Talk:Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning

Screenshots

Should the screenshots not be labeled and placed around the page as other page would do with links to the sources for more screenshots in the external links section?

Edited

It seems to me that www.war-rvr.net members have editted the page to become a subtle advertisement for their site. Wikipedia, whilst I think is intending to give that information, can do so at the end of the page, in the external links section. I'm edditing it as such, if that's okay with the moderators.

Also, it has now been officially announced that Chaos, Empire, Orc & Goblins, Dwarves, High Elves and Dark Elves will be the playable races. However, speculation as to whether Chaos encompasses all four of the Gods, or singly Tzeentch, is still awaiting confirmation from Mythic. More information about the subject can be found at the Chaos (Warhammer) pages.Corellion 11:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

They said early in development that Chaos will follow the Tzeentch god. -Elwood —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ScottElwood (talk • contribs) .

10000 pages

"Ten thousand pages. That's my best guess at the amount of finalized documentation that our content team will produce before the launch of WAR. We should start an office pool, or a printing press. Ten thousand pages for a game based on an existing property rich with detail. I can only imagine the number of pages we'd be writing if we were coming up with a world of our own! " --Asososocrates 05:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Can that short part be corrected, please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asososocrates (talk • contribs) .

Corrected

Corrected a couple titles that referred to the game as Warhammer Alliance: Age of Reckoning to Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning --67.176.132.193 06:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Rant

Sorry for the rant nature of this, but having content stolen makes us sad :(

about 95% of the information contained in this article has been directly copied from war-rvr.net without our permission. The information contained on www.war-rvr.net is NOT public domain, although we were approached by someone and asked if it would be okay to use the information from our site in a "wiki project". Our response at the time was that we were not prepared to make our content public domain, and we thought nothing more of it. That response still stands though, Fahran, our primary contributor spent many.. many.. many hours compiling and writing the content for our site, and to see it shamelessly stolen is a little shocking...

With that said, both of us think wikipedia is the coolest thing since sliced bread, and would be amenable to PORTIONS of the site being used with citation, we wouldn't put the info online if we didn't want people to read it. If you are interested in citing information from our site, shoot us an email with the specifics and we'll let you know if its okay (via email, so you're all covered and.. stuff).

I have just spent a very enjoyable hour or so investigating wikipedia's copywrite violation policy and BELIEVE i have followed it properly. We have blanked.. well... most of the main text of the page... sorry. Its just all stolen from our articles :( We've also added the article to the daily copywrite infringement site. UPDATE: Reverted content to before copywrited info was added instead, so that theres not this huge scary COPYWRITE section scaring off new people. Yay wikipedia and revisions.

http://www.war-rvr.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=3&id=21&Itemid=31 and http://www.war-rvr.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=3&id=20&Itemid=30

Wikipedia notes that "you need to acknowledge the authorship and provide a link back to the network location of the original copy." It SEEMS like this was originally done, but then people have come through and removed the links (presumably, looking at this discussion, believing that we were just advertising ourselves.. not so).

Question for you: Why don't you just leave it up? There was no reason to go and do what you did, it was not hurting anyone and it was actually helping some people....Animediter 22:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

... It really hurts to remove content that might be used to draw new people into the WAR community, and I'm sorry we have to do it, but I'm really not sure what other option we have. Update: the other option, it turns out, is rolling back to a pre-copywrited material addition reversion. ... Versioning is probably one of the cooler things in the world. After cheese in a can.

Culain@war-rvr.net —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.78.64.106 (talk • contribs) .

What is this?

http://pc.ign.com/articles/524/524986p1.html

Uhhh....it's from 2004? What's up with that? TheDavesr 03:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The Climax version was cancelled in 2004, then Mythic took up the project. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.72.76 (talk • contribs) .

Disaster

This entire article is a disaster. Sloppily written, and very unencyclopedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.197.188.59 (talk • contribs) .

Article Cleanup

I see someone cut out a lot of parts of the article. I agree, it was sloppy before and needed a good clean-up... but right now it has absolutely no information on the game mechanics etc, making it worse than before. Bloodloss

Possible article on Paul Barnett

This guy is a major designer of this game, ans we have nothing on him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asososocrates (talk • contribs) .

