User talk:Newerfag

From 1d4chan
Jump to: navigation, search

Is this how you set up pages to talk to others? No idea but thought it might be better than spamming pages to try to get your attention.


Yes, it is. I'll overlook the irony of you using capslock and strikethroughs here though.--Newerfag (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

So i went to halfchan to check up on how things are going there...[edit]

and apparently they banned smut threads? whats the story? what were smut threads and why are they banned? i never read them but i know theyve had a dedicated community for years. seems like the pocketeers are getting even worse over there. it also looks like the anti smut fags are trying to ban the entire smut page from 1d4chan too. --Kapow (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

/WST was a series of threads dedicated to people requesting /tg/ related Erotica(book porn). Essentially for games like shadowrun and DnD. However, recently a bunch of trolls have basically decided that they don't like wst, and started a whole campaign to shitpost over them, and in a fit of genius, decided to create hundreds of smut threads to get the mods attention. Evilexecutive (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
However, the root cause of this as I've figured out, was that someone got offended by a wst artist putting up a Patreon page on a thread. The butthurt then spread like wildfire. Evilexecutive (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
More precisely, it's actually one guy with a cellphone and the deluded belief that raids are still a thing. You might remember him as the asshole who singlehandely ruined /qtg/. Oh, and stay the hell off It's said shitposter's stomping grounds.
No idea what /qtg/ is, care to explain? Evilexecutive (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Quest Thread General. A general where quests of all types were discussed. This douchebag took offense to it and plunged it into a black hole of shitposts and a staging ground for his one-man crusade to turn back the clock to the days of Nazimod. (Can't say WHY he would think that would be good for /tg/, but he's convinced he's right and that everyone else is wrong.) He can occasionally be seen on the ghost threads as a tripfag called "Martian Triggerman." I have a feeling he was the one who blanked the smut index here as well, he's obsessive enough for that. Seriously, I've seen half the public ban list taken up by his faggotry in previous weeks. --Newerfag (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • We basically made lewd writefaggotry of all types, and for a while the mods actually went out of their way to defend us. One unusually persistent shitposter made it his life's mission to drive us off the board by triggering arguments and making fake threads to accumulate flamebait in, and after making 7 of them in a row the mods must have simply lost patience. He was banned dozens of times, but the magic of airplane mode made sure that didn't do jack shit. In retrospect, we were lucky to last as long as we did.
For the moment, /d/ has welcomed us with open arms, but the same shitposter who drove us out of /tg/ seems hellbent on following us. I can only assume 8chan's lower traffic means it gets that much less scum to deal with. Can't say I consider the mods malicious so much as lazy and overly willing to take the easy way out, but it does set a bad precedent. Now people know that if they scream loudly enough they can force the mods to let them have their way. Shouldn't they be banning the rabble-rousers instead of appeasing them? --Newerfag (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
wow, hes trying to get it banned from /d/ too? wtf? how can anything be banned from /d/? obviously he doesnt give a fuck about the health of /tg/, or fun, and instead just hates smut threads. does he have some kind of ideological hatred for them?--Kapow (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
It's the only explanation I can think of that makes sense. I know I've been a bit stuck-up about what makes something /tg/-related in the past here, but at least I was willing to discuss it and back down when I was shown to be wrong. He's just convinced that he knows better than the actual mods, since they actually kept us clean in the early days. He might have a few hangers-on as well, but with his habit of using airplane mode on his cellphone to switch IP addresses there's no way to be sure of that. --Newerfag (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
well ill help defend the smut page from vandalism if i see it, there is literally years worth of work on that page, and it should be preserved against autistic haters.--Kapow (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Tell the people on otherchan to go and pay a visit to us as well if they can. We need the traffic real bad if we're going to survive. --Newerfag (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Eh, don't worry too much. Let the heat blow for a couple of months and we'll be able to get back.

Only War Edit[edit]

Hey man, maybe your group had a house rule about support specialists being unable to profit from the Advanced Specialties rules presented in Hammer of the Emperor but per RAW they're definitely able to do just that. See for clarification. The upcoming Shield of Humanity supplement has been confirmed to contain AdSpecs for some of the support classes, too. Eli (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I was not aware of that. Thank you for informing me of this. However, it specifically mentioned that only Guardsmen player characters could use the ones in Hammer of the Emperor (I.e. no support specialists). Perhaps you got that mixed up with remaining dedicated to the current specialty?--Newerfag (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, we had some confusion over the whole thing in our group as well. I've edited the article again to clarify that HotE only contains AdSpecs for Guardsman characters, hope that's better now. Eli (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and Similar Flimflammery[edit]

Just wanted to give my thanks for your insight and involvement, Newerfag. Whilst I know we haven't always seen eye-to-eye, I want it known that I hold you in fairly high regard and worthy of respect. -- Jaimas 18:26 November 01, 2013 (EST)

Not a problem. For what it's worth (and I'm probably remembering something wrong), Retro mentioned that they were particularly interested in exploring the other bounty hunters that Samus regularly competes with- perhaps a successor to Metroid Prime Hunters? In any event, it's not the first time a Nintendo franchise has been presumed dead only to be suddenly restarted (see Kid Icarus). It could be great, it could be just OK, it could suck ass- but until it's released (or confirmed at that matter) it's all just idle speculation on our part. And odds are pretty good that Other M will either be made non-canon in future games (assuming that it's ever acknowledged at all).--Newerfag (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

We can all hope. Thanks again! -- Jaimas 21:20 November 01, 2013 (EST)

Halo vs. Starcraft[edit]

