User talk:Triacom

From 1d4chan

Cuss. As embarrassing as it is to admit, I misread the strikedown rule. Gotta find that guy and apologize... --SpectralTime (talk) 07:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You were looking for links for Age of Sigmar, try here for photos. Your best bet is never to use google and just go directly to rumour sites like natfka or forums like bolter & chainsword, nevertheless these pics were on someones Facebook and are circulating the web [1] --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 08:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I did go to those, the ones I found didn't include any pictures or links that weren't months old. The reason I had asked that person was because I wanted a source for the quotes, but thank you very much for once again providing a source. -- Triacom (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey there, just wanted to apologise if you felt I was attacking your viewpoint on the Guilliman edits, I get the impression we were each looking at it from different angles and I know it got very verbose at times. I liked your input and the way the page has come together, I just wanted to highlight a different way of looking at things, but I don't want any bad blood over anything. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't hold anything against you as I'm perfectly fine with people coming up with alternate viewpoints so long as they do that to be constructive, and it ended up being constructive in the end. Overall I'm also fairly happy with how that section currently is. -- Triacom (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC) do you remove artwork? - Ben (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to delete it, I imagine that wikifag or assistant wikifag would be able to do something about it as it would be ridiculous for a wiki to be unable to remove artwork added to it, but you can choose an "updated" version of the file, meaning just upload a picture that has nothing to do with the original picture (like a white square) and now stolen artwork is no longer on the wiki. Also I changed the ridiculous amount of spacing, I'm not sure if that was meant to be part of a longer message but it would have been a bit annoying to reply to. -- Triacom (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Good idea. - Ben (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I think I should mention too that uploading a new version will not get rid of the old version (that'll be an admin thing) but at the very least it'll stop other pages from linking to that artwork, meaning the only place the stolen artwork can appear is in the image history. -- Triacom (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Then we'll have to wait. Also checked if the guy did a thread on /tg/. So far he's negatively received. - Ben (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Not very surprising given how horribly the article was written in general. I'd feel sorry for him if he hadn't brought it on himself.---Newerfag (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the page, m8 -- Zerghalo2 (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there some sort of 1d4chan chat? Talk pages are fine, but sometimes trivial stuff lasts a week to be answered and even Halofags have their own chat. -- Zerghalo2 (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there is not a chat, though I don't think anyone would be against you or anybody else making one, or using chats from other places. -- Triacom (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I rectified the Dreadclaw rules. You forgot to add normal Dreadnought as well. I'd initially thought you were insisting that Veterans take them as a DT, my mistake sorry - serves me right for being an exhausted idiot and reading the edit message before the actual edit... ~ Marshal

Not sure if this is the right place (never actually talked to anyone here before), but thanks for correcting but not obliterating my changes to Abaddon. And also, I accidently hit enter one word too early in my Calgar edit. I was going to say that Calgar picking up a giant structure to hit the Necrons with was the worst Ultramarines thing I'd ever heard, but that you were absolutely correct! ~NathanielPrime

Hey, just want to say that was a fair call on that edit to the possesed entry. I'll keep that in mind for the future. -Ordogrammarus

I'm glad we reached a compromise there. TheBadageBoys (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to mock you when I was asking why that bit was so important to you. If you'd talked to me about it we could've gotten here sooner since I was convinced you'd revert that edit too. -- Triacom (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
It's all good man, I think it was just a misunderstanding. Article looks fine now to me. I really am sorry again if I came off as trying to lie to you. TheBadageBoys (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


Thanks. I'd need a load of sedatives and whiskey to write this calm.--SaltyMan (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)



Just a note on his size as a daemon prince: he's as huge as the rest of the daemon primarchs. Consider this image from the 1997 Epic rulebook, for example. -Stelio (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

No he's not. He hasn't been that big for a very long time now, here's how big he really is. There's a slight perspective thing there where his legs go off the picture to allow the rest of him to stay on it (so he's not equal in height to Draigo), but otherwise he's the same size as he was before his 'transformation'. Also Epic hasn't been the basis for what the Primarchs look like for quite a while. -- Triacom (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Also why have none of the Primarch fight pages been updated for Leman Russ and Magnus? Do we just feel it's pointless to mathammer those fights out? Crazy Cryptek (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't feel it's pointless. Doing all that math takes a bit of time and requires motivation (and I lost a lot of mine trying to do the play-by-play between Leman Russ and Horus). I should be able to finish them off this weekend though, then I just need to go through the fights to make sure they're consistent. -- Triacom (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah I was just wondering if everyone had determined that nobody could beat biomancy Magnus or Russ in a fight and left it at that. Crazy Cryptek (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to get too burned out too quickly because I also want to add exhibition matches between Anacharis Scoria and the Custodes Tribune to every match, with potentially having those two duke it out against each other at the end. I'm also considering adding Constantin Valdor, since as far as I know he's the only character able to beat the Tribune in a fight. -- Triacom (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

What in Khorne's name is happening to this wiki?[edit]

The past week or so, the Recent Changes page has been dominated by edit wars about Drowtales and the damn Transformers wiki. Your conduct has been admirable, and my intention isn't to criticize you. I love a spirited discussion as much as anybody, and try not to be too judgemental when they get intense. That said, these incidents seem... excessive. I don't want to be a stickler about only /tg/ related stuff. There's nothing wrong with a brief page about Drowtales (which I've never read), but users treating this wiki as their personal blog to rant about anything that pisses them off strikes me as in poor taste. Shouldn't this wiki inform people about traditional games and their flaws (with occasional anti-40k faction rants) instead? EatTheRich (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow, you sound exactly like me. And I agree, I know "everything can be made /tg/ related" but we have to draw the line somewhere. --Newerfag (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • What's happening is rather simple. In the Drowtales case it's no longer an editwar, and instead the discussion is going back and forth on what it should be. Personally I had little interest in that series until the editwar, and then I looked it up and edited the main page to end it, and that seems to have worked. Now it's little more than a page to be fine-tuned as we discuss what to add/leave in the talk page and then it can pass from memory.
What's happening in the Transformers page on the other hand is EDIT : an anonymous user got mad about things the tfwiki said and tried to bring their dislike of it across on the wiki page for it. After that I got mad at what they were saying in the talk page and it devolved from there (I'll fully admit that I shouldn't have done that). I'm done with that page now though, and if the user left me alone I'd be done with them too.
Now as for the wiki in general, I actually agree. Personally I don't think Drowtales and Goblins need their own pages, I'd much rather have them on a single webcomic page and in collapsible sections with a short summary, and the only reason I think we should have them there and not off the wiki is because of their popularity, the setting, and the fact that you can point to them and say 'Here's how you do X wrong!' You could even put Drowtales on the Drow page with that as its own header, and in a collapsible section, sort of like what I did with the Rebecca Black page and the Meme page. She was too related to /tg/ to remove, but people were really upset that she got her own page, so combining both fixed those issues.
I do sympathize with the idea that users shouldn't treat this as their own personal blog, and it's one of the reasons that so far I've stayed away from editing certain pages. If it was up to me the War of the Beast page would be nothing but very long and detailed rants on how the Beast Arises is easily the worst series to come out of Black Library, and how nearly every single book in that series fucking sucks (the first one is okay at setting everything up, all following books are terrible). I've got no interest in trying to make this wiki all about me however (which is the main reason you can find me in a lot of talk pages) and if you want to remove personal rants from pages, go ahead, however right now a new user has come into the Drowtales page because they're upset those rants have been removed, so I can't guarantee doing that will go over well. -- Triacom (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
>I hope someone is banned for having a different opinion from me
Literally can't make this shit up.
News flash, anon: Nobody cares how they do things on their wiki, except you it seems. I don't see them making an article about /tg/ and complaining about how we write our wiki, so keep the complaints to yourself and make your own rant elsewhere if you absolutely must. --Newerfag (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey anon, I know what your problem with the tfwiki is. I've already countered your (barely existing) arguments and I'm not going to continue arguing on my page about the policies of another wiki or what you imagine they've done, nor am I going to argue with you any more on the Transformers page. I'm moving your points to Assistantwikifag's page since I'm done with you and they're far more relevant there. -- Triacom (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Interesting how you decided to cut out over half of my argument, when making that post. Then calling my arguments barely existing. Then putting even more quotes out of context. Fantastic. It's almost like you want to make yourself look like a subversive asshole.
And really, no, you don't, considering you've consistently ignored entire arguments and damning evidence. This is like trying to explain to a retarded kid why he can't fly with his superman suit on. It's just fucking sad at this point.
I moved the arguments to the pages that should have them and stated where I moved them. I've already argued those points and your 'damning evidence' amounted to nothing, but that's on different pages (and I did not put more quotes 'out of context'). This time however I'm removing the bits you re-added because they already exist on Assistantwikifag's page, which is where they should be, and I'm not letting you drag that argument here. -- Triacom (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I'm also moving that other post you did to AssistantWikifag's talk page as well. -- Triacom (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Anon, before you make further edits, know that any further arguments that relate to transformers or anything that is discussed on AssistantWikifag's page are just going to get moved there. Figured I might as well state this in advance because, as I stated, I'm not continuing that argument here, and they have more relevance there. -- Triacom (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Another update, I am pasting them there, I'm simply not having irrelevant arguments attached to my page because I've told you, I'm done arguing the points, and I told you this before you tried bringing them here. -- Triacom (talk) 05:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I just want to fucking forget all this shit okay[edit]

And there is this guy who keeps reverting because I am deleting something that doesn't fucking affect his life in anyway. Are your opinions on a page that no one gives a shit about which is my talk page really matter that much to you? I had a period of silence because I was busy, got things to do with life. I don't fucking bother to argue this shit anymore and I don't want to be fucking reminded of it.

So please, just do me a favor, you can be an angel fucking leave me alone. So I can forget about this shitty ass game that has less active players than Company of Heroes 2 which was released 4 years ago. I don't need to be fucking reminded that it and all the drama that drag me along with it exist. Hope the fucking company goes under and SEGA passes the IP to someone smarter, like CA.

I couldn't care less if I am suspended, I just read, I don't even edit shits all that much except one occasion. So I think I'll keep reverting this over and over again. And don't worry, if something other than you automatically reverts it, I'll put some fucking words on the page to stop whatever it is from triggering, words that I think you would agree. I just want to fucking forget that the shit exists, not forgetting how much of a dumbass I was for arguing about a 60 $ alpha crap fest so shit pirates don't even bother touching it.

This is what you should have done in the beginning. If you just wanted to put everything behind you then you should have said so at least once when I asked you to talk to me and/or to explain what you're doing and why you're doing it instead of just doing constant reverts. -- Triacom (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


its only a very specific page. the Yugioh page, i Stronglybelieve that yugioh should be deleted from this wikia as i firmly know it does not belong on /tg/ or this wiki. why? because it isnt a real tabletop game, its a merchandise based off a non /tg/ approved anime, and as well as the fact that i dont like yugioh. i will not rest until it is deleted and im going to do everything in my power to get it removed from this website. --XToverdrive (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, and we have other merchandise games on here too based off of things /tg/ does or does not approve of (just look at FATAL). It's still a tabletop game, regardless of how 'real' it is, and it's a very popular one that I think should still be covered, even though I don't play it myself and have no interest in the show. -- Triacom (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
While we're here though, why exactly did you blank this page considering there wasn't a single reference to that game until you decided to make one right here? I'm assuming that IP address was just you before you logged in. -- Triacom (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Because he's a butthurt little whiner who can't accept that the wiki doesn't give a fuck about what he wants. I bet hell either be banned or quit the wiki in a week. --Newerfag (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Can't Necrons spam anti-psyker devices?[edit]

I know it isn't my exact wording but srsly, almost every faction should have reliable anti-psyker methods right? Wouldn't TS have problems if they are faced with those anti-psyker squads/troops? Pilgrim of Terra (talk)

No, in the lore we've been given no indication that Necrons can spam Spyders equipped with the devices, not to mention Spyders are only really used in defence of Tomb Worlds. Even then the Thousand Sons as a legion are not entirely dependent on their psychic abilities, they still have everything else a legion normally has, the psychic abilities are just the cherry on the cake. -- Triacom (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Aren't psykers the core of the XV Legion? And is it possible for Eldar(Craftworld/Dark/Harlequin) to simply psychically overwhelm/some old empire tech/Blank XV squads? Pilgrim of Terra (talk)

Psykers are the pride of the Thousand Sons, but they weren't everything about them. It's for this reason that even when they were attacked by the Sisters of Silence the Thousand Sons counterattacked them with marines that were either much weaker in psychic ability or had no psychic talent. In fact the Burning of Prospero board game book outright states that the Sisters would have lost if they were on their own. As for the Eldar, no they cannot. -- Triacom (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The Eldar can't counter XV because "meh petty xenos"?