Revert

I have had to revert this page AGAIN to remove copywrited content after http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aanhorn reverted the page so that it contained our copywrited content again.

Wikipedia's copywrite directions are very very clear, you MAY NOT just plain copy data from another site without their express permission.

Culain@war-rvr.net 27/7/6 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.78.64.106 (talk • contribs) .

Copywrite content taken from war-rvr.net

Again I have done a page reversion to a previous version of the site that did not contain our copywrite works. the revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warhammer_Online:_Age_of_Reckoning&diff=67991159&oldid=67846497 reverted the changes that I had done to remove this content on two occasions (this is the third). For more information please read the below and my feeble entreaties even further below that!

Please.. please.. do not revert like this again. I note that this time the Ip address 24.60.98.39 appears to have been responsible for the reversion.

I have listed below, exact links to the sections of our site that each of the different content headings was taken from.

• PvP PvE http://www.war-rvr.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=31

• Types of PvP Content http://www.war-rvr.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=31

Career System

• Introduction text is the same http://www.war-rvr.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=35&Itemid=31
• Character Customization http://www.war-rvr.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=31
• Quests http://www.war-rvr.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24&Itemid=31
• Death http://www.war-rvr.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38&Itemid=31
• Tactics http://www.war-rvr.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=31
• Moral http://www.war-rvr.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36&Itemid=31
• Zone Layout http://www.war-rvr.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=31

Culain 08/08/06

I have removed every section that was indicated here. Please, do not add them again. If so, I will request an administrator to review this. Note that adding copyrighted information knowingly is considered vandalism. -- ReyBrujo 04:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Re-added Fansite Links

A number of Legitimate fansites were removed from the links at the bottom of the entry. I have re-added these Fan Site links. Please do not remove them unless they are bad links as the administrators and moderators work very hard on these sites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.140.133.181 (talk • contribs) .

I will explain why each should be removed:

• http://www.warspain.com: A Spanish fansite has no place in the English Wikipedia. Put it in the Spanish Wikipedia to see if they allow it to be there.
• http://warhammer.trumps.net/: The site was opened less than a month ago (2006-07-27 02:13:53), this is just advertisment.
• http://www.mongbat.com/: The News section has only one news. Most of the other sections has items added in the last week. The forum has 5 members. Not notable enough to be an external link.
• http://www.warhammeralliance.com/: This looks like a good fan site. Has a relatively good Alexa ranking (276,157, to put it simple, this is the 276,157th most visited site in internet according to Alexa), and a forum with 4,462 members.
• http://vnboards.ign.com/Warhammer_Online_Age_of_Reckoning_General_Board/b22997/ IGN board, no need to be added here. You can add IGN.com at the IGN article, but not every of their board in every of the articles. Per the 9th guideline clearly states that external links that point to a forum are not necessary unless mandated by the article (in example, the article is about a forum, or the official forum).
• http://www.battleofwar.com/: No Alexa ranking, forum with 44 posts, no articles. Not notable enough to be included as external link.
• http://www.war-rvr.net/: Alexa ranking of 2,913,840, forum with 990 members, 57 news. Although people have been copying information from the site here violating copyright terms, the site itself is not really notable for be included as external link.
• http://www.only-war.com/: Alexa ranking of 445,543, forum with 5,324 members, apparently first appeared in 2003. It may barely be good enough as an external link for this article.
• http://vault.ign.com/wiki/index.php/Warhammer_Online:_Age_of_Reckoning: Again, IGN-based site. Wikipedia would only contain links to IGN if it were by their members.
• http://warpedia.thewarband.com/index.php/Main_Page: Alexa ranking of 1,990,244, created on November 14, 2005. I would not include this link, as it is contained by war-rvr.net, not notable by itself to be included.
• http://www.waronlinewiki.com/: Alexa ranking of 1,101,764. Site created on June 6, 2006, just two months before. We cannot allow every site to have a spot at the External link section. Wikipedia is not a link directory.