I see that you've just tried to strip out all Halo-related content from the wiki, but left StarCraft alone. See, for example, your edit of Starship Troopers. They're both video games with official tabletop adaptations. If anything, I would say that there is a stronger argument to have some background on the Halo universe on the wiki (though, having glanced at the Halo pages many moons ago, I totally understand that it's possible to write too much on a topic), given that there is a fandex in the works. Why blank one but not the other? --Not LongPoster Again (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The Halo page was growing far larger than it needed to be- so much that it was essentially becoming its own wiki. The Starcraft page has shown no such tendencies as of yet, but I will treat it the same way if it too becomes troublesome in that respect. While some background would not hurt, the key word is "some", and the Halo page in its current state was growing out of control.--Newerfag (talk) 06:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the bicker-edit.[edit]

Thanks for clearing the talk page of the bullshit. Last fucking thing I need right now is a bunch of wannabe critics insulting my ability when they have nothing of their own to display. Anyways, like I said, much appreciated. Creed of Heresy (talk) 06:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


Hi, I see you didn't agree with the joke material I wrote about the number of pokemon, that's fine since we are all working together to make the wiki. Instead of just removing it though could you please add something in it's place then about the number of pokemon since there isn't a bit about it already otherwise that is just taking without adding. If you don't feel you want to I will add a brief note about it when I work on the article more after my break --Alorend (talk)

Added it. You'll have to pardon me, as I have been a diehard fan of the series from the very beginning and I am sure that I would have noticed if there were quality issues. Also, I am rather bad at picking up on jokes.--Newerfag (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Knights Inductor Codex[edit]

When exactly did he say not to include Kraken Bolts like that. He said not to include Kraken Bolts as standard wargear because they are rarer, so I introduced them as an upgrade. Rarity in 40k is represented by a points bump as i'm sure you know, so I represented them as a per model upgrade. This, I think, is a balanced way of introducing the canon Kraken Bolts.--Mirmidion43 (talk) 6:30, 9 April 2014 (WST)

You failed to let him know that you were adding them in, and it specifically said to inform him before making any edits whatsoever. It's his overhaul, not yours. --Newerfag (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Check his talk page, you are completely wrong --Mirmidion43 (talk) 8:34, 9 April 2014 (WST)

Very well. Perhaps I was a bit too hasty in assuming what he wished. --Newerfag (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to clog up your talk page a bit Newerfag. To clarify: what I want has been stated on the front of the codex and in the codex's talk page, I will be the only one doing the edits for the foreseeable future until the codex is at least a little less in a state of flux. Mirmidion43, it's a waste of both our time if I'm forced to constantly undo or redo your edits especially if it messes up balance elsewhere in the codex. However when you talk about your concerns and ideas on the codex talk page it really helps me with constructing the codex. For example you did talk about a small general price reduction and kraken bolts being made as options rather than standard to compensate and I'm most likely going to implement that in some form.

Tl;dr don't edit the codex please, if your ideas are sound enough when you present them I'll most likely go on ahead and add them in a way that the codex is kept in balance at least with itself Remoon101 (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Glad we could sort this all out. --Newerfag (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Games Workshop Edit[edit]

Strikethroughs may not be beautiful, but they are at least entertaining. Not understanding the difference between profit and revenue is just retarded. The whole paragraph makes no sense; switching seamlessly between marginal revenue and what should be marginal profit doesnt work unless the example is reworked to take account of the costs of production throughout. Yes, I could have deleted it all but there was clearly so much thought and love put into it I just didnt have the heart. Or, I could have redone the whole thing to only account for profit, but that would have required so. much. effort. And we both know that I would never make excuses for GWs shameless racketeering incredible business strategy.

The wiki has been trying to discourage the use of strikethroughs for ages now, so don't read that much into it.

Warhammer 40k Devastators - To the buffoon that doesn't understand what free items are. A Tactical squad with a single lascannon that hits on a 3+ costs 90 points. The EXACT SAME squad of 5 marines with a Devastator sergeant and 1 lascannon also costs 90 points, except that lascannon hits on a 2+. Explain why this is terrible.

End Times Chicanery[edit]

I'm not trying to be contrarian, and I'm not a shill, I did however like the End times, both gaming groups I'm in liked the End Times, in fact I'll completely frank I didn't even know that this End Times story hate existed before checking out this page. Look I don't want to be a dick, not do I want to keep changing the Troubling issues but but currently it's a dump of inaccurate or misleading information. Look everything else aside, I think GW's financial practises are complete shit and indefendable, however the End Times IS by the vast majority of people I've met (read all, of a test group of 50ish) considered good, hell even my friend who plays Dwarfs and Chaos Dwarves likes it and they were 2 races that barely got a mention, chaos dwarves were, dwarfs got a mention and it was then getting kicked in for a few books. I'm happy to put up reasonable alternative take comments, but they keep being edited out. And in case you're wondering about how long I've been playing and the basis that has on my outlook I've been playing warhammer for over 2 decades at this point.

  • I find that the End Time in general was more skub than anything else among my circle of friends, but everyone hated the ending. The article in question seems to mostly articulate that view. That said, if you don't like the section, there're ways of going about it besides what basically amounts to starting an argument on the page or blanking the section you didn't like altogether, principally, the discussion page. Also, when you post on a talk or discussion page, add the two dashes and four tildes to include a signature: --SpectralTime (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Duly noted. My main problem was that the anon making the edits (which I would assume is Void) was taking the opposite extreme of the segments he objected to and calling the people raising those issues whiny bitches who don't know what they want instead of raising valid points. I am open to hearing the counterarguments, but when they begin by calling the original argument the product of butthurt neckbeards I am that much less inclined to listen when they dismiss issues as "bitter tirades" and assuming that the dislike of how the ham-handed way they went about changing the setting (which if they don't retcon it will make the new setting feel pointless since even the illusion of being able to delay Chaos will be gone) somehow equates to not wanting the setting to change at all. If you do have reasonable alternative take comments, post them- but make sure they're actually reasonable first. --Newerfag (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

/tg/ smut additions[edit]

Thanks for adding my smut to the list. Gave me an excuse to add the rest of my dumb writings.