Oh when you wrote blank squads I thought you meant squads of blanks (as in the ones with the pariah gene) and technology that's similar, my mistake. Yeah they can overwhelm them just fine, much like anyone/thing that doesn't have the Pariah gene. -- Triacom (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
That said, do keep in mind that Eldar psykers rarely use their powers for direct combat purposes. Even in the crunch most of them are oriented more around buffing/debuffing than they are about inflicting damage. --Newerfag (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Speaking about Blanks, how would Solitaires fare against TS squads? Pilgrim of Terra (talk)

I'm not sure which squad you're referring to when you say TS squads. -- Triacom (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Thousand Sons. Though given Eldar birth rates getting a double fluff debuff from both Isha's capture and Asuryan's parting gift, Solitaires aren't going to have any way to quickly increase their numbers... Pilgrim of Terra (talk)
I imagine Solitaires would have as much issue running through Thousand Sons squads as any other regular Marine squads (ie: none). I don't see why they'd have any issues at all honestly. -- Triacom (talk) 09:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Vance Stubbs Page[edit]

If that "propaganda" thing was meant to be a joke, it sure doesn't come off as such. It comes off as something Dawn of War III taught us well: Vance Stubbs fans are a bunch of thin-skinned, immature assholes who cannot accept any version of events that doesn't line up with the one they've decided is what happened. Case in point, I just had to go undo an edit by an anon who really wants a bunch of "MOTHERFUCKING"s to be in the article and who added "(So long as it involves Vance MOTHERFUCKING Stubbs winning)" to the conciliatory "imagine whatever you like" sentence that I added to maintain some basic neutrality. --Panthera Awesome (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you should be the one calling other people thin-skinned, considering how you reacted to its inclusion. It's a joke in the same way the blam meme is a joke on this wiki, in the same way that the Dark Angels being 100% loyal is a joke on this wiki and replacing it with something boring like "not everyone has a good opinion of him" doesn't improve the article any, you might as well have left it blank. That whole "So long as it involves Vance MOTHERFUCKING Stubbs winning" is clearly a joke as well, just like the all-caps version of his name, though I'll admit I'd have removed that one too since it's contrary to what actually happened, and the all-caps were more annoying to read. All in all I think the 'Tau propaganda' line should stay because if they really were so upset about the image and weren't trying to make a joke, they would've deleted the link to the image. -- Triacom (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
For the record, the reason I say why I'm doing so much when I undo things (check my contributions page) is because it usually ends with me having to undo things less in the future. If you just say "how many times do I have to undo this" or anything similar, then that just make's it easier to start an editwar. -- Triacom (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Age of Sigmar Nagash Stuff[edit]

I'll start this by saying I have no idea if I should be using the talk page for this sort of thing, but I thought it better than just going around on an editing spree. I'm sorry if this isn't how I should be going about this, but normally I don't care enough to change a page. That being said, there are a few things that don't match up at all with the current lore out there, so if you don't mind i'll just put my points out here and allow you to judge their worth; that way I don't edit over your edits. I am the person who did the most recent edits for the page, by the by.

1. As of the current Legions of Nagash battletome, Nagash did leave the starless gates with his 'legions like a sea of bleached bone,' and re-took nagashizzar, where he cast down the eight fortresses guarding it and torturing the warlords Archaon assigned personally. I'm sorry if I made it sound like Nagash cast them down on his own, but I can grab the exact wording if you wish. Regardless, he was present when they re-took the fortress, he did torture the warlords, so I assume he actually did stuff instead of just watching his legions fight.

2. As of the BRB and the Legions of N. books, as well as the Black Library novels, Nagash is regenerating behind the starless gates. That is the exact wording; I said sleep, though perhaps it is not proper - I was trying to make it sound funnier, I suppose. Much like Nagash pre-end times, he's gathering power, unable to do much but rest and watch his world burn. The BL books go in on that more, saying that when he does come out to fight he's expending power and energy that he needs to properly reform (and seems like a senile old grandpa with a thousand personalities), but pre-Age of Sigmar he's not voluntarily sitting out as if he has a choice. He needs to regenerate, and he's in the safest place to do so, and leaving makes him too weak to fight back. TL;DR, his reason for sitting out is flat-out stated to be regeneration. Very much like Sigmar, who 'sat-out' to build his SC - and then sat out afterwards, too.

3. Small thing, but Nagash ditched Sigmar the first time when Archaon attacked the realm of death before the All-points. He re-conquered all his lost land, betrayed sigmar since he did not help, then sigmar caused enough mayhem to allow Chaos to capture everything again. Nagash took it back again, but was driven back when Archy arrived, then Nurgle demons (again...) marched on Nagashizzar. Immune to it's aura, they spearheaded the assault, Archy struck down Nagash, etc. Shall I include this?

4. As of the newest BRB, after the betrayal at the ALl Points, Sigmar goes off to find Nagash but, apparently, cannot find him and simply causes carnage in the realm of death. I know before hand it says they fought, but I believe it's been reconnected as of that book. I scanned through the brb to be sure, but it mentions nothing - also, i'm assuming the 'first' fight of theirs was the Old World?

5. I guess the life-and-death thing was my interpretation of what is said in the BL novels, perhaps. It's stated there that Nagash sees himself as Death, and therefor every soul belongs ot him because he himself is the natural order of life. I do believe Arkhan says that in either Soul Wars, or the Undying King novel - one of 'em; though I paraphrased. life-and-death is the natural order of things, Nagash IS death, therefor Nagash is the natural order, all souls are his - this is his point of view.

Nagash does fail a lot, and that is from a lot of early stuff that they seem to have gone back on in the newest core books. They even have him fighting from afar during the battle of burning skies, they have him claiming parts of Alarielle's territory during the age of myth, and his skeletons building the cities of order before there were any people to inhabit them. I might add this in, if only to show that he did... well, something, I suppose.

I hope you'll excuse my long rant. Again, I don't want to go about and edit it when it's clear you're tyding up the page - or, at least, the edits I made. If you want exact quoting for any of the stuff I said, i'll grab it for you, though I'l assure you that 1-4 is present in all those books as the official lore. If you feel that what i've written is not worth including, then I will not go over your work.

Using this page for this sort of post is fine, the discussion page also works. Now to get to your points:
  1. The intention wasn't to imply that he had no part in retaking his fortress, it was to point out that he just sulked and whined until Sigmar showed up again, at which point he finally got off his ass to do something about the Chaos forces.
  2. It's made clear in the books that Nagash doesn't need his body in order to do stuff though, for example he can still talk to/command his generals and get them to do his work for him, he just chose not to. That's why I was going on about him not doing shit, he still had a lot of followers who could've built his forces up if he didn't decide to let the realm of death become a doormat.
  3. Yes Nagash retook the realm of death, however that doesn't really matter since by betraying Sigmar the first time he still gave Chaos a way in and he still decided to take on Archaon's forces on alone as a result, which resulted in his body being destroyed and his forces crushed. If you want to include that, go ahead.
  4. It's been sort of retconned, Nagash still acts as if they fought, even though he just ran and hid while Sigmar crushed his forces.
  5. Nagash sees himself as death and thinks every soul belongs to him, but there's nothing to support this besides him being the most powerful being in the realm of death. He plays no part in the natural cycle of life and death, and that's why I really wanted to bring up the fact that the idea that every soul belonging to him is a fantasy he made up himself. If Nagash was not around or didn't exist, literally nothing would change as far as people's life cycles (and the realm of death) go, we definitely wouldn't have the the Necroquake since that was a change he made, and presumably the next powerful being could just step up and make the exact same unsubstantiated claim. Arkhan's quote is said not because it's true, but because he's Smithers to Nagash's Burns.
Don't worry, I've seen those quotes you're referring to and I know what you're talking about. If you want to add the things he did during the age of myth then go right ahead, though it probably wouldn't be in that section. For the record I don't hate Nagash and I didn't make that section for any reason other than pointing out that he's more or less a joke in Age of Sigmar. He's a child whose biggest accomplishments are the tantrums he throws when he doesn't get his way. -- Triacom (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, I am glad I didn't do anything wrong, and that we could, at least, talk about things. I don't really worry about hating or not hating Nagash, but rather that, upon reading the section, I thought it didn't match up with the thing I head read, and it would prove confusing to others that knew less. If it's okay, i'll re-word the first point to something more similar to what you've said since, at the least, it's somewhat relevant. "He got off his bony-ass after sulking around,' or something to that effect.

I don't quite agree with the second part, still, if you don't mind. I guess it largely depends on which book, but at the very least in all of Reynold's books he's barely lucid most of the time. In Undying King he seems like he's barely cognizant, which can be attributed to his constant failures, or his devastating destruction by Chaos. In that book, it's a colossal effort for him to even contribute to the war, and when he does appear it's suitable incredible. Either way, it can be construed as being a bit misleading if it's said that 'he could have, but didn't', rather than 'it was difficult to try, so he rarely did.' I mean, not to be a stickler, but Sigmar abandoned his own people for his master plan, while Nagash abandoned his land to regenerate. Sigmar's plan worked because he sealed himself off and built his magical wall of anti-fate, whereas Nagash lost a war, and his plan was undermined - sure, he should have predicted how it would go, and constant failure is silly, but he got pretty damn close considering the books say it was millennia in the undertaking (since, what, before he died? Before Nagashizzar fell?)

Lastly, you're right in that there's nothing to support the claim - but that's the way he does see it. It is, at the least, correct for Nagash, and it's a stupid fantasy at best, but it's made true by his own megalomania. Would it be better if that's how I worded the section I wrote? "Nagash's bed time fantasy is that he's the avatar of life and death itself, and vainly tries to stop the other gods from ruining his delusions?"

Gotta say, though, Nighthaunt is one hell of accomplishment - or, well, as far as making the most of a ritual failure can be.

Thanks, by the way, for responding.

Nagash's ability when he's disembodied has never really been consistent, sometimes it seems like he can't even think, other times he's a puppeteer and this is the case both with the Old World and it's how it seems to be in the actual rulebooks. Either way nothing really stopped him from convincing Arkhan to act in his stead and set the stage for his return, but he doesn't really do that, anything Arkhan really does in that time he does out of his own free will because he thinks it would benefit Nagash.
A big difference between Sigmar's plans and Nagash's plans is that Sigmar had a plan at least (and didn't abandon the people living in his own realm, just those who didn't) and if he never came back, Nagash would still be sulking while Chaos still ruled the realm of death. Nagash always gets really close to winning and if you want to add that sure, but that just highlights the cartoon villain aspect of him where he always gets close, never learns from failure, and then fails again as a result while whining that it wasn't his fault.
Lastly for his claim, it's not really correct for him if it's just a fantasy is it? He's got no way of enforcing his claim aside from showing up somewhere himself and demanding people follow his rules (which they can choose not to do the second he leaves), and it's not made true by the people surrounding him. Sigmar still takes whichever souls he wants, so do factions like the Deepkin, as well as any other Aelves. This is also true for any random necromancer, who can just take and use souls as they wish because Nagash can't do anything to them at range. I'm more for pointing out why he's such an idiot in believing his own fantasy rather than gloss over it. -- Triacom (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I see your points there, though with the main exception of the necromancers and mortals. The implication of binding yourself to Nagash, or whatever, like those who dedicate themselves to Chaos do. I mean, we don't know why or if there are any repercussions for Necromancers or random humans, since we don't have anything on it, but we do know of, say, Vampires. We did see that Nagash can punish mortals, like at shadespire, but not the aelves. If I were to venture a guess i'd say it's because Aelves of all stripes, and SC, circumvent the soul collection process, but to apply it to all mortals is extending it a bit. We don't know what he can or can't do for necromancers, or other random mortals. If it's like Chaos at all, then your bound to Nagash by studying it's magic, and it certainly is not neutral magic. There were sigmar's witch-hunts over it, so there should be some repercussions - also, the Malign Portents short stories had several situations of mortals being attacked by (I assume,) Nagash at range, or something. I don't know about the cononicity.

Arkhan, during the events of Nagash' regeneration (which, I think, i'll put in there, since it is, at least, the cannon wording), was building the Great Black Pyramid as per Bone Pope's orders. Probably not his finest use, but...

I'll re-word my additions based on this talk, thanks.

