Whoever did this article - Thank you. You are awesome and you deliver. Large Blunt Object: I think I can take credit for a lot of this page (having entirely rewritten the body text and added about a quarter of the tropes), but like everything else here, it's mostly the Wiki Magic. Also - Thank you for greatly brightening up my day. :D Mr Onimusha: I second the congratulations, I stumbled upon this article yesterday and, as an avid player, I LOVES it. The only thing missing is some kind of explanation about why the Squats are Personae Non Grata Large Blunt Object: 11/05/08. Sixty-five new tropes in one edit. TROPES FOR THE TROPE GOD, WICKS FOR THE WICK THRONE! ungulateman: HARRIERS FOR THE CUP!
Fast Eddie: Too many long quotes.
Gabe: Well, isn't the enemy of your enemy, like, your friend? Or whatever? Can't they team up?
Tycho: Not exactly. In this setting, the enemy of your enemy is still a floating, greasy, armored brain.
Gabe: Well, what about his enemy? Maybe you could be friends with him.
Tycho: No, because that guy is a mechanical horror in an undying battle shell. He sails from world to world in a flying tomb, serving gods who eat hope.
An example is the best way to explain it. There's a god of hope, and the god of freaking hope is evil.Large Blunt Object: Would just the PA one be acceptable? Fast Eddie: Actually, that's the one that is the issue. I'm not just working from some sort of quote-hating place. Really. The principle is that the further down the page you push the opening of the article text, the better your chances are of losing the reader. The PA quote has the additional issue of not making any sense until after you know about Warhammer 4k, and we have to assume the reader came to the page about Warhammer 4k, not Penny Arcade. Anyway... the quote is not a good lead. Might make a good side-quote. Large Blunt Object: Eh... I thought that quote was particularly effective, especially as a sort of third-party description that helps people who know nothing about 40k. But since I haven't fitted into that camp since I was about twelve I'm probably not the best person to judge. Dialogue tends to look terrible in sidequotes though, doesn't it? Fast Eddie: Didn't look great. I tried working it into the text a bit. Large Blunt Object: Bleh, really doesn't do it for me. Body quotes are absolutely awful, tempted to just pull it entirely. Honestly, I don't agree with the hate for long initial quotes, especially on series pages rather than trope pages; it takes no effort for the reader to skip a quote, and they generally add a nice alternate summary and counterpoint to the block of text. I'd expect a casual reader to be put off more by seeing nothing but a wall of half-blue description than a good leading quote that gives a flavour of the article. Eh. You're the boss. Fast Eddie: Not the boss of anything. It strikes me as a poor lead. It should at least be, as you say, easily skippable (by following formatting cues) if it is at the top. I do confess that I'm reacting to the trend of people just dumping tons of stuff at the top of an article just because they think the quote it cute. It seems disrespectful of the article, that someone think that all this stuff written elsewhere is more important than what we had to say on the subject. Large Blunt Object: Well, you are an admin, and I know better than to try to get into an Edit War with one. :P If it were anyone else, I'd probably be defending this to the death. With the formatting it had before, the quote was distinct and easily skippable. I feel putting a quote at the head of the page is simply a good page format, rather than in any way making the quote seem more important; having a quote in the page at all shows that the opinion quoted matters. If anything, the "as Penny Arcade explains it" line is more of a "these people's opinions matter" than just a quote at the top, where people expect it to be. And even without that, sidequotes are messy and ugly and body quotes even worse. Ultimately, I'm not going to flat-out defy the wiki equivalent of Word of God, but I've probably worked more on this page than any other troper and think with the balance between snarky quote and eager infodump, it was getting close to perfection. Without the quote, there's nothing to counter the big scary wall of text.
Large Blunt Object: I am not sure whether to be worried or amused that people searching for 40k porn get linked here◊.
Gentlemens Dame 883: Anyone want to offer some reasons under Canon Sue for why the G Ks count? Gloating Swine: Most likely for the fact that even among Space Marines they're all Special And Different, have all the shiniest gear, psykers free of chaos taint, and all that. Don't play 40k TT, so I don't know whether they're considered unduly beardy (which would be the tabletop equivalent of Suedom. Large Blunt Object: Actually, we had a discussion about this on GITP recently. Conclusion was, they're not just Sues, they're meta-Sues. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4322611&postcount=122) Gentlemens Dame 883: Oh. That makes sense, I thing. Fascinating thread. But what's this "unduly beardy" thing? Dr Dedman: Poorly balanced for points if you don't restrain yourself. GW is not known for doing a lot of work on balance. Large Blunt Object: "Beardy" and "cheesy" are both slang for using rules loopholes/overpowered units excessively to gain an advantage, accusations often levelled at tournament players or powergamers. Also, the "not known for doing a lot of work on balance" is, well, bullshit, particularly in this case. Individually, Grey Knights may be mary sue powerful, but they're so costly excessively GK-heavy Witch Hunters armies rarely win. They need to be used as part of a more balanced army. Gloating Swine: Beardy doesn't really mean poor points balance, it's like minmaxing in an RPG, tweaking your force for a completely optimal tabletop performance, despite the fact that it's not particularly true to the setting. I hear 5th Edition is meant to trim some of the more prevalent beards. (before the term comes up, "true to the setting" in 40k is called "Fluffy", due to the background material being collectively referred to as "Fluff".) Grye Knights really don't hit me as Canon Sue in any way. Sure they're powerful, and they're pretty much the closest thing to "good guys" you can possibly get, but they're far from overwhelming in terms of storyline weight or presence, nor are they really all that perfect; they got slaughtered by the hundreds on Armaggeddon. Really, if we want to look for a Canon Sue in 40k, the Tau or the Necrons fit far more accurately. Large Blunt Object: Eh, my feelings are neutral. It's certainly not something I'm going to fight to keep in. I just pulled the sudden threadmode natter and put in one summary.