- Kitty

Awesome Page[edit]

The vandal's back at it. Probably didn't need a heads up but just putting it out there. Remoon101 (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

So I noticed. Crazy Cryptek seems to have gotten it, though. You'd think he'd have learned after the first three times. --Newerfag (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
This is the power of not leaving the house much.Crazy Cryptek (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
You and me both. --Newerfag (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
And jesus christ, this guy is persistent. What the FUCK did 1d4chan ever do to him?--Newerfag (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we kicked his dog on accident at the Christmas party or something?Crazy Cryptek (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
We had a Christmas party? Invite me next time, will you? --Newerfag (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


Really now, i did what you and Ben told me, I got some negative , positive and neutral comments on 4chan. my post is there and you still delete my page!!!

I was on the thread, the comments were almost totally negative. And you still stole art from other people to put in your articles and then lied about it- that alone is enough to get the article deleted. Haven't you learned not to take what doesn't belong to you? --Newerfag (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean Lied about it ??? wtf?? I didnt steal anything, I never said i made those pics, i just used them, stuff on the internet are free for everyone. don't you know? right click , save!

That's where you're wrong. You didn't give credit to where the pictures came from, and you tried to pass them off as your own by scribbling gas masks on them. It's a serious rule violation, and one which can get you permanently banned. --Newerfag (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


Just wondering, what makes some strikethroughs bad, while 1d4chan is littered with them?

They're essentially ALL bad- it's as lazy as it is unfunny. I can't be held responsible for that, nor am I obliged to clean up the messes of everyone who adds strikethroughs. But I sure won't be adding any of them myself, at the very least. --Newerfag (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The only time Strikethoughs are acceptable is if they are kept small and is part of a joke (Like the Dark Angels page for example), but even then there is only so much strikethroughs we can handle before it becomes a unreadable mess. Derpysaurus
Mostly what Derpysaurus said.-- 03:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

About the whole Vaxi thing[edit]

I don't suppose we could keep the Vaxi Atrocity page as it is? I will probably be making other pages about similar events in the FFG40kRPG timeline (like the Angevin Crusade and such - see my page for my list of things I'm planning on doing, I'm very open to suggestions!). I think that this kind of events that have a lot of information and can be interesting should have a page. --Talon of Anathrax (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It's fine now. While I still personally think the fluff itself is exaggerating the events' magnitude, we'll just keep arguing in circles if we keep debating it. Better that we agree to disagree there.
On that note, something about the Haarlock dynasty, St. Drusus, and/or the Severance Dominate might be good ideas too on account of all the plot points related to them. --Newerfag (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


I appreciate you deleting the whining about the TF Wiki. How random anons feel about their wingnut political views being questioned is definitely unrelated to /tg/.

I didn't actually delete anything until a moment ago (though I would have loved to), but I appreciate the sentiment. --Newerfag (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Oops. Misread the recent changes. EatTheRich (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yugioh has no place on /tg/[edit]

Yugioh has no place on this wiki OR /tg/, and i will not rest until its page has been deleted from this wiki.

I'm sure AssistantWikifag will make you change your mind about that. Or kick you off this wiki instead. Whichever comes first. --Newerfag (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Stop nuking the TL;DR sections[edit]

On the one page that has had a discussion about it existing, two people have called out that they like them and two people have said they disliked them. That does not equate out to you get to delete it. If you don't like the section, don't read it. It is useful for players who do not play / know anything about those armies, who want to know what sections they should make certain to read. If you think it is lacking in content to be useful, add to it or call out what you think it is missing. Acherousia (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Stop. Vandalizing. Pages. Just because **YOU** don't like the section, doesn't mean it goes away.

The purpose they serve is an outline to players who do not know enough about that army or competitive scene to know what they should specifically be looking into. It tells them what units they are most likely to run into or have issues with, so they can then skip to those specific articles to read about them in detail.

It has no impact on any kind of discussion of strategy. You may as well claim that the Contents box at the top of the page is useless and dissuades conversation.

Also, we can't make any improvements when you just keep deleting the sections. Acherousia (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, discussion is not, "I say what I want, then immediately do that, ignoring what everyone else thinks." That is vandalizing a page. Acherousia (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

  • "It doesn't even do that."
And how exactly is anyone supposed to make any improvements, when you keep arbitrarily nuking the data?
  • "as I said, there is nothing worth improving in those sections"
Your opinion has been noted. As others obviously disagree with you, how about we come to a consensus/compromise before we take action.
  • "the tactics pages are not meant for newcomers in the first place"
  • "the hypothetical newcomers you speak of would be far better suited to asking for advice on /tg/ itself."
That is an incredibly toxic sentiment to have. New players generally tend to not want to out themselves as new to avoid embarrassment or from feeling like they are wasting peoples time. Giving them the means to acclimate themselves to the army via the tactics page, lets them ask more informed questions, and have a better understanding of any answers they get.
  • "And perhaps you should stop screaming "VANDAL" whenever you see the big bad red text"
Stop deleting sections of the article because you personally have an issue with them, and I will stop calling you a vandal.
  • "And I find it ironic that you're committing the same kind of "vandalism" by refusing to admit that those sections were not as universally welcomed as you think. What happened to the opinions of the people who disagree with you?"
You mean how I am not arbitrarily deleting data that already existed on a page, before we have come to a consensus/compromise that everyone likes?
There is no majority here, we have a 50% split between people who have chimed in on one version of the page, that find it useful and people who don't. Why exactly does that fall down to, "we delete it immediately with no further discussion."
Even DarkAngel who didn't like it was willing to work with the section to improve it. YOU are the only one who seems to be clamoring to immediately nuking it without any conversation or improvements happening. Acherousia (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