If there are any repercussions for Necromancers who don't follow Nagash they've never been shown in the books because the magic of Shyish isn't tied to Nagash, he attempted to do a ritual that would force that and failed. As of right now you don't need to swear anything to Nagash in order to use Necromancy, the way it's written the books make it look like they swear loyalty before Nagash's followers will teach them, and that's it. This is the reason why I've said before he's just the most powerful being in the Realm of Death, since you can bypass him completely in order to use Death magic, he's just capable of using more of it than anyone else.
You're going to have to clarify what you mean when you say he 'punishes' the people of Shadespire, since what he did was show up and put a curse on them, so I'm not too sure what you mean by saying 'we did see he can punish mortals' (it would be like saying Arkhan can punish mortals, since he can also do curses). If you meant he did that because he was pissed off, yeah? I can't think of anyone in the setting who wouldn't be able to show up and 'punish' mortals in their own way. Nurgle sorcerers for example could curse you to a horrific half-life, and there's no reason a group of them wouldn't be able to spread that over an entire city, that doesn't mean they suddenly represent the entirety of something, it just means they're very strong.
The Aelves also circumvent their souls going to Shyish because their gods (or the Deepkin) grab them, that's it, it's just like what Sigmar does (as well as the Chaos gods) but for a different reason. I fail to see why we other mortals would be incapable of seeing as how there's many ways in which to stop your soul from going to Shyish, in which case Nagash can't do shit about it unless he wants to show up (especially in the case of Deepkin taking literally anyone's soul, in which case he can't even do to them what he does to the Stormcast). -- Triacom (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

So we can't say for certain that Necromancers can do what they want, since they look like they swear loyalty to Nagash/followers, and then seem to follow him; we haven't seen the contrary, so it just seems hasty to assume that they can do what they want.

I'll clarify: he did not show up at Shadespire. Granted, I have not read too much, but the book for the game says it was a ritual, and the small accompanying shadespire novella-thing (mirror city?)just indicates that Nagash showed off from afar: it was a dead dude and his sister chatting, then they heard Big N's voice in the sky, and that was that. It was a curse, a ritual, and i'll be honest: there's no indication of him showing up to shadespire personally at all. I did say the aelves circumvent it through their deities, and the deepking grab them and put them in a corral. You're right that he can't do shit to them unless he show up personally, but let's say average mortals don't have that luxury, apparently, as otherwise we would see it more often. To be exact, we KNOW the aelves circumvent: we have many examples. We KNOW the SC circumvent, and Chaos (partially, as of that one not-so-good book); however, we don't know that mortals can circumvent the process, since the only time they do so resulted in Shadespire. So, as far as evidence goes, we have no proof of mortals being able to do so without a repercussion. That being said, there is the stupid sand that can prolong your life, so there's that...

As with the whole Nighthuant range, we can comfortably assume those are punished mortals; most are post-necroquake, with some exceptions. To give you a proper example, Kurdoss-throne-dude declared Sigmar his patron, and Nagash struck him dead as he was crowned king. He was not present, he just... killed him. Olynder, the ghost bride, was turned into a ghost as soon as she tried to swear fealty to nurgle. Now, they don't relate to people cheating death or any of the above,but they do show that he has some power to enforce his will in the Realm of Death. I don't know why it does not come up more often, since it seems a little OP to strike a king dead on the moment of his coronation, but that's the lore. However, to relate to the above point for mortals and mortality, Reiknor the Grimhailer-dude was a sorcerer that tried to cheat death and pissed off Nagash. While it doesn't say when Nagash turned him into his personal soul-collector (that is, before or after he died), but he was a light mage, who attempted to obtain immortality, and was punished - he also knew the magic shyish, but idk if that makes him a necromancer; doesn't say.

As with Olynder, Kurdoss, Reiknor and Shadespire, Nagash never showed up to curse them, he just did from wherever he was. That should show that he can do some enforcing, if it's super loosely applied so as to be irrelevant when the next plot-point shows up.

Again, thanks. This is going on for longer than I wanted to bother you for.

Yes we can say Necromancers can do what they want, until there's a downside we have to act as if there isn't one. Assuming there might be a downside when there's no evidence of this would just be dumb. The earlier Grand Alliance book also mentions there are Necromancers who do whatever they want and raise armies of the dead who serve them and only them, whereas Legions of Nagash is completely focused on Nagash (and that's where it mentions how Nagash's Necromancers need to follow him before they're taught) so it's no wonder it doesn't bring up anything else.
For Shadespire: "then they heard Big N's voice in the sky-" that's him showing up. He has to be there in some capacity. Projecting his voice to somewhere he isn't is not an ability Nagash has demonstrated anywhere else to my knowledge (at least not without a separate spell in and of itself), even when it would be more convenient. Also I can't recall a single one of Nagash's rituals that did not require him to be present at the site of the ritual.
What I said is that other mortals could have that luxury so long as they knew how to do it, as we've seen in Shadespire it's entirely possible for them to do it and there's no downsides to the act itself (Nagash is separate to the act, had they done it in a different realm they'd have been fine) and What's Nagash going to do to somebody who's extending their lifespan via unnatural means? As you mention there's the sand, but that's not the only way to extend a life. To further this point, Reikenor's entry specifically says he can sense those who're withholding souls from Nagash, which would be an odd sentence if they're only referring to the Deepkin (since he's not going to fight gods).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I never saw anything that said Nagash didn't show up to claim Kurdoss's soul, same with Olynder, same with Reikenor. The wording's very vague, so I don't think you can really make a case that Nagash did it from afar, and in fact I can argue that Nagash didn't actually kill them at all, since for both Olynder and Kurdoss (in the chronicles section) it says Nagash cursed them after they died (aka when they'd actually be summoned by Necromancy), it doesn't even say that he killed them. Same with Reikenor, it only mentions him serving in death, odd that it doesn't explicitly mention Nagash killing any of them if that happened isn't it? This would mean that either the book's giving conflicting accounts of what happened, or Nagash called dibs when they pissed him off and could only do something about it when they died. -- Triacom (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Olydner earned his 'ire' when she did her fealty-swap, so it could have been after she died. She certainly was cursed with sorrow upon her death. Reiknor it doesn't say, which I included, but Kurdoss does specify that it's the moment he took up his brother's crown, and he's struck down by Nagash. It does say personally, though i'm unsure if they actually meant 'nagash appeared right then and there to stab him', which would mean he can manifest whenever he wants - or 'he killed the guy himself,'. Wording could go either way - killed him from afar and then took his soul, or right in from of him, killed him, took his soul, then threw him in an afterlife, and then another afterlife; Interestingly, upon re-reading one of the passages in that timeline even says Nagash took ire with, and destroyed some, other civilizations that didn't get along with him. Guess he travelled a lot?

Claiming souls is a thing he doesn't have to be there for unless it's with the above-mentioned exceptions. Souls go to Shyish, and Nagash judges them, but whether that's his fault or just how things are is whatever - The Nighthaunt line is predicated on thus, plus the Nadir that chews up underwolds and shit and spits out souls. Nagash isn't there to claim each one, obviously - though i'm sure you didn't mean for everyone, of course. At the very least he's got an automatic conveyor belt, now...

I mean, Nagash did the same voice-from-the-sky when the Idoneth's city was exposed in Shyish, and the story for that one made it very clear Nagash was not physically present. ALL Idoneth there heard it, as the sea was drained, in their heads. If he was there he could, again, manifest at will, which would be a bit strange, and would be a power we didn't know he had. I don't think it can be argued he has to be there in any capacity, really - even if it requires a separate spell to do the voice (probably), Nagash would do it because he's insane, and it would not be a very strenuous spell, but interpreting his voice as his physical presence is a bit stretching, I think.

And, well, is the Great Work (or whatever his two grand resurrections in the Old World were called) not a ritual that doesn't require him to be physically there? It is just a mass-raising of the dead, but it has a long-reaching effect, and he does not need to be physically, geographically present. Maybe he just needs long distance charges for those? Unless you wish to define the ritual site as the spot he's casting AT, and not the location of the final effect, in which case the ritual site for Shadespire coulda been some circle in Nagashizzar, like the Great Work Ritual Thing that woke the dead of Nehekera - he was not present in that land, for that spell. Also, of the BL novels, his ressurection in the Empire did the same thing on Ulthuan, although it was to a lesser effect - zombies, not soul-filled skellingtons. I'm not suggesting that his magical prowess enables him to cast spells from realms away, but all the gods so far seem to have some sort of power of distance. 

If Nagash needs to be physically there, I can't understand his A) appearing beneath the former-seas all of a sudden and B) being in the sky above Shadespire; that's power we haven't seen, and I believe remote spells more than that. Travel time can only be vaguely guess at in the SHadespire story, but it's not said, and it would have to be assumed, but the Idoneth event leaves no time for it. If he can act like that, it's entirely reasonable to assume that every civilization that heard of these events would never risk immortality because of Nagash's ability to appear out of nowhere; and with the general setting of Warhammer, the average joe in the average realm wouldn't know jack shit about them being out of his area of influence: Nagash is the god of the dead to them, because he ate the rest, their souls go to Shyish and, even if it is all just a dream of Nagash, they believe it. All the novels so far have run with that, at least, so even if he can't do it outside of his realm, what are the chances of them knowing that? And much like the Undying King short story, where he 'appeared' to scare the Ghoul King in his cave; it was his voice, and his face, but was he physically there, or projecting himself? The same novel has him pilot an avatar of corpses, and in Soul Wars he has multiple versions of the Nagash model, but I wouldn't call them him, or say that there are many Nagash's running around. I believe him projecting himself, or his voice, is likely. He does it in the Soul Wars book, when Not-Gelt fights the fallen Stormcast, and he and Sigmar meet face to face - obviously they are not there, physically together, or that means they can both teleport. God, I hope they can't teleport like that.

Except it doesn't say that Nagash struck Kurdoss down, it says that he 'claimed his soul', and in the chronicles section it says that he was cursed after he died. It's vague, and like I said it's either conflicting information, or Nagash waited for him to die before going after him. If you found a passage I missed that said Nagash struck him down, please link the page and paragraph number.
Souls do go to Shyish, however this can be prevented, they can be brought back, and they can be so inconsequential that Nagash might not even notice them individually. Also I believe it's the main rulebook that explicitely states how the souls go to Shyish as a part of the natural process, it has nothing to do with Nagash. Likewise, Nagash judging them has nothing to do with the natural process, and in fact he's directly opposing it by interfering with it.
Like I said, Nagash either needs to be there or use a spell to project his voice like that, it's not something he's ever been shown capable of doing otherwise. I also don't interpret his voice as the only thing showing he was there, I interpret his voice and his rituals always needing him to be present to show he was there.
Both times when Nagash did his great ritual he had to be present, both of those involved spreading magic across the world, radiating from the ritual itself and spreading outward. He needed to be present at the ritual site itself and the fact that he couldn't leave was what got him destroyed by the old king and the Skaven the first time. Like I said, I don't recall Nagash ever doing a ritual that affected someplace far away like what you're suggesting (that would be entirely different to the great rituals, since those were a spreading effect as opposed to cursing a specific area). Nagash wasn't directly in Nehekhara technically, however they were the first place the ritual spread to (he was just outside of it), and so they were the first to be affected by it. As for the black library novels, that also happened in the main books but there that was because Nagash was fucking around with the wind of death. He didn't actually try to bring the dead back in that attempt, that was just a side effect.
Nagash suddenly appearing in places actually is power we've seen before, he's shown up in several places without being detected or sensed before, just suddenly appearing and seeing as how both Sigmar and even the Slann have a form of teleportation, it wouldn't be surprising to see Nagash having something of the same given how he moves about. After all, if he didn't have this kind of power it would've been impossible for him to do things like approaching and unraveling the cage of bone like he did without anybody noticing, and then retreating afterwards when it was clear he was losing (he's not going to get away from Archaon and three Bloodthirsters by running). As far as why people still try to attain immortality, if Nagash doesn't know they're doing it (since his only way of finding out is to come across them in some way, shape or form, physically or by hearing about it), he's not going to go after them and besides, this helps prevent them from becoming spirits in the realm of death, where Nagash can just summon them to him whenever he wants. I think it's also safe to say that the average joe wouldn't know shit about Nagash's general abilities, including this one (if it was very common knowledge, the cage of bone probably would've been more tightly guarded). Honestly the average joe in the setting doesn't really seem to give a shit about anything beyond whichever gods they worship and I can kind of see why.
One more thing, I guess I was unclear with this but I'm not against Nagash projecting himself in some way to an area, even in the Old World he could do that with spells, but unless he was physically there he was going to do little more than yell at you. I also agree that giving the various gods the ability to just show up wherever they want is stupid (since it would really make a lot of the battles trivial) but that's Age of Sigmar for you. -- Triacom (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to hit this in order: It says that Olynder parlayed with Nurgle, and Nagash claimed his soul as his own, and the next line has her as a spectre. The wording sucks, since it could mean before or after her death, but clearly she failed to parlay, otherwise i'm sure chaos woulda snatched her up. That's open to your interpretation. For Kurdoss, in his entry on page 23, 2nd paragraph, it also says Nagash claimed his soul when Kurdoss took up his brother's crown. However, since we know Kurdoss never got to rule - the whole section mentions his asparations for rule - it's safe to say that he never got to sit on the throne of his first kingdom. I think that, when they say Nagash claimed a soul, they mean killed and took; there's bad wording for his entry, but it won't line up at all if he had to die after ruling before he was punished. There's no room for that interpretation there. I'll confess, the killed personally part, upong re-reading, was actually from the warhammer community site; I confused myself with the word 'personaly', since that's where it's mentioned. My bad, my bad.