Large Blunt Object: Pulled
Large Blunt Object: 16/06/08. This page now throws up 500 results on the internal search engine. Halfway to the Kilowick.
Also, running this page through Gizoogle is making me hurt myself laughing.
Large Blunt Object: Pulled
Large Blunt Object: Pruning
Fast Eddie(after an edit stomp): Major props to (primarily) Large Blunt Object on the readability of the article. It is getting major hits from off-site, now. Way to make it right, tight, and a delight. Large Blunt Object: Between you and the Warseer "Most Incredibly Positive Inbound Link Of The Day," my head is going to swell up hugely.
(later)... holy shit, going through Inbound Links it seems everyone loves this page. Fast Eddie: Can I preach, just a little bit? Forgive me, if I do. Fewer epigraphs ... BANG! Directly into the topic wins the world, every time. Cut the natter. The world stays around, tells its friends. Large Blunt Object: Er. I thought we'd done... pretty well on that here. (Please don't ask for GRIMDARK to be removed. GRIMDARK stays.)
Servitor_2152: I've changed a few of the Wiki Words back to the way they're spelled in the page titles, like "Ax
Grimace: Nothing specifically to do with the article itself, just a query. For "Crapsack World", someone has made the entry...
Gentlemens Dame 883: The content for Cosmic Horror was moved to Eldritch Abomination... So 40k's Warp entities don't count as Cosmic Horror, is that right? Large Blunt Object: That's nonsense, fixing it. It would also be nice if the dude moving the link would actually put 40k on Eldritch Abomination... Gd1: There's this quote right here (The closest thing to the good guys you can find in this setting is a tiny alien empire sandwiched between all the other factions, and they have a thing for forcing new subjects into their empire through orbital bombardment, sterilisation, and concentration camps.) Who would those guys be? The eldar? Where could I read about this? Large Blunt Object: The Tau... Uberschveinen: Don't forget the fact that their entire race is enslaved to the Ethereal's will by mind-controlling pheromones. The Tau are no better than any other race in the 40K universe. The only difference is that they pretend to be nice. That, as far as I'm concerned, only makes them worse, since everything else is honest about the fact that they're utter bastards. Large Blunt Object: The pheremones thing is according to Xenology, which is non-canon... and are much nicer in how they go about things than anyone else. Uberschveinen: Actually, it's a running theme in Tau lore that the Ethereals have some sort of uncanny control over the Tau. There is no other explanation offered, and the pheromonal control is accurate and doesn't contradict any existing information. In any case, there's no canon and non-canon in 40K given the perspective-based lore, just more and less authoritative, so anything that doesn't conflict with an equally or more authoritative piece of lore is accurate. Large Blunt Object: Xenology is considered non-canon specifically because of the unique and downright weird conclusions drawn from it ("the Eldar created the Tau"). If there's canon, it isn't. If there isn't, then it's a far-out theory not borne out by any other source. In either case, leaving it out.
Uberschveinen: Fixed C'tan references. The name is the Dragon, not the Void Dragon. The latter was used once in one piece of lore, rectified in later printings, and has somehow spread so far that it's becoming a universal term despite the fact that it not only doesn't fit the naming conventions but is also the name of three other things. Large Blunt Object: Is that really necessary? "Void Dragon" is so commonplace now that I hear GW staff using it, it's more or less become canon. And which three other things? I know the Void Dragon Phoenix, but the other two? Uberschveinen: Heh. GW staff. Shop employees frequently know less than two-month players. Staff employees are, for the most part, little better. There are a few dozen people working for the corporation with some idea of what's going on, and probably ten who know as much as a lore-oriented veteran. How common it is is not relevant, since it's still not right. Once you see it referred to as such in a codex or rulebook, where there is some minimal quality control, then it's right. Assuming it's not a mistake there too. There is a Void Dragon cruiser, a Void Dragon fighter, and a branch of Aspect Warriors referred to in fluff called the Void Dragons, who are apparently like melee-oriented Warp Spiders. Large Blunt Object: You just said there's no canon or non-canon. Which is it going to be? And okay, forget the GW staff thing - everyone uses Void Dragon. You're the only person I've ever seen who quibbles over the "Void". Void Dragon is universal, it's your word against everyone else's it's "wrong", and that's not good enough. Unless you're going to tell me you're Gav Thorpe. (It's possible; I linked him here recently.) And where are you getting these Void Dragon Aspect Warriors? (The Void Dragon Phoenix is a super-heavy flyer, not a fighter, for the record.)
Large Blunt Object: Master Hand, please stop changing
Servitor_2152: Thank you to whoever standardized the WMG/Just Bugs Me/Crowning Moment links to "Warhammer 40000" instead of "Warhammer 40k." That always did bug me. Large Blunt Object: No problem. Are there any I missed? Verity: How do you change the alt titles? It should be 40k, not 40 K.
Dakkagor: Just dropping in to say that LBG, you are a legend and a gentleman. Very impressed with the 40k page and its whats kept me coming back to tv tropes time and again.