time zone you're in. Sufficed to say that its done now and in a state I'm reasonably happy with. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm reading it now, as I have the past few times. There's a single entry that's your User Name at the top, with a (+399)‎ next to it. I'm not going to click the undo on it considering if I did...--86.9.123.204 22:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I got it wrong. Turns out I was reading the wrong Edit History. My mistake. I'm sorry for causing this pointless argument -_- --86.9.123.204 22:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Second edition

Is there going to be a 2 edition (2018) and 1st edition (->2017) version of all these pages?

Maybe duplicate all the pages under Age of Sigmar/Tactics/1e ?

Or should we just go ahead and update all the pages to be 2e/2018?