TBH, the more of those three I read, it really seems like they're trying to use the words 'claimed their souls as his own', to mean 'killed'. There's no mention of life aftert he curse for them, just a transition into wraith-life; though I suppose that's all just interpretation. Doesn't really matter, though.

I never meant to say that going to Shyish was not part of the natrual process, but the Nadir draws all souls towards it, and it is a (Failed) creation of Nagash. That's on Nighhaunt pg.11, p6(?), pg/17,pg(the middlemost, largest one) - ther, in fact, it says that 'now fieled by the Great Black Pyramid, Shyish draws all souls so that non can escape Nagash,.) Nagash's judging is certainly a perversion of the natural process, and I never meant to imply otherwise; i'm simply saying that yes, he does interfer with Soul collection, even if they don't belong to him. The book says it's a curse on all the underworlds, I think.

I suppose I can understand the concept of 'spreading the ritual outwards', and i'll concede the point, but if Nagash did teleport - at the very least, show up in some capacity - then he's desperate enough to do it a hella of a lot. The nighthaunt book alone has four mentioned destroyed civilization by his hands, and several cursed organizations and entire underworlds. If he's really showing up personally for all of those, then he is more than willing to punish anything and everyone fro the littlest of slights. It's sort of pathetic, tbf, to desperately do that, but he really enforces his own rules. Even if he needs to hear/see/be told about the issues, he fixes them immediately. It doesn't say, of course, how Nagash heard of shadepsire, though it's due to popularity of the glass, I would guess. If one, secretive guy can obtain immortality, then I can see how Nagash's punishments would be failures, but even Reiknor who viscously studied it was caught out because of others. Also, the Shadespire curse was relatively fast. We don't know if he was charging up in the heavens, or from afar, or whatever, but if he showed up and just bam - city trapped between two realms, that's a feat in an of itself. Also kinda OP, and should certainly be fucking used all the time. Christ, I don't get why he does not do this shit all the time.

The average joe worships his one god, but the concept of Nagash being death is common enough, I think. Only Reynold's books have that consistancy, but the short-stories for MP imply that they forgt his name while he was in hiding, or something, and gave him new names for it? Something like that. The Nighthaunt book only mentions the Aelven factions - not even Malekith's elves, funnily enough - and the SC, and Chaos to withhold (Pg. 19). While Reiknor's passage does say 'withhold from Nagash,' I can only wonder if that truly means stopping their souls from going to Shyish, or if it's spefcifically mentioning the Aelves. It doesn't double down, so it's bad wording, again. It's fine, though. Even if a mortal stops their soul from going around, Nagash, apparently, has a watchdog that can auto-sense it and hunt them down (but of course, Nagash himself cant...)

Also, for the earlier mentioned Necromancers: Guardian of Souls are Necromancers that tried to use Purple magic to further their own cause, and were then punished after death. Do you think it's reasonable to say that trying to do whatever you want with amythest magic (that is not necessarily Nagash's) will get you punished by him, or that being a Necormancer and doing whatever you want earns his Ire? The passage, again, could imply either, but there are some repercussions.

The wording implies that Olynder died when Nagash claimed her soul, however the chronicles section implies (if not states by omission) the opposite. Kurdoss is the same way, the wording implies Nagash killed him as he took up the crown, the chronicles section implies the opposite. I agree that it seems he died before he was able to rule, however the book either gives conflicting accounts, or there was somebody else (likely another betrayer) who killed him after he grabbed the crown. In any case, the book doesn't say Nagash was the one who struck him down and is leaving how he died vague, which is a little frustrating.
I agree that there's no real mention of what happened to the characters after Nagash wanted them, however at the same it barely mentions them while they were alive before they pissed of Nagash, except for Olynder it only goes over their motivations and that's really it.
Going to Shyish actually is a part of the natural process, though the souls being drawn to the center is because his ritual fucked up as you mention. I'd also argue that saying it draws 'all souls' is a poor word choice since the factions that can withhold souls still do, it would be more appropriate for it to say it draws souls in that are already in Shyish.
Nagash's travel is another case where it's left very vague, sometimes him showing up in places (and retreating from places) would be impossible with conventional travel and it's frustrating again that they leave it this vague. I also agree that it's kind of pathetic how he runs around trying to enforce his own self-made rules (and how even the Soul Wars are predicated on something he imagined is true) and that's why I refer to his actions like that as his tantrums. Practically everything he does is based on him being upset he's not getting his way.
Reikenor is odd to me because if he really wanted immortality he could have studied Necromancy (which is a little different from studying the Shyish) or learned from a Jade wizard. I also agree in that I've got no clue why he doesn't do a repeat of his Shadespire act.
I think it's more that they fear death as a literal thing rather than imaginging Nagash is going to come for them personally, but given how vague a lot of stuff is it's hard to say for sure.
The book states that the Guardians of Souls were lesser Necromancers, the kind who couldn't figure out how to prevent their death via amethyst magic. Given what waited for Necromancers like this before (in the Old World they'd be forced to become Cairn Wraiths, in AoS it seems they could be bound into a Mortis Engine) it's honestly a lot better. If Nagash meant to use it as a punishment, he fucked up. -- Triacom (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The amount of bad wording and vague implications in both battletomes is astounding. After reading it through, i'm honsetly now more concerned with the fact that they never mentioned what or who's souls even go to Shyish - and eventually, the Nadir - Humans? Dwarves? Orks? Who the hell are the Nighthaunt composed of, even?

Regardless, thanks for the talk. I'm sorry for taking up so much of your time, but thanks. I'll try to re-word my additions - if I even have the will to add them in anymore - so that they're in line with this stuff. Which, to be honest, is probably more coherent than half the things I've read on the wiki's before.

This sort of thing is why I find it really hard to care about Age of Sigmar as a whole, I try to get into it but everything's left so vague to the point that everything that happens might as well be accompanied with a shrug. I honestly am not sure why AoS wants to have any sort of story beyond the initial reason the Stormcast are around, because the overall goal is trying to get the players to make up their own story, conflict and characters for their armies. Leaving everything vague to let the players fill it in while also trying to have a narrative just doesn't work, they need to commit to one or the other. -- Triacom (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Potential edit war in the making[edit]

An anon with no special contributions on his IP just edited the RaHoWa page into incoherent /pol/ trash, then defended RaHoWa unironically. I, of course, undid his edit, but I don't want to bother Root yet, so I'd love it if some more experienced wikifags were there to help, just in case. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Most trolls who do that are one-off trolls, or they'll do it a few times and get bored when it doesn't stick. If you just undo what they've done they typically go away and you won't see them again. I do check the recent changes page quite often so when I see that kind of thing happen I undo it as well. -- Triacom (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm hoping as much, but just in case, I appreciate you keeping an eye out vro. edit: They troll(s) have now targeted me, both on my user talk page (not that bad, all things considered), and on the page itself, complete with a screenshot of my profile and a message addressed to /pol/ anons. I obviously have responded rationally, not addressed their attacks on my sexual orientation or race, or changed my page in any way, but if this continues I will probably request an editblock for the article (after someone has cleaned it up a bit - the trolls are right that it is a bit bland) and an IP block for user(s) involved. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Well since they've noticed they're going to bother you about it some, don't let it get to you, choosing not to respond past the initial response is going to be better than arguing about it. From the looks of it our contributor is more than a little 'special', seeing as how they think you're trying to hide something you put on your userpage. -- Triacom (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
That was what I figured. Either the fag has a vpn or he has all of mommy's tablets; either way, this is looking decreasingly like a raid or an experienced troll and more like a /pol/ special snowflake who wants attention fro his anon nazi uncle. Either way, I have the original text of the page, my userpage, and my talk page already saved so I can undo anything they decide to try. Anyway, I'm probably just going to take a step back for tonight. Thanks much vro --Kracked Mynd (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
The text's saved in the wiki anyway and it's honestly easier to restore it through the wiki itself than doing ctrl-c + ctrl-v. I guess most people like them don't know this, otherwise they probably wouldn't bother. -- Triacom (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Dope, I'll probably just leave it be then. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 06:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Farsight page topquote[edit]

So uh... What is the link between Phil Kelly and the humorous topquote I wrote? For history, here it is : Orkz fear no blue skinned git! But da red fing... it scares me.|An anonymous flash git. It's a reference to the Heavy in Meet the pyro by the way. No, really, it's not bother me that you deleted it, but I don't even know who is Phil. I really want to understand why.--Gilten (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Phil Kelly's a GW writer who really loves Farsight, to the point where he's trying to make him into one of the biggest Mary Sues by retconning out all of his previous flaws, retconning out his failures so that none of them are actually his fault, giving him knowledge and foresight he couldn't possibly have (to the point where his plans are carried out so quick the Tau might as well have the ability to teleport), forgetting (or worse yet, retconning out) how the Ethereals control the populace so that Farsight's suspicious of them and suspects them of being secretly evil, which Phil Kelly justifies by retconning the Ethereals into being mustache-twirling supervillains in one book, before turning Aun'Va into Darth Vader in a later book. He also just flat out forgets the many ways in which Farsight's various plans shouldn't and couldn't work, Farsight: Crisis of Faith for example has four fucked moments like that in the climax, where the book outright forgets what it established earlier and the characters do what they explicitly established they could not do just so that Farsight could win. For the record three of those moments were re-established in this very book, one was established in a different Phil Kelly book (being a part of a character he created, and now he forgot how his own character works), and that's just the moments in which Phil Kelly's own writing, if we were to look at outside material there'd be many more moments. I removed that top quote for the same reason I'd remove a topquote on Draigo's page that celebrates how powerful he is, we don't need to celebrate a Mary Sue like that.
Given that you don't know who Phil Kelly is, I'm going to guess you haven't read his Tau books and honestly, that's for the best, he simply has no clue how to write them. -- Triacom (talk) 09:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you to enlightened me. I am totally agree with you now. Have a good day sir!--Gilten (talk) 10:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Laser Grox[edit]

I don't know if you ever found it, but a few years ago you asked if anyone could provide a source for the laser grox rules. It was in WD 314 (UK) page106. I can give you a photo of you like? Otherwise no biggy, I just saw your request on the creature feature page and wondered if anyone ever got back to you. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I have the White Dwarf with the creature feature in it, however the one released in Canada (at least the one I got) did not have a separate profile for a laser grox, in there they were a lobo grox that had a las-pistol attached via mechadendrites. If you could send link a pic that would be great. -- Triacom (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
Thanks, I don't know why but my copy only has the two profiles for some reason. -- Triacom (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Eisenstein and Istvaan[edit]

I saw you undo my edit - but your reasoning is completely unsound. Yes, the Eisenstein is a strong ship, but you DO realize that there's an entire FLEET of Traitor ships in the space around it? And it's not like it'll take them a split second to evacuate loyalists, but a lengthy period of time during which they would be under fire by the whole fleet - as well as any evacuee transports? Second, the Eisenstein was badly damaged as it was and barely made the jump into the warp when ONE ship was firing upon it. I just don't understand the reasoning behind your perception that it could've evacuated the loyalists already stuck on the Istvaan system. - 02/02/2019, 2:00 PM (Pacific Time Zone)

There are two reasons I undid your edit, the first is because you were arguing on the main page instead of just changing it outright (or just deleting the offending bit). I've said that so many times to various people that I didn't feel like saying it again in the summary. Secondly the Eisenstein wasn't immediately fired upon, the traitors assumed Garro would be dealt with and that the Eisenstein was still loyal to the Warmaster, and so long as Garro kept the ship there and pretended that everything was fine he could've evacuated a lot of Space Marines before the traitors realized what was going on (keep in mind that the traitors only fully realized what was happening when Garro was leaving). Now granted the same event could've happened when the ship left, they might've still been stranded in the warp, however they would've had a much easier time with a lot more Space Marines on their side (and they might not have even been noticed by the traitors in time, since the people who would've noticed and been able to fire that soon would've been planetside). The thousands upon thousands of Astartes they could've rescued would've been incredibly useful too. -- Triacom (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Playtest rules[edit]

Ah right I didn't realise some of the stuff in the new HH FAQ is temporary (maybe) I'll flag the changes with that.