  • "It reads like your own personal opinion, not as a reflection of the meta or any unit's potential."
At least for the Tau version, we have been working on it as a group. It isn't simply one persons input on what they believe the most important units are. I don't have a problem with adding information to the beginning stating that it is the current group think as to the most effective units for competitive play. Acherousia (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

"For example, a one-sentence description of each unit explaining the rationale behind its placement, like so:"

Thank you for the suggestions, that is very useful! Now lets give some time so we can implement those changes, before you decide the sections are irredeemable and delete them. I will take a stab at converting over the Tau section when I get a chance, so we can see how it looks. In the meantime, leave it up so I don't have to find it later. Sound fair? Acherousia (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Necrons Tactics TLDR section? Seems a bit out if the blue.--Arahknxs (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

LCB Collab[edit]


Hope I'm doing this right because I've never used wiki stuff in my life before.

I'm going to seriously consider your offer. The reason I'm not taking you up on it immediately is because what I've written basically feels about 25%-33% complete. I've had the major plot points figured out for a few months, and a lot of what I feel are some of the best sections have already been written. I was just too lazy to finish. Now that I actually have some people that want to see me finish it, that's way more motivation to actually get it done.

I also don't want to bring my preconceptions to your project and mess things up if you already have something good going. Too many cooks in the kitchen and whatnot. I could probably help edit though. I'm told I have a flare for dialogue and solid diction.

If you want, I've updated my page with more information about my approach/content and more writing. See if you like it, or if you think we're heading in a similar direction with our stories. If you hate it, you probably wouldn't want me writing with you, but if you like it and it's already pretty similar then a collab would be worth investigating for sure!

I can show you more if you want. In general, I've thinking about how much I should display during the writing process. I change so much so often. I've already revised and redone the bit that I just added to my page about five times within the last three days, and there are plenty of parts I'm still kinda iffy on. But I figure that if I "like it enough" I'll probably just post it to my page and post the revised versions later. When its complete and I've edited through it all, I'll add it to the LCB page or give it its own page on the wiki, depending on whatever the rules are at that juncture.

If you'd be willing to share some of Bloomwriter's notes, I'd be grateful. At this point, I'm so far along in my own direction that I'm not sure how much practical utility I would get out of them, but I am curious if some of my hypothesis about the way he constructed LCB are true. When I began writing, I scrutinized his text really closely and really picked it apart for the sake of understanding it. There were some things I noticed that rose tinted glasses had allowed me to forget. I'm curious if they were intentional stylistic choices that weren't to my taste, possibly mistakes, or something else.

And thanks for reaching out to me! I appreciate it. --AnotherAnonFinishingLCB (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Undoing my Edits[edit]

Pardon the interruption, but you seem to have wiped a group of my edits out wholesale. I'm not exactly sure why, either, since I feel I provided rather good material evidence and sourcing for most of the claims I made. Is there a particular part you disagreed with or I should present evidence for? --User:Malignant