This is why I am removing again all but only-war.com and warhammeralliance.com, which seems, from all these links, to be the most popular. Note this: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such. Fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included. The style guide states one may be included. People include a lot. If you disagree, tell me why you think any of the removed links should be included.

Note that this has nothing to do with the effort the webmasters, moderators or keepers of those sites do. As they deserve the right to ban users in their forums, publish news or articles, or including or removing downloads, Wikipedia needs to trim unnecessary external links when they become too many. Once the sites become notable, nobody will object including links here. However, adding a link just after a month since the site opened is abusing the right every of us has to edit the article. -- ReyBrujo 02:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

RE:Above

Fansites are an important part of games. Different sites have different fanbases. Warhammer Alliance for example is just a forum. it rarly has any news unlike war-rvr and the others you removed. Only-war frankly looks quite bad, but it is informative. battle of war is simply a news site with a cool RSS feed. Sites dont have to have forums to be successful. And there is little point in signing up to battleofwar since there are no bonuses to sign up apart from administration from members and news submitters.

war-rvr seems to be the best site out there at the moment and is introducing new content and features quite alot. I don't know what the Alexa ranking is and frankly i dont really care. I want to see fansites listed on here and so do many others. Most different fansites get exclusives and I don't believe it is your right to remove external links just because you feel like it. They are not breaking the rules of wikipedia and are useful bits of information.

Maybe you are biast towards the sites that you leave linkes but I would hope not.

Added by TB August 27th —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.41.32.217 (talk • contribs) .

Not at all. I usually delete ALL fansites when there is no consensus for keeping them. I did a neutral research and posted my thoughts here. Apparently you do not agree, which is completely understandable. We can wait for more opinions about this, but if we can't agree on which sites should stay, we can just remove them all, leaving the official ones and the big news ones (IGN, GameSpot, GameSpy, etc), which is usually the way of handling these matters. -- ReyBrujo 16:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree that commercial sites such as IGN and gamespy should have the rights over dedicated fansites to be listed in the links section. I would much prefer just official sites be listed if there are going to be disputes about external links. warhammeronline.com has a fansite links section and if people want to see fansites then they can get them through there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.41.32.217 (talk • contribs) .

Ranking by Alexa seems to be quite inaccurate, my research suggests that traffic stats are generated from people who use a certain toolbar, which of 15 years of being online I, nor any of my friends have ever heard of. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.41.32.217 (talk • contribs) .

I have removed all the fan links until consensus is gained. Alexa rank was one of my points in the research, I also verified amount of posts, foundation, activity and membership. We can't add a fan site just because someone likes it, nor we can remove another just because friends did not know about it. -- ReyBrujo 17:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If any fansites are going to be listed, can we please make sure to include Warhammer Alliance, which is, as stated previously, the most visited WAR fansite, and contains the nearest thing this game has to official forums? 212.42.10.194 10:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Fan sites are critical to a game and the community. Any publisher & developer will tell you that and fully agree. Also keep in mind sites come in many flavors and should be represented if they are among the most active, even if that number is as high as 10 links to 10 sites. As long as they remain consistently active. Not having a solid list of them would be robbing the community and doing a disservice to this wiki readership. eviltrance

Fansites may be perceived to be good for a game, but Wikipedia is about verifiable and notable information and the links should be to useful resources - the definition of useful not necessarily being the same as the amount of activity a site has. GraemeLeggett 10:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Titles and sections, additional suggestions

The article is very messy currently. PvP players in waiting was very poorly done, and its managed to mis-title the screenshots section.

The article also has very vague view. collision shouldnt have a massive section to itself - should be under 'game mechanics' or something similar.

Also, i suggest a breakdown of all the video blogs. this will help to bulk out the article and provide more information.