About The Grand Strategist warlord Trait and Kurov`s Aquilla (Imperial Guard Tactics 8 E)[edit]

Good Day! Excuse me for not beeing right to the dot,but the restriction was in Big FAQ 2 2018 (pg.5, The new matched play beta rules) "TACTICAL RESTRAINT There are several Warlord Traits, Relics and abilities that give you a chance to gain or refund Command Points when you or your opponent either use a Stratagem or spend Command Points to use a Stratagem. In matched play games, each player can only gain or have refunded a total of one Command Point per battle round as the result of such rules, regardless of the source. This does not apply to the Moment Shackle or the Seven-fold Chant abilities, or to or the Player of the Twilight Warlord Trait – in these cases, the ability/Warlord Trait can refund or gain the player more than 1 Command Point if the Stratagem used cost 2 or more Command Points to use, but once any Command Points have been gained as a result of the rule neither it, nor any similar rule, can be used to gain any more Command Points until the next battle round. Also note that this does not apply to Command Points that are gained or refunded as specifically instructed on Stratagems (e.g. Feeder Tendrils, Agents of Vect, etc.)."

That's a beta rule, not an official one, it says it right at the top of the page in large bold letters. Beta rules can only be used if both sides agree to use them, and on top of that they're only meant for the players to test and give their feedback on, not to be used in all normal games because they are not official rules. You even mention that it's a beta rule yourself here, but I'm not sure you know what "beta rules" means. -- Triacom (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


Please go to GW's website, they have a handy flow-chart for Index legality especially for retards like you. -- 08:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll admit that I misremembered what the official stance was, in that I could've sworn they could only take wargear that they had the option for, thanks for fact-checking. That being said you're still retarded for thinking you could increase the squad size. -- Triacom (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems you should've read it more and I shouldn't have trusted the word of a retard, the Havocs could only get special weapons by trading their boltguns for them and now they don't have boltguns, so you're SoL if you want special weapons for them. -- Triacom (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

For reference on the WoW Page[edit]

People have complained about the since 2017. The only reason they stayed was that same obsessed anon kept adding it back in. Admiral Apathy (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

That anon also happens to be right, their edits can be messy and are in needed of cleaning up and trimming down, but rampant deletion is nothing short of vandalism, and isn't the right thing to do. -- Triacom (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Not really, the writers use Sylvanas so much because she creates easy conflict. She is hardly a mary sue given her massive losing streak, having lost every battle in BFA in succession and outright stating that "the Horde is losing on all fronts." So no, I wouldn't say that is right at all. Admiral Apathy (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Except her winning streak (or lack thereof) isn't why they called her a Mary Sue, and you're not just removing the parts about her being a Mary Sue are you? -- Triacom (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
She's a poorly written character like many characters in WoW not a Mary Sue. And the main thing is the edits constantly whine that the Horde is favored by the writers and give zero proof of it. Fact is the Horde has significantly less characters then the Alliance and their story has long been considered crap, they didn't even do anything in Legion. Admiral Apathy (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
If you want to argue a difference of opinion go ahead, that's still not justification for your rampant deletions. As far as being favoured by the writers goes, I think the article makes that pretty clear and if you want to argue those points further, take it up with the one who's making those edits. As I've said before, your deletions have made you much more of a vandal than anyone you're accusing, and as such you'll receive no help from me. -- Triacom (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
The rants gave zero evidence for who was favored by the writers, it just stated the editor's own beliefs as fact without any evidence. And as noted plenty of people have noted on the talk page for the article the rants are out of place and annoying. Admiral Apathy (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
This is 1d4chan, not fucking wikipedia. You're not going to see citations for every fucking thing, especially when you can just google the interviews they reference. The rants also aren't out of place, the anon points that out rather well and they're consistent with many other pages on the site, and whether or not they're annoying is subjective. -- Triacom (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
If there was a source for any of the "Blizzard favors Horde" it'd be all over the fandom and talked about everywhere. There isn't any interview of that kind at all and the rants gave nothing, if anything it was out of place given how huge the Forsaken/Sylvanas portions are compared to the other race/character sections. Admiral Apathy (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
As I said on Root's page, if you think they don't exist you either haven't looked or you're lying. Those sections also happen to be much bigger because there's much more wrong with them than the others, that shouldn't come as a surprise. -- Triacom (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
The need to prove evidence on these interviews is on you and you've provided zilch, nothing at all. As I mentioned, the WoW developers at Blizzard saying they prefer the Horde would be a major news in the community, yet its never talked about it. Entire sections about how people only like this character because she's female and they waifu are entirely unnecessary. Admiral Apathy (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Damn, you got me, I have to back up those edits I had nothing to do with- oh wait... seriously though I told you you can google interviews and gave you a website, you're just flat out lying when you say you cannot find them. The Eurogamer article in particular is called "World of Warcraft and the masterplan for Sylvanas", and here's a quote from it: "She's an interesting character and she's a character beloved not just by our playerbase but by our developerbase as well," Afrasiabi said. "Like I said, I've been personally working on her since 2006, making stories for her; I definitely have a connection with her in a lot of different ways..." -- Triacom (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
That says "NOTHING" about Sylvanas being favored over the alliance which was what the edits were presenting as fact. They've said similar things about plenty of characters being well liked among the developers including Anduin, who Golden, the writer of many warcraft novels and BFA has described as one of her most favorite characters. Admiral Apathy (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
The edits said she was a creator's pet, or have you forgotten what you've been deleting? -- Triacom (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
The edits said the Horde and the Forsaken were creator's pets, a Tvtropes term that the site has not approved any of those WoW examples I might add. The writers simply saying they like to use Sylvanas doesn't make her a creator's pet any more then Anduin who Golden has repeatedly said is her favorite. That article didn't even mention the Forsaken and the Horde being favored over the Alliance, again the rants are misuse with no source. Admiral Apathy (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
They also said she was a creator's pet which you disagreed with, and I've proven you wrong on. Just because she's a creator's pet doesn't mean nobody else can be as well. I'd also argue based on the interviews she's favoured well above Anduin, another creator's pet. -- Triacom (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
The developers saying they like the character, when they've said for many characters proves NOTHING, especially when the expansion is about overthrowing Sylvanas anyway. I already pointed you to interviews where various developers have stated their fondness for Anduin. And you have absolutely nothing for the Horde being a creator's pet which the article also claimed. Admiral Apathy (talk)
They've never used that kind of descriptor for any other character, don't pretend they did. You also didn't do that because at no part in the interview did the author say Anduin was their favourite or that they were favouring him. -- Triacom (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh please, they've said that about Illidan in the past as well. [One of many quotes] of Christie Golden about Anduin being her fave, this one saying more men should be like Anduin. And once again, those edits claim the entire Horde is a creator's pet when you have zero proof that at all. Admiral Apathy (talk)
That says nothing of the sort, read the following tweets, they mention other characters because they see them as examples of good mature writing, not because they're "beloved by the development team". That's not even close as a comparison. -- Triacom (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
She says she loves Anduin because he is something male characters should be, which is exactly what I stated earlier. Anduin is her favorite, hence the narrative bending around him like him getting the ability to see spirits, Baine existing only to appease Anduin to the point of mailing his horns to Anduin in Before the Storm, Saurfang becoming subservient to Anduin in BFA, ETC. Again that's proof he's Golden's favorite. And once again, the edits were saying the entire Horde was a creator's pet, something you've given no proof for. Admiral Apathy (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Are you reading what she wrote or just imagining it? She didn't say that at all. I also wasn't aware you had telepathy and were able to see that events around him only play out that way purely because he's her favourite. I've also told you multiple times, if you want to discuss factions, take it up with the people adding that in. -- Triacom (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Rather than start an edit war[edit]

I think we need to discuss the star wars page. Collapse tags are a mess, true, but the Star Wars page is a disaster and something needs to be done about it. It probably needs to be structured in the same way Star Trek is. Piroko (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not denying that something needs to be done about it, but collapsible tags like that are an issue because they say very little (or in this case, nothing at all) about their subject. Normally collapsible tags are used to give you an overview of what's contained within and then you expand them to see the long form version, to use Luke as an example, giving a brief mention of his character traits, relation to the other characters in the series and his overall importance, while holding the rest (pre and post-Disney) in the expandable portion would be a good way of going about it. Forcing the user to expand each and every section to learn even the slightest bit about what's in that section is not user friendly in the slightest, and it just makes the page more of a hassle to use, which is why I reverted it. -- Triacom (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
If you'd like to see an example then I can give you one in 3-5 hours when I'm back at my computer and am not typing everything out on a phone. -- Triacom (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Maybe we're thinking about this wrong. It's a wiki, we can have multiple pages. Would you support moving the characters off to a separate page entirely and then doing a reorg of the main page more around the titles and game products? Piroko (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind making a new page specifically for the characters or other subjects, just so long as they're clearly linked and mention that there's too much to fit on the one page. -- Triacom (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I can get started right now if you like. What shall I name the page? --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Maybe just a generic 'characters in Star Wars' or 'Star Wars Characters' would do it. I likely won't be too involved in its production myself, I've been very busy lately and only really have the time to double-check edits to make sure people aren't trying to argue on the main page or adding in user-unfriendly edits. -- Triacom (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Page complete. Do we want to have users edit, or let the anons do it for us and corral them when they get out of control. At this time, I'd also like to raise the question of creating a template for Star Wars in General. It would certainly be easier to seperate the Three TV series that way, yes? --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't see an issue with making a template or letting everyone edit it, most of what I do is remove bad edits and personally I like how so many of the pages are a collaborative effort. -- Triacom (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good. Who on this site is good with Templates? I don't have a lot of experience with them. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure who you would ask, but they're not that hard to learn, just look up an existing template to see how they work or look up a tutorial on how to make them. They're relatively simple. -- Triacom (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

If I may interject, I agree with Piroko's conclusion. A new page should be created in order to help trim the obscenity that is that page. It would certainly make navigating the page a spat easier. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Minor Problem: Please Advise[edit]

I was browsing, and noticed we have redundant pages that may require attention. Eldar Space Fleet and Eldar Navy both describe the same thing. I wrote the latter of the two, and am wondering if we should delete mine or the other, or merge them in some way? --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 06:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd go with deleting the Navy page personally, even though it's obvious, it can still confuse newer readers if you brought it up in comparison to the Imperial Navy since Navy is literally a part of that name. Eldar Space Fleet is also a lot more broad of a term, it can encompass Craftworlds, military vessels and the corsairs all in a single phrase while Navy is meant to be a branch of the military, and both case Craftworlds and the corsairs don't really fit into that because the first is primarily a civilian habitat with a compulsory militia (on top of other dedicated things like the Aspect Warriors), and the corsairs are pirates. If you have something you'd like to save then I'd recommend moving it over, then blanking the page and adding a redirect. -- Triacom (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding SJW Page[edit]

Should we just ask for a ban of Piroko?--Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't tell from his additions if he was trolling or a true believer. Either way, I suspect that it might be helpful for AssistantWikifag or Root to block him for at least a few weeks. --Newerfag (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I also can't tell if he's legit an anti-SJW or just a troll. Either way he wasn't one of the people really shitting up the main page so I'd rather not ask for a ban when he's only on the talk page. -- Triacom (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, if being a mook was a bannable offense, we'd have to Exterminatus half the user base. Also, if that response to an anon is any indication, uou should probably consider un-tilting before asking for bans for anyone - because then it could be (sometimes rightfully) argued that you escalated things beforehand. --2600:387:B:982:0:0:0:56 20:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Have you seen his response to Lord of the Lemmings on his talk page? He's openly stated he's not going to stop (and also proved he has no idea what a communist actually is). --Newerfag (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
He talks a lot but hasn't actually done anything, which is the only reason I'm not asking for him to be banned. He's not TheBadAgeBoys where they'll just keep ignoring everything everyone else says in an attempt to get their way, Piroko's just the kind of special snowflake his group likes to mock (which is odd because their group consists of them). Apparently some SJW triggered him sometime in the past and he never got over it. If he actually starts doing something on the main page then I'll be right there with you asking for a ban. -- Triacom (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Exactly, they're just a rote brainlet ideologue. Until they actually vandalize or something, no point in calling for administrative action. --LGX-000 (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Give me some time with him. I think I might be able to reason with him. Speaking of which, is modifying somebody's user page a bannable offense? Some butthurt anon keeps doing it to me. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 04:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Modifying/Vandalizing a user page without that person's permission is indeed a bannable offense. -- Triacom (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
In that case I know an idiot awaiting the banhammer. I think I'll give him till tomorrow to answer to me, but if he refuses to speak, I'll report him. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- Lord of Lemmings, probably, 2019 --Kracked Mynd (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, did I do something wrong? If so could you elaborate Mr. Mynd. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
They're just fucking with you. -- Triacom (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding outdated rules stuff on pages[edit]