I considered most of the evidence you posted as being less proof of Eldar weakness and more as a sign of the persistent favoritism GW has shown the Imperium in all things (e.g. with Varro Tigurus aka "Mr. I made psychic contact with the Hive Mind and didn't go insane like literally anyone should have done"). Also, you seem to forget that the Eldar have had a long history of being jobbers (see also: every other appearance of the Avatar of Khaine).--03:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
But those are just explanations for 'why' the Eldar perform as poorly as they do, it doesn't change the fact that they still do, factually, perform very poorly. I don't think its reasonable to approach the situation with 'well the Imperium is the protagonist so when they beat the Eldar it doesn't count because bias is on their side'. All the things I wrote down were parts of the Lore, bias can explain why they are parts of the lore, but it doesn't change that they are parts of the lore. In Dragonball Z, for example, one could definitely say Saiyans are stronger than practically everyone because the story favours them...but saying that still doesn't change the fact that they are stronger than everyone. I'm more than happy to add on bits to my edits clarifying that the reason for things, like, Eldrad being the Worst Seer is because the Imperium is favoured, but I don't see grounds to remove it wholesale. Particularly since, on that logic, I feel then that any memes regarding Abaddon or any other antagonist prone to failure should also be removed since they also fail simply due to 'bias'. If a compromise could be reached perhaps then my edits can be restored but if you want either you, or I, can just add small clarifications to them explaining they result from the bias shown in favour of the Imperium, would that be acceptable? --User:Malignant
That's a very important "why", though. And unlike Abaddon, Eldrad being a bad seer isn't memeworthy. They're consistently depicted as powerful in the fluff, failures notwithstanding. I suggest you look through more of the Eldar fluff than just the parts where they lose next time. --Newerfag (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Abaddon is also depicted as 'powerful' in the Fluff, and the why being important is why I'm willing to compromise and have it that it is noted that their failure status is at least in part due to the bias in favour of the Imperium. Also, I'm sorry, but Eldrad is not presented as poweful, he consistently fails and loses in almost every engagement he fights, and he does lose every battle he has ever fought against the Imperium, so I don't think it is fair to call him powerful. I'm still more than happy to add on the bit noting the 'why' but I still see no grounds to object to my additions and would like to restore them with this addition as well. --User:Malignant
To quote Lexicanum: "He was perhaps the most gifted psyker amongst the Eldar, his incredible foresight having saved many thousands of Eldar lives." Just because his failures get more publicity than his successes doesn't change his actual level of power. Remember that for a while he was also one of the few level 4 psykers in the game, which means his power is reflected in the crunch as well as the fluff. I am afraid that from here on we must agree to disagree on this matter, as your own arguments are no more convincing to me than mine are to you. --Newerfag (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
But there are numerous official quotes describing Abaddon as the most fearsome foe to face the Imperium and as wielding enormous power and being incredibly successful. If quotes automatically trump what's shown in the canon then half the articles on here don't make sense because of the fact that they make fun of people like Abaddon or Skarbrand and the Avatar of Khaine for losing constantly, even though they are 'quoted' as being incredibly powerful. There is no difference between Abaddon or Eldrad in this circumstance, both are 'quoted' to be very powerful but both, in-fluff, do very poorly. I can accept agreeing to disagree but then I am going to restore my edits with disclaimers on them explaining the reason for the Eldar being so pathetic is because of the fact that their is Imperium bias. I hope that will be alright --User:Malignant
Those official quotes are indeed correct, /tg/ memes notwithstanding. We depict both because we give both /tg/'s side of things and the "real world" side. Not to mention that as Derpy has mentioned, almost all of your edits have shown a distinct anti-xenos bias that your explanations simply are not enough to justify. --Newerfag (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
But if you depict both then I fail to understand the problem here. I'm fine with depicting both, the 'quotes' and the actual substance of what is represented in the story, if that's what you want I've said multiple times I'm happy with that. However, if you're going to accuse me of bias I'd like examples. Simply saying 'you're biased' is something I can do to. Please provide examples of explicit situations where I brought up something incorrect in the Fluff. I don't think I'm biased, although I'd presume all of this feel that, so I'd be happy to discuss a suspicion of bias, particularly since I can just as easily state that I feel you have a bias too. I think its counter-productive to say so, thus please don't take it seriously I'm meaning it hypothetically, but obviously it is something either of us can do. What's more important to me is that, if I understand correctly, you are then agreeing to the compromise I already suggested, yes? User:Malignant
What I am saying is that you appear to give /tg/'s perception more importance than the actual canon. For example, for all the flak Abbadon gets over the Black Crusades all of them ultimately fulfilled their goals of weakening or undermining the Imperium for future attacks even when it seemed like they were fought off (as described in the Black Legion codex, among others). In the case of Eldrad, despite his initial setback in the events of Death Masque he was ultimately responsible for allowing the early creation of Ynnead as well as ensuring Ulthwe hasn't become daemon food in spite of it being right next to the Eye of Terror. (And of course, with the Tyranids you don't hear about their victories because nobody's left alive to report them.) It's not that you're bringing up incorrect things in the fluff as being too quick to dismiss the correct ones just because they don't fit with the /tg/ memes. In short, the pages were perfectly fine before you made your edits and I would strongly prefer that you keep them as they are. --Newerfag (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
But that isn't accurate. Abaddon's page paints him as far more incompetent than competent, despite you saying here that my problem is giving the /tg/ view greater priority. If it is not a problem on his page, or An'ggarath's page or the Avatar of Khaine's page then why is it a problem on Eldrad's page? Also I don't recall a time Eldrad has prevented an invasion of Ulthwe. I remember his failed attack against the Orks, which Jain Zar saved him from, his defeat by Fulgrim, his defeat by the Blood Angels and such. I know the only battle he has ever commanded and won was against Nazdreg, someone who loses even more than him, so I don't understand how you can say he has many victories. Could you perhaps list these victories, preferably not ones where the Imperium helps him, he has which makes you feel so confident that I'm wrong to imply the fluff paints him poorly? Also the Tyranid victories would be reported, people have escaped Hive Fleets before and the Imperium would of course note if a major planet ceased communication, like on Gryphonne, so that's not an argument in favour of the Hive Fleets either. Not to mention very time a Hive Fleet is destroyed it is an absolute net loss for the Tyranid as all the Biomass acquired and expended by that Hive Fleet is then lost to the Hive Mind. So the Tyranid don't have a very impressive set of victories. I am happy to add disclaimers explaining the influence Imperial bias has on it, but I honestly don't see why I can't point out that Eldar Farseers, in actual fluff, are consistently poor seers and are often outclassed by humans in Psychic, or why I can't point out all the strongest warriors, psychics and commanders in the setting are all humans, or why I can't point out that, other than Biel-tan, most Craftworlds have very poor track records in terms of winning battles. Why is it that you wish to forbid me from these things if I might ask? User:Malignant
This is the 1d4chan wiki, it's not meant to be all taken seriously. The joke is the whole point of it. No such joke has existed for the Eldar, let alone Eldrad, so it comes off as you pushing a forced meme. Plus, the failures seem to be so common simply because they are the easiest to know about- do you think we'd be aware of one of his victories when they could entail rewriting fate so a disastrous battle never even happened in the first place? Besides, there's so little fluff focusing solely on the Eldar without Imperial Mary-Suedom being involved that it would be hard for your examples not to be biased.
As for your argument about ceasing communications, the Imperium is fucking massive. Planets go quiet all the time and nobody even notices due to the Administratum's inefficiency. Indeed, if Inquisitor Kryptmann hadn't stumbled over the remains of Tyran nobody would've known the Nids existed until they were right on the Imperium's doorstep. Just about every Tyranid codex has mentioned that, and I have to wonder how you missed that so badly.