The table of classes for dwarfs and orcs/goblins was also removed. this should be added back in, as I found it very informative, but might be considered misleading and needs refinement.86.11.13.74 16:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The main problem with all those sections was that they were just copied/pasted from a site without their permission. The table was deleted because Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. You could mention a couple of things about the races, but making a table is too specific game information. When writing an article, always think as a casual user. You may care about how many races the game has, but not which ones. From what I understand, nobody buys games unless they can control ogres, but they buy games if you can choose between 12 instead of 2 races. As for the changes, this is when I should stick a {{sofixit}} at your talk page ;-) -- ReyBrujo 18:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the Media section

Well I've resectioned the screenshots and trailer stills into media after the sloppy attempt to make a 'players in waiting section'.86.11.13.74 23:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There are still too many screenshots, I guess 4 should be enough, maybe 8 as abusing. Also, you should consider creating an account, your edits are useful for the community. -- ReyBrujo 04:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed! I'll see what I can find out about War in dept, and if need be I'll try and make that video summary I suggested. Thanks for the encouragement.Hirmetrium 09:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Added Armies, Beta test and Features sections

Information as accurate to my knowleadge as possible has been added to an 'Armies' section. It requires much more input from everyone, and As such will make it very useful in the article. The beta test section was added because its fairly common for people to want to join the beta test of a popular upcoming game. Please remove it if you find it unsuitable.Hirmetrium 10:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just furthered work by adding information about how RvR function and the unique charater customisation involved.Hirmetrium 13:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Animosity

I was just wondering if the seemingly animostiy between the upcomming warhammer online, and the already firmly established WoW deserves a entry. I admit fully I have not conducted a larger survey, but i have read some on the www.gamespot.com forums for WAR.

Through reading those you do get the impression that there is a animostiy. This could however just be the result of a limted number individuals at the site.

I do however feel it is justified to ask here if it of any relevance at all. The topics I have been reading can be found here: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/warhammeronline/forum.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maias227 (talk • contribs) .

Unless the animosity is featured somewhere, like CNN, GamePro, IGN or GameSpot (but not on their forums!), we should not really talk about it. -- ReyBrujo 20:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a degree of animosity between die hard WoW fans and those that will be leaving WoW for WAR when it is released though this is probably not relevant to the article. --Nayl 05:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

some may consider that Warcraft is a avorted game that Games Workshop orded from blizzard... not to take the wrong path in wikipedia standarts but i'm refering to an article i've read here... quite a time ago so it might have been corrected - but the story of the Warcraft serie (RTS not WoW -cuz it's IMVHO been taken away from it) is really a good warhammer story... got the orcs/goblin relation for master/engeneer (oh quite a surpirse the hummies got their gnomes/dwarf)... well for me Warcraft never got the popularity within me -except for the custom maps of War3... --Zerat ca 03:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

EDITED OUT "Guild Listing"

"http://only-war.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3814&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 Lethal Injection" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.177.219.136 (talk • contribs) .

Minor changes and a question

I edited the Army section to consitantly use the word army and to correct what seemed to be superfluous information. I wanted opinions on editing the the third paragraph out of the introduction to the article. It strikes me as out of place. JL096 14:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC) JL096 10:19am EST

Armies

Please give citations for the two Human and One Chaos Career that have the citation tag next to them as the only places I can find them on the internet are fan based forums.--The Nayl 16:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Subscription

anyone know whether we would need a monthly fee to play it like wow? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.46.166.10 (talk • contribs).

Yes - http://www.warhammeronline.com/english/community/faq/faq.php#Will_there_be_a_subscription

"Q: Will there be a subscription fee to play this game?

A: Yes. Given the expense of creating the game, maintaining the customer service system (in-game, phone and email) and creating new content, the only way for a company to justify these expenses is with a monthly subscription fee. However, when you look at the monthly fee (usually $10-$16USD) that a player pays to access the content almost 24x7, there are few entertainment values that can top that. Basically, for the price of one movie ticket in NYC, a small soda and a small cup of popcorn you have access to an ever-changing and growing world on demand (minus short downtimes for server or software upgrades)." Mefanch 20:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Distinction Between Warhammer Online, Warhammer FRPG, Warhammer "The Game of Fantasy Battles", and Warhammer 40k

It is probable that the present article might permit a misprision among some readers that Warhammer Online uses Warhammer FRPG rules, it should be overtly stated that Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning appears to resemble the wargame more than the roleplaying game at present design description. While it might seem like a minor contention it is also a small revision. There are those who have few people to play games with in person that might be seeking an MMORPG that uses Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay rules and would be dissapointed to find that Warhammer Online is quite simply Dark Ages of Camelot with a different setting and different classes. Also, fans of the miniatures war game Warhammer Fantasy might benefit from a better distinction between this new MMO and their favorite game.