I have an inquiry. Let say the page *Wraithknight* references rules back in 7th edition. Should I remove old rules, seeing as they are no longer horribly relevant, keeping only the ones that are still relevant, like Fish of Fury, Jump shoot jump, etc. Please advise.--Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Just separate the on the tabletop section based on edition. If it gets too long, collapse it like what's done on Heinrich Kemmler's page. There's really no reason we'd only keep the most recent info, and if we did then we'd lose interesting trivia like the Chapter Master duels on Moloc's page or how certain models used to be staples/never used in certain armies and why, like how the Orca was never used because the only way for large squads to disembark from it was to hope it exploded in midair. -- Triacom (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Setting up direct contact comment[edit]

I have plenty of questions about whether or not this or that should be done. Therefore, would it be ok if I contacted you through this thread about any questions I may have? --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. -- Triacom (talk) 06:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Excellent. To begin, I noticed that though Fire Warrior(the unit) has a page, Breachers(Tau shotgunners) do not. I was wondering if I should either redo the page to reflect these changes, or else make a separate page for Breacher teams? --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
That depends on how much info you're going to put on the page. If there's not enough to even make a scrollbar, then it's generally a good idea to just add it into another relevant page, like the Fire Warriors page. If you've got five or six paragraphs however, then you might as well make a new page for them. -- Triacom (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Lemmings Here, back from a hiatus. I noticed we have locked down the /pol/ and SJW pages, and was wondering if we needed a header to reflect it, kinda like how we have heresy, skub, derp, or fail ones. Perhaps: This page has been locked due to excess skub: do not fuck it up. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Nah, we already have the editwar and skub tags for that sort of thing and I don't feel we need one that combines the two. -- Triacom (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

During my crusade to update the T'au pages for 8e, I noticed that the Battlesuit page feels outdated. Should I try to overhaul the information in a way that both reflects past and current editions, or just jerry rig it all to 8e? --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd recommend updating it in a way that reflects both past and present editions. If we only update stuff for the current edition then we'd lose a lot of commentary across many different pages. -- Triacom (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I have been updating mostly T'au Templates and I wonder if maybe Dahyak Grehk, the Kroot boi from Blackstone Fortress should be added to the list of T'au characters? He does have the character keyword, and is classified as a T'au elite. I only bother you about this because he is technically already in another Template, the Blackstone Fortress characters template. Is it ok to include him in both, or will it confuse readers to see it in multiple templates? --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Disregard. I was mistaken. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Question: I keep getting stuck in a small edit war on the Approved cartoons page. As an unbiased source, could you please head there and check my edits vs the others to check it for me? I would like some input. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, just give me an hour or two. -- Triacom (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I came across a short story on the Warhammer Community website. For lack of better terms, it paints the T'au in an Eldrad like jerkiness, slaughtering humans because they are a "taint upon the Greater Good" Should we add this to the website, or wait for more detailed information from the actual "Greater Good" Psychic Awakening book?--Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I've read that one as well, they seem to be the Tau from the fourth sphere of expansion, aka the xenocidal ones. I believe there's already a mention of them on the Tau page, so we can just add it to that. There's always the chance like the Harlequins in the first Psychic Awakening book that this won't be expanded upon beyond this short story. -- Triacom (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Lemmings here. Would adding a pepe page be relevant enough for the wiki, or is it both too controversial/not relevant enough to be considered worthy of adding?--Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

While /pol/ is slightly relevant to the wiki, I can't see how pepe would be. By this point it's become political in nature and I can't recall anyone in the past year who's used outside of politics, or a parody of politics. -- Triacom (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Slightly more casual visit. One: KROOT HAVE STRATAGEMS FOR PA! Two: Can I add them? Pls? Pretty Pls? I has source. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Go for it, we started adding the Bonereapers stuff when the book was uploaded to Youtube, so long as we have the actual physical source to look at I don't see why not, I only have an issue when people start doing it without having the book to read through in some form (and as far as I'm concerned, video counts). -- Triacom (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Lemmings here. I have always been a big fan of how certain aspects of the Taros Campaign was written (logistical stuff, etc). Would it be ok to start adding certain battles? I would be happy to develop the model for how pages would be written, and have a few others I'd love to add. (Dal'yth Campaign pre 8th edition, Battle of Terra when I have enough material to reference, Imperial Armor campaigns, etc.) --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Go right ahead, just be careful of the images you upload. I know Taros Campaign has a lot of really cool bits, and there shouldn't be a problem so long as we're describing what's going on rather than posting the images for 80-90% of each battle. Fair warning though, I'll probably add in some of the dumber parts of that campaign, like the Assassin who didn't bring extra ammo (or forgot his gun) and somehow couldn't kill a crawling Ethereal, the Imperium doing nothing for weeks after the Ethereal's death, the Imperium not knowing how to guard supply lines and Titans, the Titan who gets killed because the writer forgot that it's supposed to have void shields, and how the Collegia Titanica abandons them and runs away because a single Titan went down, instead of trying to recover it or literally doing anything else. I'll be double checking the books (since there's two editions of it) before adding anything myself just to make sure I'm remembering that right, though I don't recall them being vastly different, and I can definitely see why you'd want to flesh out the Campaign as a whole, so go for it. The book can be great in parts, but it really falls flat as a whole in my opinion. -- Triacom (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Sure, cool by me. Perhaps it could be set up under the actual description of the battle, forces, troops, etc, and we could add a derp section.--Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I have finally gotten around to writing the page. Feel free to add corrections or fix stuff as needed --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

On the T'au tactics page, I'm just a little confused. Should we not comment on the usefulness of certain stratagems? For example, Repulsor Impact field? Oh, second thing; I noticed someone added a page called 1d4chan: Autoconfirmed Users. Should we keep this page, or delete it? --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Commenting on the usefulness of stratagems is a good idea so long as you explain how and where it's useful, so just make sure to expand on it. As for that page, there's no such thing as a user that has no say in what happens on the wiki. Anyone can edit, upload, talk about or move anything, so the page itself is just wrong and can be removed. -- Triacom (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

What the heck is going on on the /pol/ page? Do we really want to make that page politically relevant like that? Hussar Zweiss is throwing Trump and conservative jokes on there left and right. I particularly take issue with the caption "Conservatism in a nutshell" under the hitler with the bat and helmet. I understand that /pol/ is mostly those of conservative bent, but do we really want to make ourselves a target of a raid or God forbid a segment of Louder with Crowder? I feel we're taking a step in the wrong direction with some of these edits. Please get back to me ASAP, I feel we should discuss this in more detail. -- 22:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

While I made fun of it on the talk page, I will agree that's going too far. It's going well beyond just a few cheap jokes and more into Hussar's personal issues. That being said I'm almost tempted to help him because being the target of Louder with Crowder would be so fucking funny, we'd have to take bets on how long it would be before he goes full mask-off and says the Imperium of Man is the ideal form of government. -- Triacom (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Two things: One, please check out the List of 40k cheese page discussion, and two, do you have any familiarity with the Vigilus Campaign, or sources about it? --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 07:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Replied to the first, and yes to the second, what would you like to know? -- Triacom (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to rewrite it at some point to reflect a more completed feel to it, like the Taros Campaign page. Is the WH40K wiki a good one, or should I find some books online? --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd recommend getting the actual books, there's a number of events in there that are presented out of order and that the 40k wiki isn't going to fully cover. -- Triacom (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I had an idea for doing expanded tactics for how to play factions in Dawn of War. I was thinking extensive analysis of units, buildings, etc. Would this be something that contributes positively to the wiki, or does the Dawn of War page cover this better?--Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

There's already talk of doing tactics for Total War: Warhammer so I don't see why anyone would object to Dawn of War tactics. Go right ahead. -- Triacom (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
That's neat! So should we create a category or template, like Video Game Tactics or something? That way we could include both. Further, should we distinguish between expansions, like Vanilla, Dark Crusade, Etc? --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I feel like that's jumping the gun a bit, I feel like making the pages should come before any templates, and I'm also not too sure that each race would need its own page since their recommended use for most units is pretty short. Distinguishing between editions would be good, especially since certain games have massive changes like the artillery nerf. -- Triacom (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Triacom, remember when we were getting onto Nubnuber yesterday? Today I followed through on my promise, and Saarlacfunkle pointed out that I could be considered more disruptive than Nubnuber is being in order to prove a point. In retrospect I feel I am being a little zealous, but I trust your input and was wondering if you could drop your opinion on the subject? --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I've got nothing against watching Nubnuber, but I think Saarlacfunkle has a point since lately they've just been fleshing out D&D entries. I think it's fair to give those a pass, and holding everything back just because it's from Nubnuber does come off as disruptive. -- Triacom (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Sounds fair --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Triacom, Nubnuber seems to be at it again. Just a heads up. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. -- Triacom (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah you should probably ask Root to ban Nubnuber outright, given that he uploads literal child porn. —- HussarZwei (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Guys, I have looked at the images that you have been complaining about and they are clearly not child porn. I have not seen a single image that looks like child porn to me.--2600:1010:B11D:BD28:1144:F8E8:C75A:C3E 22:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Those images are part of a set, the rest are. -- Triacom (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Show me where the rest of the images are and I will judge which ones are acceptable and which ones are not.--2600:1010:B11D:BD28:1144:F8E8:C75A:C3E 22:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Most of the set was moved off site after people voted against it, you can find the images in a link on the Lofn page and loli Daemonette page, here's the Lofn one,and I do not recommend clicking the link if you live in Canada or the UK and you're around other people. -- Triacom (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I checked the lofn and loli d pages and so far I have only found one image that makes me uncomfortable. All of the deleted loli d images were definitely too sexual. Of the three lofn images that were in the removed section, there was only one image that was definitely too sexual, One I was not sure about but probably was worth removing in anyway, and one that looked ok to me.--2600:1010:B11D:BD28:1144:F8E8:C75A:C3E 22:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
There are some more pages with loli pictures on them. I will pass my judgement on them later.--2600:1010:B11D:BD28:1144:F8E8:C75A:C3E 23:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Don't forget to check the links at the bottom of the pages, some of them have NSFW links for images that used to be hosted. -- Triacom (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Space Sharks origins[edit]

The novels by Robbie McNiven "Outer Dark" and "Red Thite" hint at the Sharks being descendants of the Terran legionaires that Corax Exiled for their slavery practices, and who became the "Ashen Claws" blackshield force during the Heresy. I think this is in the Space Sharks page.One Snek (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Those same novels almost explicitly state their gene-seed is chimeric, they were the ones I was referencing and being chimeric doesn't make them true Raven Guard successors, it only makes them one part Raven Guard. -- Triacom (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

You were right. I went to check the Horus Heresy Black books, and it seems like the Ashen Claws (who might be where the sharks come from) were heavily involved in the Purge of the Nostramo sector. The chances of them having at least partial Night Lords geneseed is extremely high.One Snek (talk)

Random Comments[edit]

I don’t really know where to put this but I just wanted to say thanks for helping me with editing and going over everything. Overall just thank you for putting up with me. — GreySeerCriak (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

No problem, and I know I can be an asshole sometimes so I'll just apologize for that in advance. -- Triacom (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Armaggedon edit[edit]

Why is the Armaggeddon = Ullanor "reveal" shitty writing? It seems like you're deleting it for no other reason than bias. Does the reveal shits on the ork lore or something? One Snek (talk)

Yes. For starters the retcon asks us to believe that when the Emperor and half the Primarchs were on Ullanor they somehow did not notice the biggest and strongest Ork lord of all time, or any of his forces. The retcon asks us to believe that the Imperium didn't cleanse the planet of Ork influence (both in its population and its xenos tech), that the Imperium completely abandoned and ignored it after it required half the Primarchs to subdue, and it was only teleported away because the AdMech wanted to preserve the "advanced Ork technology" despite how Armageddon's purpose renders that impossible, since this would mean literally all of their factories making Imperial gear are actually making Ork tech. As for how it shits on the Orks, the series completely changes who they are as a species (I could write an entire page on how the series shits on them, starting with the "majestic Ork diplomat"), and makes it so that the Orks aren't drawn to the biggest and best fights, they're just trying to go back to their home planet (despite not having one by design). Furthermore, everything that happens in the series is explicitly stated to be impossible in the Ork codex, since when a Clan was starting to act like the Orks in the series, Da Big Party took place, since the Orks are hard-wired to not act like how they act in that series and instinctively want to kill any Warboss who acts that un-Orky, by which I mean hiding from the fights and acting like a Dark Eldar. -- Triacom (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I hate women.[edit]

Stop ruining the pages, dude.

Sorry you hate women, but life goes on with them, sorry to be the one to break it to you. -- Triacom (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

- I'm not hating on women, but what you are doing is Islamophobic!

