Talk:Blood Ravens

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 July 2008. The result of the discussion was redirect.

I removed the link from 'Gothic', since this leads to a disambiguation page. The usage in this article seems to be a proper noun, with nothing appropriate on the disambiguation page; if there is a better link than the disambiguation page, I think this article should link to that instead, thanks. --BillC 19:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Raven image

Is that the first marine clour when you for the first time play Warhammer 40k: Dawn of war?

when you finish instaliing the game?

Pece Kocovski 08:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The image is of the Blood Ravens' colourscheme. It should be the marine on the main menu screen, provided you've done nothing else to the game since install. Saberwyn 09:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel's Rank?

In UK White Dwarf issue 305 (May 2005, I think), on page 85 (in the Blood Ravens Index Astartes section) it says that Gabriel Angelos is the Blood Ravens Chapter Master - Is this true? Because from the game and novels I was under the impression he was only Captain of the Blood Ravens' 3rd company. So which rank is he: Chapter Master or Brother-Captain? - Invisble pyromanic leprechaun 14 April 2006

I got the WD in question, and it only describes him as a Force Commander and a Captain. SAMAS
the article about Gabriel is clearly entitled "Chapter Master Angelos" though it only calls him Commander and Captain in the article text Invisble pyromanic leprechaun
- Nope, it says "Force Commander Angelos". At least, the North American version does. - SAMAS
- I've got the UK version, not North American Invisble pyromanic leprechaun
  - I'm personally thinking its an error, but should be noted. -- Saberwyn 21:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's likey an error, as most other IA's usually did talk about the chapter master. SAMAS
  - Wouldn't 'force commander' be a reference to the profile he uses on the tabletop, though? He certainly appears to be a Captain (and definitely is in DoW, though promotion would be possible afterwards), and GW has used the upgraded SM commander rules to refer to Captains before.

Gabriel's only a Brother-Captain, not Chapter-Master. That was a misprint in the UK edition of White Dwarf. Other regions' White Dwarf and Dawn of War correctly state that he's a Brother-Captain. Also, the W40K Lexicanum states that the current Chapter-Master is Archarius Ravenholm (see here), though I don't know whether this is true or not. - Frostmourne 16 (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The forgotten Primarch

In the opening of the DoW: Dark Crusade demo, Captain Thule of the Blood Ravens ends his speech with the words "The Emperor is with us. The forgotten Primarch is with us!" What does this mean? Do the the Blood Ravens actually have a primarch? (No, I don't mean that they're first founding, just successor to one of the original 20.)

This isn't the forum to ask those questions. Please ask somewhere else such as the many game related forums out there. Cheers -Localzuk ^(talk) 12:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't he say the "Unknown Primarch is with us"? Anyway, of course they are a successor to one of the original twenty legions; all Chapters have geneseed based upon the geneseed of the Loyalist legions harvested throughout the millenia.

Unfounding and Primogenitor Chapter

shouldn't this page have some reference to the Unfounding and Vidya's involvement in it? (mentioned in DOW: Tempest). additionally, although it is never explicitly stated in Tempest, should any info or quotes about how very strongly suggested it is that their Primogenitor Legion is the Thousand Sons? (like some quotes or a reference to the book found by Ahriman in the Arcadia librarium) Invisible pyromanic leprechaun 16:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most editors probably haven't read the book; You apparently have, so I suggest you be bold and cite it. Cheers --Pak21 08:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

about the deletion of the primogenitor chapter section from this page: I for one am not totally convinced that this counted as original research, as the information inside it is mentioned in a white dwarf article and a canonical source (both theories) and quoting & references are used for citation. Additionally, the article made it clear these where theory, not canonical facts. While I personally think the last edit should be reverted based on this, I understand other people may not agree; so can you tell me what ur opinion is? Invisible pyromanic leprechaun 18:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, in part- the mystery of where they come from is important. Looking at the article's history, I only see one citation was in the deleted section- the bit about the ruse by Ahriman from DOW: Tempest. So it would need more references for other claims. Also, the way it was written, it was like an essay trying to prove a theory; it should just present the facts and let the reader decide for himself (or investigate further). 'Point-counterpoint' arguments should not be in the article. Cheers --DarthBinky 18:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hmmmmmmm....i see what you mean there, so how about this proposal: bring back the information in a re-written less-'essayish' more-encyclopaedic form? Invisible pyromanic leprechaun 08:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i've brought back the thousand sons part, but since i'm finding it difficult to 'wikify' it can somebody please revise it and make it's structure more suitable? Invisible pyromanic leprechaun 13:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relictor streak?