68.115.17.73 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC) september

Cancelled?

according to gamespot its been cancelled: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/whonline/news.html?sid=6100992 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.18.184.15 (talk • contribs).

That is an old (2004) article. It is not current. Mythic is developing WAR. Mefanch 20:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Updated screenshots

I would think there are more updated screen shots, at least with the professions? --68.209.227.3 04:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Are they available to us? If so, I'm missing. ;) The screenshots in the article are older, and should be updated.. pretty sure they released new ones in March but not sure if there were professions. Anywho, it's a good idea.. I can't check as I'm at work. ;) Fr0 04:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes there are new screenshots available. These must be, like, 2 months old. Especially on the latest newsletter we got 20 or something new screenshots. Check these last two newsletters issues out (Especially the March one): http://www.warhammeronline.com/english/newsletterCentral/archives/Feb2007.html http://www.warhammeronline.com/english/newsletterCentral/archives/Mar2007.html

Dark Elf/ High Elf classes

Guys, they haven't even announced the Dark Elf/ High Elf classes yet. The ones you have on that page are fake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.114.164.66 (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Corsairs imo. http://mythicmktg.fileburst.com/war/us/media/flash/pp_Quests_bitrate.html Fr0 07:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Paul actually said that Corsairs were in the game, however only mentioned that Shadow Warriors are in the game. Whether they are playable, is only speculation. Fr0 02:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Info will be released in August. --68.209.227.3 00:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I restored every High/Dark Elf class to Unknown 'till we get official news. Please, stop posting innacurate stuff in an "encyclopedia". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.75.131.135 (talk • contribs).

Extended beta section to include May's newsletter information

I've extended it and also placed the site in the external links as 'official european site'. Hirmetrium 17:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Baltimore Games Day Q&A

Part One: http://maestro.mythicentertainment.com/trk/click?ref=zq1v6u1m4_1-288x386ax172983&

Part Two: http://maestro.mythicentertainment.com/trk/click?ref=zq1v6u1m4_1-288x386bx172983&

Yep, was not good at all. They danced around questions, and surely didn't answer every person's question in the room. Meh, good to hear some news though although the audio was terrible. Fr0 02:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Platform(s)?

I believe WAR is slated to be Windows only. Does anyone have factual information on this? Selcouth 19:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

According to EA-Mythic's official FAQ, the release of WAR will be Windows PC only. While they will not count out the possibility of a future Mac OS X release, there are no plans for it at the moment. [1]. TShultz 22:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed Mac from the Platform(s) box. In the answer to that question, they state they they currently have no plans to make a Mac version. --Credema 16:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for researching! --Selcouth 15:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, can't remember where, but if anyone's interested in looking for it, I believe they've said they have plans for releasing it on various consoles further down the line. 124.170.50.8 05:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

First vids of Elves

http://www.warhammeronline.com/english/behindTheScenes/vidPhoneDiaries/2007august.php

Haven't received the Newsletter yet. --68.209.227.3 23:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Beta Applications

Is it really that important to make constant changes with the number of people who have signed up for the beta? Who cares if this week, 54 more people signed up than average. It seems like a futile fact to keep updating every other day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.64.140 (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Response: It's updated about 7 days or so, and it does help promote the game by showing many people want to get into beta and play. If someone wants to keep it updated it seems appropiate to me, however it would be better organized if it was not in paragraph form and was like: [Nov 4] - 400,00
[Nov 12] - 420,00 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.42.93 (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not meant to "promote" any game. I don't see how it's encyclopedic to continually update this number unless it's to highlight a important point (like if it's breaking records or something). Two years from now, people won't care that 393,193.2 people signed up for this beta.TheCommodore7 18:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree; it is not encyclopedic until the beta is over and it can be used as a statistical reference to the pre-release popularity of the game. There is no encyclopedic value in updating the information as it changes in real-time, as this isn't a news item. I'll be removing/rewriting that section. Itanius 16:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Career gender choice/appearance options in Career Chart