How so? Also if you don't hate women, why are you trying to delete every mention of them? -- Triacom (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


I'm not sure what you think is missing in the following list:

Faction rules and abilities: Battletome Beasts Of Chaos
Latest Matched play points: Beasts Of Chaos Errata(link)
Core rules: here(link)
Matched play rules, battleplans and expansions: Generals Handbook 2019 + Core Book + Malign Sorcery Book. Alternatively, everything is collected in the AOS Gaming book.
Supplement all the above with any Errata and Designers' Commentary from the FAQs(link).

Have I missed a book? Or did you specifically want all the detail that was here before - for example "Games taking place in a Realm need the Realm of Battle rules from the Core Book" - Because if so, that belongs more on the Age of Sigmar/Tactics page. A74xhx (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll admit I seemed to have screwed up, I only looked at the differences between editions, which made me think that the rulebooks had all been removed and replaced with just the errata. My bad, I'll undo my revision. -- Triacom (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


The edit history is all under the vandalized name. The pages holding the real names have to be deleted before they can be moved back.--Namefag (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I see, then instead of restoring the page under the vandalized name, we should create a new page to move it to (which will carry the edit history) that will be found in the search bar while we're waiting for the old pages to be deleted, which could take years. That way they're still easily findable, and when the old pages are removed we can easily recreate them properly. -- Triacom (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

looking for contributors for my new homebrew[edit]

hey, savagereaper here. do you want to help me with my new rpg setting hr giger's dark world its based on a /v/ called dark seed if you are interested in GETTING SHIT DONE talk to me on my user talk page Savagereaper (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

well look, its me again the guy who wont shut up about his homebrews well look again because its me again!

im looking for people to help me on a new homebrew called warhammer 40,000 for pokemon tabletop united, basically i had a thought about pokemon in the universe of warhammer 40k and wanted to make it a thing for pokemon tabletop united. i need people who couid do the game design, fluff writing, or editing if you are interested inquire on my user talk page. Savagereaper (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


The /pol/acks are at it again -- .HussarZwei (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The person above is trying to turn all the political pages into anti-everything-everything-they-disagree-with propaganda.
Here's one of the /pol/ack chuds now. -- HussarZwei (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I have never even been to /pol/ and I never will because I hate the ideas that they stand for MORE than you do.
I spend a lot of time on the recent changes page and most of the wiki is on my watchlist. I get emails whenever those pages are changed and can go back in HussarZwei's changelog whenever I want. Because of that, I can safely say you're full of shit anon. Look in the mirror before accusing other people of doing what you're doing. -- Triacom (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Show me the evidence because I don't know what you're talking about. Also I think you might be confusing me with a different anon. I was one of two people fighting with HussarZwei.
You're fighting with HussarZwei while doing exactly what you claim they're doing. That's why I said you should look in the mirror. -- Triacom (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Then why can't you explain what it is you think that I am doing.
And besides that, "Look in the mirror" is a very dumb argument to use because the vast majority of people are not capable of looking in the mirror. Make an actual argument backed up with evidence instead of demanding your opponent defeat themselves.
I think you're confused. You said to show you the evidence of what you're doing and now you're claiming you asked for me to explain your own argument back to you. I doubt you even know what I'm arguing since you're just admitting here you're not capable of looking in the mirror. -- Triacom (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Telling your opponent to look in the mirror is not the same thing as showing evidence. It's telling your opponent to find the evidence themselves. You are like a swordless man who goes around thinking that they can defeat swordsmen by asking them to stab themselves.
I thought you'd have enough self-reflection to realize that you're bitching on Root's talk page that HussarZwei is changing pages based on their beliefs and advocating that they should be changed based on your beliefs instead, but clearly I was wrong. You're a hypocrite. -- Triacom (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. That is better.

Space Marines[edit]

RE: Quote from the Scythes of the Emperor Chapter Master on the Space Marine page was directly from the Belisarius Cawl book.

He was talking to Felix (Guilliman's Primaris Tetrach), and Felix said "Nothing daunts me, nothing can."

Thracian also quoted the Emperor's "and they shall know no fear" speech immediately before that.

It was a quote from a Space Marine about the Space Marines, as a direct statement about the Emperor's speech. It was taken fully in context, and was (in context) focused on Tyranids and Necrons (the antagonists of the book).

Full quote:

Felix’s eyes narrowed at the warning. ‘I live to serve, I do not care for legacies. I have fought daemons and fallen primarchs at the Lord Guilliman’s side,’ said Felix. The passing planet relinquished the command deck to lumen light. ‘Nothing daunts me. Nothing can.’ Thracian smiled again ruefully, the sort of expression an uncle gives an overly confident nephew. He looked down, and when he looked up again, he was suffused with a Chapter Master’s authority, and when he spoke his voice rang. Even Felix, who had stood at the right hand of Roboute Guilliman himself, felt the hairs on his neck prickle. ‘They shall be my finest warriors,’ Thracian quoted the Emperor, ‘these men who give of themselves to me. Like clay I shall mould them, and in the furnace of war forge them. They will be of iron will and steely muscle. In great armour shall I clad them and with the mightiest guns will they be armed. They will be untouched by plague or disease, no sickness will blight them.’ His voice rose. ‘They will have tactics, strategies and machines so that no foe can best them in battle. They are my bulwark against the Terror. They are the Defenders of Humanity. They are my Space Marines and they shall know no fear.’ When he finished the quote, all were silent. Thracian’s voice dropped. ‘Fine words, but I know they are not true. I know there are beings a Space Marine cannot best. I am not ashamed to say to you that I have known fear.’

>It was taken fully in context, and was (in context) focused on Tyranids and Necrons (the antagonists of the book).
>Linking other unrelated factions like Tau
Pick one. -- 10:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
You misunderstand me Rentar, I didn't say you used that out of context, I said you misunderstood the point of them "knowing no fear". Of course they know what fear is, the point is that they never let it control them, and they never succumb to it. That was the case all the way back in 2nd edition when we had this quote: "Only a madman knows no fear. A warrior knows what fear is, he feels it in his stomach, he understands fear better than any other mortal can. What makes us strong is that we have conquered fear, overcome it not once but many times, over and over again, until the process has become instinctive. but no matter how many battles you fight and how many victories you win, your fear will never completely leave you. Learn to live with that fear. Learn to master your fear. But never forget that there are things in this universe that even you cannot face and live, abominations so terrible that their very appearance will sear the flesh from your face and shrivel your eyes. Such things cannot be fought, and to confront them would be nothing but a futile waste of life. In those situations remember your vows to serve the Emperor, and remember also that you serve him best alive and not sacrificed upon the altar of vain glory." That was from Petronius Caligarus, when he wrote the Memorum Libris. More recently we have this quote from Captain Lysander in the novel Malodrax: "My kind were created to feel no fear, but we understand it. We were all once men who felt fear as does anyone else, and we must know it because it is a weapon we wield." So yes they know what fear is and even feel it, but that isn't the point. What was also wrong is you claimed the enemies Space Marines couldn't beat were enemies that they've beaten in the past. -- Triacom (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Reddit Page[edit]

Can you help me expand the Reddit page? You seem to know more about Reddit than I do.HussarZwei (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure we really need a Reddit page. Sure they have /the/ topics on them but there's not a lot to say, much like most places such as Bell of Lost Souls or Spikey Bits. Maybe it would be better to make an all-encompassing page that catalogues those sites rather than a dozen small articles? -- Triacom (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I wanna chime in on this, I completely agree with ya Tria and my encounters with Zwei thus far make me suspicious of his motives. Piroko (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


Wikipedia said about the Space Wolves that they had this many. Death Korps of Krieg Soldier (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

That's nice, where are they getting that from? Without a source for it we cannot know if it's true or false. For the record I did check as well, they don't have a source listed. -- Triacom (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
You realise that wikipedia is just like 1d4chan and anyone can edit? and considering that it's such a HUGE site combined with the fact they're generally less interested in warhammer than we are, one rogue anon can put misleading/mistaken information on a less-than-notable page and go unchecked for a very, very long time. Besides, any college student will tell you NEVER to use wikipedia as a reference for that very reason. You have to check the source, and so far we have no source. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s a secondary source. You are correct, can’t trust it if it doesn’t list a source. Death Korps of Krieg Soldier (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

"wikipedia is just like 1d4chan and anyone can edit" ... If they subscribe to the right politics and/or the subject is banal and irrelevant. Don't compare us to them.--Piroko (talk) 03:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

In addition, thanks for letting me know the new 40k logo was edition specific, learned something new today 🙏 Death Korps of Krieg Soldier (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem. -- Triacom (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The Other Circle and Leakycheese[edit]

Any thoughts on the outer circle and leakycheese? -- HussarZwei (talk) 07:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I bring this up because I'm wondering whether or not they should be added to the Recommended Web Channels page, that and I like the Outer Circle. -- HussarZwei (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Well first I should tell you that it would be a good idea to go to Root's page to defend yourself, since you keep putting up the kinds of edits that several users, including myself, have asked you to stop. The wiki is not your own personal soapbox, keep your own beliefs to your userpage. If you're finally going to tone it down, then we can talk about the two you mention, so here's my thoughts on them: I haven't seen much of the Outer Circle, he's a bit of a rambler and I'd occasionally put on some of his videos, right up until he went out of his way to state that he likes Arch, and host him in a little podcast on his channel in spite of what that racist piece of shit's said or done (let alone the pedophiles that he's made mods on his discord). I don't have a very high opinion of him as of right now because of that, but my personal feelings aside he is still a content creator with a relatively large audience and a lot of videos, so you could probably add an entry anyway. As for Leakycheese, he'd make a fine addition, if there's something wrong with his unboxing videos or video tips then I haven't seen them. -- Triacom (talk) 07:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth I'd also like to point out that Outer Circle also douses his videos with ads and then complains that it's Youtube's fault because he says they do it automatically and he has no control over it. He's full of shit, here's how it actually works, he has full control over where and when the ads appear. -- Triacom (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Relictors source[edit]

You also realise a 7e dataslate for Be'lakor doesn't exist? It was released in December 2013, about six months before the release of 7th edition. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 07:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

So 6e then, why are we removing it instead of correcting it? -- Triacom (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
My mistake, I didn't see that it was listed twice. -- Triacom (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Fog of edit war[edit]

I'm gonna be honest, I thought you were the K.I.S.S. guy in the "Games that can be used to troll /tg/" edit war up until now lol. --BobbyBobberson (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I was serious when I said I hadn't been messing with the page, but at least you believe me now. -- Triacom (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, you can't blame me. You did answer his "well?", and he disappeared while we discussed the edit. Looks like the edit war continues, I guess... --BobbyBobberson (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
That's because I wanted the edit to be productive in a way that ended your editwar, and it seems like that anon has finally come around. -- Triacom (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, it didn't work. Good try though. --BobbyBobberson (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

We need a discord[edit]

1D4chan needs an operators and contributors discord. This is ridiculous that we can't get anyone around to respond with powers to intercede. Piroko (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, both AssistantWikifag and Root are absent far too often. The alternative would be to leave 1d4chan behind for a new wiki where the mods aren't asleep 6 days of the week. -- Triacom (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, I guess step one is asking Root to name some more mods, and if he's not willing to then next steps have to be examined. Piroko (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Alternatively, if possible, limited locking/banning powers for long-term editors. They can be challenged by request to Root, and say three fails on part of the "power user" loses you the status. - 19:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd nominate Triacom as one of the first major mods, he's reliable enough and fair enough in my book. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I have created a Discord with the intent of it being for the editors to meet in an environment that is slightly easier than using wikimedia usertalk pages all the time. I am sharing the link to it with you if you are interested. Forgive me if neither I nor Piroko add you quickly; I am somewhat inconsistent and I don't know if his roles allow him to give people roles, so sorry if it takes long to get you into the server. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, I use different usernames for each site I'm on but I'll try to join tonight. I'll post on your talk page when I try to get in. -- Triacom (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I joined under the name Cleanup Crew#0713, but for some reason I keep getting an error message where it says the messages refuse to load. -- Triacom (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Actually nevermind, that only happened until I clicked one of the side tabs. Anyway, I'm in now, just need to be given permission to see the other tabs. -- Triacom (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Web Video “Discussion”[edit]

Should we delete “that Idiot” section on the Web User talk page? Cause at this point it’s devolved into just a shouting fest. GreySeerCriak (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm very much against deleting what was said on discussion pages, but once it's quieted down we could rename it and collapse it like what happened on the Transformers talk page. -- Triacom (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Child Porn[edit]

Cartoon loli is not considered Child Porn under the laws of the United States.--Nubnuber (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