So of course I'd wish to forbid you from those things, because you know almost nothing about the topics of the articles you want to edit. Go study the fluff and ask /tg/ whether or not half of what you think is true is really the case. You'd be surprised by what you learn. --Newerfag (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
But I've seen numerous reference son /tg/ to Farseers being terrible at their job and Eldrad being 'Eldard' and incapable of making predictions correctly. There is no major meme surrounding Skarbrand or Angg'rath but their articles do still make mention of their consistent failures as well, so why not Eldrad or the Farseers? Also that's not a viable argument 'but stuff could be happening we don't know' since if we employ that then we can't say anything anymore since, obviously, anything could potentially be happening without our knowledge. 40k is a story so we of course gotta judge people by the feats we see, and in universe we see Farseers usually mess up and that Eldrad very rarely wins. What is wrong with pointing that out?
Also if the simply inclusion of Imperium bias makes something not viable to be put in then enormous amounts of stuff on here should be removed so, again, I don't see why Eldrad and Farseers should have some special form of exemption.
The Imperium is massive, but all its important and core features have always maintained good communication and knowledge, hence why when major worlds fall it is always known and responded to in a relatively timely manner. Tyran was an unimportant outpost, hence why it was not missed, however, whenever the Tyranid assail or consume a major world it is always noted, thus we'd know if the Tyranid had major victories. As it stands, like all Xenos, the Tyranid very rarely if ever win any lasting wars of significance with the Imperium, and virtually all their offensives, and due to the nature biomass, is always destroyed once it hits a major world.
And I can say I am on /tg/ enough and that I feel you are being stubborn in your efforts to avoid the issue, but I don't think it means anything to say since neither of us can prove in anyway such vague and subjective facts about each other. That being said I don't want to be rude, so please understand I mean that stuff hypothetically, I'd prefer not to get into an insulting match and don't want to be misunderstood as doing so. User:Malignant
Evidently those references have neither been widespread enough nor funny enough to justify including here. And you continue to underestimate how horrible the Imperium's communication infrastructure is. Sure, they can respond...within a couple of years. Assuming that someone doesn't misfile something somewhere. It is a bureaucratic clusterfuck of the worst kind. Furthermore, all your other justifications still all come off as you refusing to do the research and putting the burden of proof on me instead. I've done my share of the work, now either do yours or hold your peace. Finally, if you want to avoid an insulting match I suggest you cease this discussion and adhere to the actual consensus of the users who were here before you, because the only person coming off as stubborn right now is you. (Also, sign your talk page posts: it's four tildes (~) ). --Newerfag (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
But I have provided instances of all the situations I'm talking about. I've mentioned Maedrax, mentioned the battle with Fulgrim, mentioned Tyranid defeats in all three Tyrannic Wars and mentioned Gryphonne. I'm asking for evidence because you aren't bringing any up to support your position, I've already provided evidence of mine. You don't provide evidence to support your points, you bring up no points here of any major victory by the Tyranid or Eldrad. I've already provided my evidence, I'm now asking you to provide evidence for your claims. Further I do apologize for forgetting to sign my name that last time, it slipped my mind. User:Malignant
The whole point you're missing is that they DO NOT WIN BATTLES THE CONVENTIONAL WAY. You're applying Imperial mentality to species it was never meant to work with. All your evidence is showing me is that no victory counts unless it's by an important named character against another important named character, which disregards literally everything else. Also, if you value consensus so much then why are you refusing to accept it? (And you still didn't sign your post right, otherwise it would look like the signature I have.)--21:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
But that's incorrect, the Eldar consider all those instances to be defeats too, and the Eldar frequently, all the factions do, consider victory and defeat in the exact same way as seen on numerous battles; Maeedrax, Orar's Sepulchre, Yme-Loc, Idharae and more, so claiming that the Eldar win but 'in a different way' is often not true since the Eldar frequently consider victory and defeat by the exact same matrix as the Imperium. Similarly the Tyranid determine victory purely by Biomass and when a Hive Fleet is destroyed all its Biomass is lost to the Hive Mind, thus also representing a defeat. Since 40k is a narrative battle these, of course, almost always take the form of battles by named characters against named characters, this should not be surprising. With that said I listed multiple examples that don't include characters for Farseers, Idharae foremost, and when it comes to Eldrad of course I must speak in terms of characters because Eldrad is a Character. I don't think consensus automatically means correct, I just prefer to discuss it and reach a compromise where possible. I think it helps. Also very sorry about the incorrect signing, I'm very new to this so I thought what I was doing was fine, thanks for helping me. Malignant (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep in mind such consensuses were settled long before you even joined this wiki and that the users here are more often than not experts on 40k lore- you are literally telling them things they already knew for years. Odds are any point you've brought up has already been discussed at one point or another or was simply decided to be irrelevant in the end (e.g. the current Hive Fleets are just the scouts, and the full-sized ones are practically infinite in size; similarly, the Eldar consider victory and defeat by the much simpler metric of their race's continued survival- they are a dying race in no position to conquer or expand their territory, in spite of the principle that "there are as many elves/Eldar as the plot demands"). If people had agreed with your points, there wouldn't have been a need to add them at all. Is it any surprise some of them might be just a little bit impatient trying to explain how things work to someone whose only real contributions to the community have taken the form of disrupting existing compromises?--Newerfag (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
But on the matter of Eldrad and the Farseers no-one has objected but you. Further, as I pointed out, Eldar do use the same metric as the Imperium in determining who wins or loses a battle, as seen in numerous engagements. Further even if the Tyranid Hive Fleets are only scouts, which is a theory, that does not affect or change their lack of any significant victories so far. Maybe it will change in future, sure, but anything can change in future, I'm basing my edits off the current fluff, the current situation. Furthermore I have mostly added content which is new or I have not seen on this wiki anywhere else so I have no reason to assume its been discussed, paticularly since this wiki itself advises bold editing and I've not encounetered counter arguments I see as very persuasive so far regarding Eldrad or the Farseer's articles. I still stand by my original point which is I'm happy to include the prior edits with disclaimers explaining how the Imperium bias is the primary cause of it. But I don't think adopting an attitude of 'well people have probably discussed this so I shouldn't edit at all' makes sense since it'd mean no-one should ever add anything to any existing article ever it would seem. Malignant (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, it encourages bold editing, but it doesn't protect those edits from being undone nor does it grant you any special privileges for your attempted boldness or your ignorance of how the community works. If anything, it makes you seem like an interloper who has an unrealistically high opinion of himself. (And hasn't anyone told you it's not nice to edit other people's responses without their permission? --Newerfag (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)) Point is, the only compromise I'm offering is for you to stop entirely so I don't have to waste my time and patience talking to someone too thick to understand why they need to lurk more. I don't care if you consider my arguments to be lacking in persuasiveness, as yours are no better. So stop trying to get the last word in, it's not going to do you any favors. --Newerfag (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
But this is just you saying 'no you're stupid'. It doesn't actually prove anything, you're just saying you think I'm stupid without providing any evidence for why. Futhermore the point about 'getting the last word in' seems hypocritical since, obviously, someone is going to post last, why should it be any better for you to post last than for me? If I don't get the Last Word then you do, so what does it matter who gets the last word? Surely in either case you should stick by your expression that it's 'not going to do anyone any favours'? Malignant (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Chapter Approved 2017[edit]