Please discuss the Career Chart and the inclusion of gender choice & appearance for the available races here. The purpose of the Career Chart is to summarize each career and the associated gender options available to players upon character creation. If this is too much information for one chart, then a second chart for gender-based options is an option. Itanius 17:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So to avoid further edit wars, I'll post what I've done here. The numerous "(Male in Apperance)" tacked on to every Greenskin race looked very unprofessional and very redundant. It was discussed that the information was relevant to a degree, so I added that to the overall Racial description of the Greenskins. That should put all the classes, regardless of Ork or Goblin under the racial umbrella, and it won't have to be added to every class individually. Sure, the Chaos and Dark Elf gender-specific classes are relevant, but when and entire race has the same physical description, it seems much easier to say it once than say it four-fold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.64.141 (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the Career Chart is to summarize each career and the associated gender options available to players upon character creation. Removing gender choice options for one race and not the others is not an organized or uniform method to present the information in the article. Not all races have all genders, and not all careers are available to all genders. This is a defining characteristic for character careers, and vital in the decision making process, which is why it was included in the Career Chart. Redundancy and aesthetics are secondary concerns when information is being displayed on a chart designed for quick-reference in an encyclopedic manner. The value of the information should not be compromised at the expense of making the article "look nicer". Perhaps a rewrite of the Careers section of the article, with a revised chart format is in order. Itanius (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

An understood point, but for further clarification, it wasnt edited specifically for apperances; that was a additional factor. If it were an umbrella classification, I didn't see such a need to point it out class by class by class. Sure, saying Witch Elves are female-only is an important note, as that's a class-specific detail. I was simply stating that if ALL of the choices fall in the same bucket, we didn't need to point it out. All 4 Chaos classes don't have "(Worshipper of Tzeentch)" after them, that would be silly. It was stated in the racial description, so it was an understood detail. I edited the Greenskin classes to suit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.64.141 (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Guys, stop the revert war until we figure this out.TheCommodore7 (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no revert war, and it's been settled. Thanks for the concern! Itanius (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

High Elf Shadow Warrior is Ranged Damage?

From http://www.warhammeronline.com/english/gameInfo/armiesofWAR/HighElves/Careers/ShadowWarrior.php "They will still take a beating from his long range archery, but a Shadow Warrior poses a much more significant threat if they are allowed to come into short range.", and that the Shadow Warrior seems a more fitting match up to the Dark Elf Witch Blade, not to mention how High Elves are highly magical in nature, but have not been given a "caster dps" class to match up to the DE Sorceress, wouldn't the Shadow Warrior be more suited to the "Melee Damage" archtype? Of course we can't be sure until Mythic releases information about the final High Elf Class, and/or given more details concerning the Shadow Warrior. Tetsuox (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression, after watching Paul's Class Description video, that it is a ranged DPS class. He makes an edit mid-video explaining that the class description came across as seeming to give the player an option to pick between a ranged or melee type class to play, but he was there to say that in fact it was a ranged dps class, with some slight melee capacity. I think the quote of "more signifigant if they are allowed to come into close range" doesn't pertain to they are more signifigant at melee than ranged, but rather they are more capable of melee combat than other ranged/nuker archetypes such as the Zealot of bright Wizard. Just my $0.02, but I thought I'd share. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrel (talk • contribs) 19:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Full Class List?

Are we really going to do this? I've seen on so many game pages the "full list" arguments, and all of them revert back to this ->[[2]] and eventually they get removed. I think the table of classes and achetypes would be sufficient, as it has enough information that's required, but it's not a game guide. I went ahead and removed the classes as well as the many empty classes that are listed. If we do end up keeping it, I'd then propose that it be a seperate page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrel (talk • contribs) 04:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

 Good point, thanks for the advice.  Is it long eough to make a new article though? Foxfoil (talk) 09:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)