First of all that's not justification for adding it. Secondly give some to an officer and see what happens. -- Triacom (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes it is.--Nubnuber (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Something being legal in one country isn't grounds for adding it to a wiki, it would be like going to a country that still allows underage marriages then posting the honeymoon everywhere you could online. Furthermore those images were agreed to be removed years ago, and finally: why would we want to attract the audience that image appeals to? -- Triacom (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
It being legal in the United States, where 1d4chan is hosted, is.
Certain states allow you to marry and screw 16 year olds, does that mean you can and should upload that everywhere? -- Triacom (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The creation and dissemination of photographic erotica of individuals under the age of 18 is illegal in all 50 states. The creation and dissemination of cartoon loli porn is Legal in all 50 states.--Nubnuber (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Yet screwing a teen isn't illegal in all 50 states, and there's countries that host sites you could post that in, does it mean you should? No, it doesn't. Also try giving some explicit loli to an officer and see what happens. -- Triacom (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
If a police officer arrested me for possession of child pornography over cartoon lolis, the case would be thrown out of court because underage cartoons are not illegal, and the case law shows that.--Nubnuber (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Cool, so when are you going to try it? -- Triacom (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not talking about whether you *should* do something, or whether something is moral or ethical, or about fucking actual children. I'm talking about whether it's legal to post cartoon loli porn on the internet on a wiki hosted in the US. And my answer is: Yes, it is legal.--Nubnuber (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
And I'm talking about whether we should do that, because my point is that being able to do something isn't reason for doing it. That's why I asked you before: why are you trying to attract the kind of person that content appeals to? Saying there's no reason to keep them out doesn't explain why you specifically want to invite them in. That's why I asked you why you are doing it. -- Triacom (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The fact it's legal is irrelevant (though it'd obviously be relevant if it was illegal). It can still be legal and disliked by 99.9% of /tg/, like scat or gore for example. Plus a lot of 1d4's viewers are likely not American, which is relevant because most European and Commonwealth countries ban lolis, the only reason America doesn't is because they have a retarded concept of free speech in regards to it. -- 22:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Can you please link me to the discussion where that agreement was made?--Nubnuber (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Sure, here's one of them, and after the pics were starting to be removed everyone helped out in getting rid of them. My mistake one it being years though, it was only a year and a half. -- Triacom (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Like much of /tg/ and this wiki by extension, the agreement was made by the fact no one bothered to contest the removal and accepted it. -- 22:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, that undo edit to your talk page was made in error. I thought you had simply deleted my comment instead of moving it to the bottom--Nubnuber (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Posted this on Root's talk page but I'll also put it here, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that. -- Triacom (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Reddit Page (again)[edit]

You strike me as someone more knowledgeable on the history of /tg/ than I ever could. With that in mind, maybe you have some knowledge on /tg/'s relationship with Reddit. -- HussarZwei (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there isn't one, the two avoid the other like siblings who hate each other. Occasionally you'll get somebody who posts a link from one site to the other, and this will be followed by complaining about the other site. -- Triacom (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
So historical rivals like Japan and China? -- HussarZwei (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Zwei, you strike me as someone who spends a lot more time editing pages about issues than about games. What do you actually, y'know, play? Like, me, I'm all over Alternity, Starfinder, and increasingly the Star Wars minis. You don't seem to actually be passionate about maintaining any content other than the tangential issue content that many of us would prefer to see gone. Go to RationalWiki, they're into that shit. --Piroko (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's entirely fair. He does some other stuff. Like, lore guys will typically handle pages, and gameplay guys will do the tactica. I think it's a matter of finding one's niche in the wiki. I started by updating Marine traditions, grammar fixing, and have gradually expanded into T'au/Eldar page updating and keeping an eye out for misinformation about rules and such, even adding commentary or describing use of weapons etc. Somethimes you just need to be around for a bit to find your place. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
A less charitable interpretation is that he maintains a veneer of plausible deniability by touching other things from time to time. --Piroko (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
If I recall correctly you started out somewhat rocky yes? Look, I believe in giving folks another chance, though that could also be called being gullible. Let's just keep an eye on Zwei, try to steer him in the right direction. But make sure to say I told you so if he mucks something up major --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree, so long as somebody isn't actively making themselves a pain in the ass I have no beef with them. Doesn't mean you need to forget what they did of course. -- Triacom (talk) 07:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Dark Bretheren Rite of War[edit]

Fam, I don't know why you removed my edits on the Dark Bretheren RoW. To be honest. I am biased against the rite, and always do my best to try and raise awareness on how poorly it is written. That being said, I do think I raise several points that are not deserving of being so carelessly dismissed.

The Dark Bretheren is NOT one of the strongest rites in the game by any stretch of the word. The restrictions are crippling: all 3HQ taken unless a special character is used, and HS is reduced to a single slot. The Preferred Enemy bonus may not be shit, but is definitively mediocre. Chaplains and Diablolists want to be in melee, they'll never be able make the most out of said bonus. But most importantly: Demons are the heart of the Dark Bretheren. It's what used to make it a flavourful and esoteric RoW, and what makes it now harder to justify than ever. It's already unfair to see how neglected the XVIIth legion is in mainstream 40k by GeeDubs, and it's painful to see FW leaving it out in the cold in Heresy as well.

Maybe it's not right to overstate the gravity of the situation like I did (though I wonder what could be more unbearable than having a third of the legion rules be this outdated), but if there is anything that should be avoided, it's downplaying the issues with the rules by claiming that "it's not that bad" either.

It definitely is one of the strongest Rites, even if you completely ignore the allied Daemons you could try to get. I'm not going to argue that the Daemon portion isn't poorly written, it definitely is, however the rest of the Rite is extremely solid, and I'm going to break down how. The three characters you need to include are also the three characters you should be including anyway, especially since they can all get Burning Lore. The Instant Death on Psykers is great because it lets you dominate the Psychic Phase, and you can also force this on enemy units like Psychic Knights Errant who decide not to use their Psychic Powers for fear of ID by using Psyke-out Grenades, if you really wanted to. As for the real winner of the Rite, Preferred Enemy, I already posted this on the page itself but I'll break it down here: A Praetor in a Dark Brethren Rite of War in a Dark Channelling squad with Zealot gets the benefit of both Zealot and Preferred Enemy, and he in turn gives PE to the Squad. The result is a squad that, without including the Praetor's attacks, deals as much damage on the charge as an enemy Assault Squad with their own Praetor (so the squad's actual value is about 100+ points more than what it costs to field them). If you get the +1 Strength result instead and put your mandatory Chaplain in the unit then you go way past this, and your Assault Squad is now outperforming an enemy unit worth well over a hundred points more (they compare very favourably to the more melee focused Legions at that point). If you're curious about the loadout and average wounds, a basic charging Assault Squad with 2 axes, a fist and Zealot + Preferred Enemy deals a little over 8.5 wounds to MEQ's (5.5 of these are AP2) compared to the 5 wounds the same Assault Squad does without these buffs (of which only 3.25 are AP2). That's a big bonus, in fact it's greater than what the World Eaters with Rage can do on the charge (they deal 7.02 wounds compared to the Word Bearers 8.5) before the World Eaters use either characters or a Rite of War anyway (and a +1 Strength squad with a Dark Brethren Chaplain will still outperform a World Eaters Squad who get Hatred). After that, the odds are your enemy fails their test to stay and then you might get a Sweeping Advance re-roll thanks to Cut Them Down to make sure you wipe them. Even if you fail to break them, Preferred Enemy still gives a massive boost to your damage when your Zealot re-roll is gone. To go into the character side of things, a souped up Praetor (Digital Weapons, Paragon Blade and other Specialist Weapon) with these bonuses deals out 4.84 AP2 wounds on the charge (so he and his squad of 10 can wipe out a squad of Cataphractii on the charge), as opposed to 3.111 AP2 wounds without these buffs. Now for the final cherry on top, unlike a basic Diabolist, this version of Preferred Enemy works on shooting attacks, meaning you can give the Praetor and Chaplain their own Assault Squads, keep the Diabolist cheap, and put him in a Plasma Support Squad. Even a squad of 5 (rapid firing) goes from doing 5.55 wounds to 7.56 wounds with the Diabolist, a 36% boost to their damage, and in fact this is a bigger boost than if the unit had a Master of Signals giving them +1 BS, and the Diabolist makes them virtually immune to Get's Hot. Should the Diabolist have a Plasma Pistol, take Burning Lore, put it into Biomancy and use Smite that shooting damage goes up to 10.16 wounds, which is enough to completely eat a Cataphractii Terminator Squad. So much for him needing to be in melee to make the most of his buffs right?
In short: Dark Brethren gives a bigger boost to your shooting than dedicated support characters, it combines with Dark Channelling to make your Assault units deadlier on the charge than dedicated Assault Legions, and even if they choose characters that do temporarily buff their units (like their own Chaplains) you're the only one who'll keep getting re-rolls after the first round. This is on top of letting you control the Psychic Phase too. This is why I said it was one of the Strongest Rites, because very few Rites in the game offer this much of a bonus, most of them just change which units you'll be using or come at a heavier premium, and I don't consider that to be the case for Dark Brethren since the Heavy Support choice limitation is minor, the allies limitation is barely a factor and the three characters you need should be the three you already want to bring. -- Triacom (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


I was looking at various pages and noted that the Noh page (a page featuring a construct whose appearance is that of a preteen) with one piece of NSFW art. I'm asking if it should be removed since the character appears to be a construct but is also a preteen or if it can stay up. I don't want to see a massive edit war break out (again) with certain unnamed individuals. I'll leave it to you to remove or keep it since you're already active on these removals and such. --Konrad13 (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

You're right, I'd forgotten about that page, thanks for pointing it out. -- Triacom (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
No problem, and thanks for the clean up on the page. --Konrad13 (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Tyranid Page and Derpysaurus[edit]

So Derpysaurus just made 5 edits on Tyranid that amount to bitching and moaning about the Tau. I don't care if they don't like a faction I happen to like, but does this not come off as a bit... if not off-colour then irrelevant to the point being discussed? --Panthera Awesome (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You are right, it starts getting off-topic at a point and becomes a lot less relevant at the end, so I've cut it down. -- Triacom (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you kindly. Looks like the issue is resolved for now. --Panthera Awesome (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

About the current Araby anon[edit]

I think we need to stop engaging him at this point, given he's reverted to add hominens and the usual troll tactic of 'you're offended by what I say, so I'm therefore right'. At least in my case I'm bowing out, I'm too tired to deal with this shit. --2001:8000:1005:FA01:A9DD:2ECC:DFEB:8C7B 21:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll continue for a little bit more since they're trying to cite sources that don't exist, and I'd like to see how long they can continue under false claims. -- Triacom (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Good luck, they'll probably do the usual tactic of purposely misreading your comments to claim you said something you didn't. --2001:8000:1005:FA01:A9DD:2ECC:DFEB:8C7B 21:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm fine with pointing that out, I had to do that over a dozen times on the Imperial Guard page where I eventually told an anon "Keep the argument to what I've said, not what you're imagining I said" and they replied with "That's not how it works." You can do a ctrl + F search on those on that page if you want (it's literally what they wrote), and while everyone's free to agree or disagree with what I said, any reasonable person should be able to realize that's bullshit. -- Triacom (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Question on edits, regarding the Blood Ravens.[edit]

I tried to explain my position but the other guy just don't seem to care.

If you can't even mention that there is another valid theory, then it will be stuck in an endless cycle of "TS is the most popular theory so it's the only theory people gets to know about, which makes it the most popular theory".If people don't like how it was written that i'd thought they just change what i wrote, not undoing everything. You talked something about how you saw mentioning TS lack of presence there was "obfuscation"; i only ment to present it as one of the arguments for the WB as they had a known presences there, and would have loved to hear ideas on how to present it less "obfuscating". But none else seem to comment on the matter, does that mean that Blood Raven section can never be expanded in a meaningful way so long that guy doesn't approve?

So what now? What am i allowed to do to and not be banned? -- 17:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the page, your theory leaves a lot out and seems deliberately deceptive based om what it excludes, for example, based on location I could also claim that the Blood Ravens are Ultramarines successors. The section can be expanded, you just need something less flimsy than an area multiple Legions fought in/visited and a phrase said by more than one person. -- Triacom (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Just an FYI...[edit]

I'd be interested in your feedback to How to win an edit war. I hope you don't mind the footnote. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind the footnote at all, and it seems like a pretty decent page, with a few bits that could be added. For example, I don't see anything in there that recommends going to the discussion page, which is where most edit wars get resolved, and if users don't go to the discussion page the editwars tend to go on a lot longer. I'm not sure why the page as a whole is necessary, even with the added blurb on there, but I don't have any real problem with it. If people want it, they can have fun with it. -- Triacom (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)