Hey. I noticed that you edited the Chapter Approved article a couple of weeks ago saying among other things that Apocalypse rules are going to be in Chapter Approved 2017. I run a team Apocalypse game fourth quarter every year, so this is extremely relevant to my interests. Sauce? Tactical Genius (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Right here: [1] --Newerfag (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Cool, I'd missed that one. Thanks.  :) Tactical Genius (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Bullet fragmentation on firearms[edit]

“Fragmentation by definition is easily stopped by armor. You can't have it both ways, and with the way the penetrator works it'll fragment before penetrating.”

I’m sorry to be crude, but you are talking out of your bung on this one. You’re assuming the fragmentation occurs before the penetration occurs. It can overstabilize in hard materials then proceed to frag in soft.

Please educate yourself before deleting information while spreading misinformation.×45mm_NATO#Mk318

Thank you for your consideration. Best regards

-some random ass /k/ommando

Do explain to me why you think it would be a good idea to waste anti-tank rounds on Infantry. And that's not getting into the matter of cost and not even having the technology to make such a thing feasible for anything other than tank cannons yet. --Newerfag (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I don’t, but your belief is wrong for why you should and did edit my part out. Also, sometimes tankers don’t have enough time to change out ammo to either HE or grapeshot. Finally, the aftermath of one of those uranium penetrators is devestating. The original point however is that you can have multiple materials in a bullet, and that high speeds and fragmentation go hand in hand when having the right materials.
I suppose I should have stated the practical issues instead, then. In any event, it is highly unlikely penetrators of that type will be implemented for man-portable weaponry within the next decade or so at the least. Were that not the case, I would have expected those kinds of rounds to already be in widespread use. --Newerfag (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Fléchette guns, my friend. . As for "Were that not the case, I would have expected those kinds of rounds to already be in widespread use." Welcome to the grinding gears of bureaucracy. Also the lack of need for these weapons to be in use. Essentially, if this works, why change it? No need to spend extra money and effort for a new gun and ammo when the old one works fine. Also you can look at plenty of flukes and mess ups within the army such as the hideous "Universal" camo that is only good for hiding among rocky mountain sides without any foliage.

Imperium Bias Defeat Syndrome Thing (I don't know a good collective title[edit]

So I saw you remove the sections for both Eldrad and Ghazghkull and I felt that, rather than make a separate talk page on both of those, and the Swarmlord one, I'd rather just talk directly here since as far as I can see you're the only person against including those facts on their page as Bolas agreed with me to a compromise of including them but pointing out why they are so. For what it is worth I want to say at the outset that I agree with the underlying point you're making, that these characters are incapable of ever winning because GW always wants Marines to win, but I still don't think that's not a reason to include it on their pages. Put another way more than enough of the Character articles here on 1d4chan include lengthy biographical sections detailing the achievements and failures of certain characters, even when it has no memetic worth (such as for most major Space Marine characters). If that's alright I don't see why this isn't alright either. If, for example, I rather structure similar biographical bits noting their defeats as part of noting their history in the lore, would that be alright then? Is the problem here solely that you don't like that the piece focuses exclusively on the failures in of themselves?