I suck quite horribly at writing up stuff suited for wikipedia articles, so I'll just post what I've found out after playing the DoW:dark crusade campaign here. Maybe someone else can do a half-decent write up of this mess.

Apparantly, upon defeating the chaos forces on Kronus, the Blood Ravens catalog and take back as many dark artifacts to their battlebarge as they can. "Where they could be safely destroyed." Make of that what you will.

The same thing happened when they defeated the Eldar. After the battle, they defeated the Avatar of Khaine, the librarians collected every last piece that was left of the Daemon, and again, sent it back to their battlebarge for further study. "In later years, this would cause the Blood Ravens no small amount of trouble." (first signs of another run-in with the inquisition?)

After defeating the Tau, the chapter's apothecaries collected as many blood samples of fallen Tau warriors, again apparantly, for further studies.

Upon clearing Kronus, the Blood Ravens were able to convince the inquisition that their actions on Kronus were justified. What's interesting to note is what is said about the BR's future. "Nevertheless, the Inquisition kept a watchful eye on the chapter, for the rumors of hoarded relics never fully abated. (...) And indeed, the darkest time in the chapter’s history began soon after the war’s end."

Yet again, strong indications that the Blood Ravens are as obsessed with collecting information and knowledge as the Thousands Suns were. And ofcourse that it will eventually get them into a lot of trouble with the inquisition... which kinda contradicts the current description of the Raven's history, third paragraph.

I don't know which ending of the DC campaign is to be considered canon, but it's still an interesting read and insight, I supose.

More about Recruiting

I added a few lines in the Recruitment section about the Blood Raven recruiting from unusual sources like the Scholastica Psykana since this was explicitly mentioned in the novel Dawn of War tempests.

More for the Word Bearers Theory

Just noticed that in the Dark Crusade Campain, when you attack the Chaos Legions Eliphas Calls Davion "Brother", implying a conection between the two perhaps Is this notable enough to be forwarded for the word bearers descendants theory portion of the page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.210.18.31 (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think so. Marines often refer to their fellow marines as "brother". In this case I believe Eliphas is just trying to annoy him.

i do watch this vid www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMc5dCC41Ss&NR=1

I played the game today (using Chaos) and when you attack the Blood Ravens, there is a speech given between the two leaders (see the video above). Then, at the battle resolution story, it says that "Abaddon was pleased" yadda yadda, and questions why he would be pleased if the group wasn't one of the original legions... dun dun... dunnnnn. :) SanchiTachi 05:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both sequels

The start of this wiki entry says that the Blood Ravens were in Dawn of War and both expansions. Technically Dark Crusade isn't an expansion as it can run alone - but more to the point, they weren't in the Winter Assault expansion. The only loyalist Space Marines in that game were Ultramarines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.187.156.11 (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Primarch

Why is it that under Primarch, it says Second Founding Chapter? I don't recall any such Primarch with that name. Also, the Blood Raven primarch is decidedly not known as of the latest fluff and the date of the founding of their chapter is unknown. The most that has ever been said about the time of their founding was that they have records that go back to M36 I believe, but that other chapters have mention of fighting alongside the Blood Ravens at earlier dates. Due to these facts, I have changed that part to "Unknown". GlassWalkingBruin 12:14, 03 June 2007

Anteas and Mikelus

I don't seem to remember any information other than they are from the first company, but I may have missed something, but that still seems odd. So if anyone has any possible citation for that part. Lt.Bradford 22:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki

Blood Ravens are a notable fictional entity and I object to removal of their entry from Wikipedia.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion on the project talk page. --Falcorian ^(talk) 06:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objection is seconded. Nemesis646 (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]