Then, secondly, I simply doubt any attempt to add a 'GW is biased and always makes Marines win almost everything' section to the Imperium or Marine articles would go well, I don't see why noting Eldrad, Ghagzhkull or the Swarmlords empirical lack of significant successes is in anyway problematic. If possible I would really like to come to a solution which doesn't involve any more back-and-forth deleting so I hope you'll consider this option; I will simply write bios, as many of the Space Marine Chapters Masters have, and said bios will contain the same information, since the characters we're talking about basically only ever show up in the setting to lose, but will include them framed in a biographical account, will that be alright then?Malignant (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The way they were written, it seemed like those defeats were being used to completely invalidate everything those characters did accomplish and blew it so far out of proportion that it makes them all look far more pathetic than they really are. If you can make it in a biographical style where those defeats can be put into proper context and make it clear that they are not defined by those defeats, then that will be sufficient- remember that just because we're not told about their victories doesn't mean they haven't happened "offscreen", so to speak. As for the Imperium Bias Defeat Syndrome Thing, perhaps it would be better off on its own page, since while it's not exactly the fault of the Marines themselves it happens enough to be worth acknowledging in itself. --Newerfag (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Except we can obviously only go on what's shown in lore when determining victories and defeats. But anyway, that's fine, those three lack any serious biographical aspeects so I can start doing bio sections for all the Xenos characters then. Beyond that the thing is I really just have no interest in making an article about IBDST, I am interested in Xenos, including in how pathetic they are, and so want to make articles about them. If IBDST was enough of a problem to people to warrant an article I'm sure someone would have done so by now. I'll have to disagree with you on the idea that the characters we're discussing aren't pathetic, in lore they clearly are as almost every appearance in fluff is them losing or running away, but its immaterial to the point, so I'm happy to accept this compromise and I'll work on bio sections for the Xenos characters, but I'm not touching IBDST. Thanks though, I'm glad we got a solution.Malignant (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
If they seem pathetic to you, it is only because the alternative to that would either require major Imperial defeats (impossible for reasons stated above) or more xenos vs. xenos/ xenos vs. Chaos conflicts (which GW has decided are not interesting enough to talk about because the Imperium isn't somehow involved). More to the point, if those characters were truly pathetic, they wouldn't be where they are in the first place- that's more of a matter of basic logic that doesn't need lore to back it up. In the future, I'd strongly advise you not to mistake the effects of shoddy storytelling and faction favoritism for an actual measure of ability, though. (And in any case, it may be far more likely that people have become so habituated to IBDST over the years that they no longer react to it, which is notable in itself.) --Newerfag (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry but when you say it'd be 'impossible' to have major Imperial defeats are you just talking about the bias here? Cause I've always thought there are plenty of ways to show major Imperial defeats. Heck Ghazgkull winning at Piscina, or Grukk winning at Alaric Prime, would both have been major defeats for the Imperium which would finally make Ork characters look competent. But digressing back to the point; they seem pathetic because they empirically are, there is an empirical lack of evidence in the canonical sources of them making any form of achievement whatsoever. That's what my conclusions is coming from, nothing else. Also, I'm sorry, but in a Narrative work factors like Bias or Shoddy Story telling of course influence the capability of character's within, that's just logical, since it effects their presentation and existence. Eldrad, Ghazghkull and the Swarmlord do not exist as objective, separate entities of whom the fluff only gives us one side, the fluff is the only information we have to draw conclusions about them and thus is the prime arbiter of their status. Abaddon, for example, is explicitly in universe hailed as amazing, but constantly derided due to this exact reason, objective lack of achievement in fluff (till recently) so I have no idea why you seem to embrace the concept as it applied to Abaddon, but oppose it as applied to other people who have far worse track records than Abaddon does. If people are innured to IBDST then it clearly doesn't bug them and I don't want to kick up a hornet's nest, I'm not going to poke Space Marine fans by daring to level accusations at them, I'll stick to the Xenos. Anyway, I don't think we have more to say here, so I'll stop then and just do those biographical pieces like we agreed. Thank you for your time.Malignant (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
To clarify, it's impossible because of the bias, which I can only assume is because that the GW head honchos think that if the Imperium is ever beaten too badly the playerbase will desert them en masse (either that, or it would disrupt their "Imperium vs. Chaos" story that they seem so enamored with as of late). I am mulling over making an article for it myself to point out this obvious dissonance (albeit probably with a better name and a focus that it's GW's incompetent writing at fault and nothing else), but I think I'll ask if it's a good idea on the main talk page first.
That said, GW itself has stated more than once that the fluff as we know it is a mixture of half-truths, whole lies, and propaganda, which is why I am loathe to take it at face value. It may be the only "empirical" source of evidence there, but when said source of evidence is in and of itself highly untrustworthy then that's a sign that you need to start reading between the lines in order to resolve the most glaring contradictions. For example, if Eldrad and Ghazghkull were so incompetent as you make out to be, neither of them would have even lived long enough to register in the fluff at all- Ghazzy would've been krumped by some other warboss and Eldrad would've long since been eaten by Slaanesh. Same goes for Swarmlord; the Tyranids wouldn't recycle it if the Hive Mind didn't decide that it working well enough to keep around. As it seems incredibly unlikely that literally everyone in the setting is an idiot, I am forced to come to the logical conclusion that there are things that the fluff isn't saying about them (no doubt because xenos=lack of interest in the eyes of GW). But that is beside the point- suffice to say that I will limit myself to removing anything that comes too far off as accentuating the negative and searching for the fluff that does show their successes. Such fluff is rare due to GW's disinterest in xenos, but it does exist. --Newerfag (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't personally see how losing at Piscina or Alaric Prime is in anyway a major defeat for the Imperium, but I take your point and agree totally with the basic message which is GW is terrified of making major Imperium forces actually lose significantly. GW can say that, sure, but to be fair the amount of that has been reducing, with stuff like the Heresy, Beast, Beheading and such all being given concrete, fleshed out form, any amount of 'read your own interpretation into it' receding in the face of more basic story telling. I certainly know not everyone's happy with it, the Heresy novel's efforts to give the Emperor some kind of form has people constantly screaming at each other as I'm sure you know, but the fact remains that cause its a fictional property we can only judge it by the info we're shown. For example with Eldrad or Ghagzhkull there are no lines to really read in-between. Ghazghkull's an easy example so I'll use him; He's a major Ork Warboss constantly hunted by the Imperium. When he hits a planet; Piscina, Golgotha, the Imperium is very quickly aware of it and always responds in force to try to kill him. So I don't see lines to read in-between. We know his story, we've been told it, and it involves exactly one victory, Golgotha, at which no Space Marines were present at all (baffling considering Yarrick himself was leading it). That Ghazghkull isn't killed by other Warbosses is a testament to just how pathetic most Warbosses are, which is true, the majority of Warbosses we know are dudes who appear for like five seconds then get decapitated by some or other Space Marine Captain. But anyway, I think we can agree to disagree on it, and I'll not post again then here unless an actual issue comes up, I don't want to constantly be bugging you. Cheers.Malignant (talk) 11:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


  • Sorry, I forgot that the comment I'd made was already on the Swarmlord's page, I suppose I'm easily confused, it was my mistake and you're right it belongs there not on the Leviathen page, thanks for pointing that out to me, sorry about it Malignant (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)