Talk:Tyranid/Archive 1

message: The latest Tyranid codex strongly implies that the invasions of Hive Fleets Kraken and Leviathan were not simultaneous, although it doesn't say it outright.  --WyldStallionRyder 20:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very possible that the intention was to imply that those people looking for Tyranids were only looking at the Eastern Fringe. While Kraken is making a mess out there, nobody notices Leviathan doing much the same as Behemoth did - attacking sparsely populated fringe worlds that nobody notices are missing until too late. It's quite reasonable for the initial phases of Leviathan to be going on even as Kraken is being beaten back. Sojourner001 18:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  40K Timeline 

message: Would it be excessive to add a section on, or create a new article about the tyranid bio-weapon life-forms?  It seems clear that species section is already long enough without adding entries for the interior biology of the barbed strangler or spinefists, but it’s still interesting enough to report on, aye?  I’m wary of bridging into unencyclopedic, so I looking to field any objections before I proceed.
Similarly, is there any merit to documenting the change in the GW provided models, like the Carnifex’s change from a static model (in terms of the provided customization options) to, as the article suggests, the tyranid creature with the greatest mutability, or the Tyranid Warrior becoming relatively diminutive (and, if memory serves, losing its monstrous creature status)?  I understand that outside references would have to be found documenting the shift, but, if they exist, is there any harm in mentioning it?  Thanks for any feedback you can offer. 164.223.72.7 14:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extension 

message: In the last edition the Tyranids had special charecters but GW removed them in the latest edition because Tyranids are supposed to have no concept of individualism and therefor not have any special charecters. Do you think this would count as a retcon and how should it be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.241.144 (talk • contribs) 
:I think the place it would naturally fit would be in what is currently the third paragraph of the article, which could be expanded into a section on "Evolution of the Tyranid concept" (or something like that) detailing how the idea of Tyranids has evolved from its beginnings in Rogue Trader and Space Hulk through to the fully fledged army we see today. Cheers --Pak21 08:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special Charecters 

message: We need more pictures for this article. I have already uploaded a pic of an Epic40k Dominatrix, but a little help would be appreciated. --Jesse Mulkey 21:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Pictures Needed 

message: I have proposed a guideline for character notablity within Warhammer 40,000 articles which I believe may effect the listings on this page. Please see the proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Notability and comment. Cheers --Pak21 10:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable characters 

message: I think tyranid chacter Death Leaper is now a full sub-species of Lictor. This happened with the fall of Medusa V storyline. Also I think old one eye is just a one-off carnifex and the red terror is a one-off ravener. General Aion 01:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly.  Old One Eye is pretty much unkillable.  Or, to be more accurate, very hard to -keep- dead.  Carnifexes, on the other hand, while hard to kill, stay quite wasted once you finally knock them down.  teh TK 18:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What I meant was he is just a really powerful carnifex but not a chacter as such. General Aion 06:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Tyranid special characters are special characters because they're in the Codex Special Character section. That's all there is to it. Is there a fundamental difference in backstory between a Space Marine commander who's in the special character section and one who's merely mentioned in fluff? Absolutely not, so the distinction is meaningless. Special Character means "In the special character section". End of. Sojourner001 18:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tyranid characters 

message: Umm... I see a list of the different unit types in the article. Notice, though, that none of the other articles are like so. Is this one of the firsts undergoing that type of revising? Colonel Marksman 13:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's one of the ones we haven't got round to stripping this kind of non-encyclopedic information out of yet... Cheers --Pak21 18:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, many of the other WH40k army in fact DO have info on the various units. Please refrain from removing the information from this page as it cannot be found anywhere else on th net without an EXTREMELY huge amount of searching. Believe me, I have tried to find info on many of the creatures listed, and I have come up completely empty handed. --Jesse Mulkey 19:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; just because you can't find the information elsewhere doesn't mean it has a place on Wikipedia. If you want this information for almost all the types listed, read the Codex. More specifically, compare the Hive Tyrant description here with that at  and the Tyrant Guard description with that at . They're just about rephrased enough avoid being copyvio, but adding nothing that can't trivially be found elsewhere. Cheers --Pak21 21:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tyranid Species

message: I think this article needs some revising. The Tyranid page is built too much off the gameplay and units of the Tyranid army, rather than from a point-of-view from their overall existence. Anyone agree? Colonel Marksman 13:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Then again, the entire 40k collection on wiki is a fairly jumbled mess of perspectives with no real order to it. I'd suggest that the entire system be edited to have seperate sections on gameplay and background. Sojourner001 08:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revising

message: Err... Colonel Marksman here. I revised the Tyranid page... but I pressed "save page" by accident. There were some huge major changes made by me, that I wanted to make and organize into something like what we're doing with the revising Tau page. If there are any complaints, excuse me. I do not have time to change the article. Colonel Marksman 00:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think we should at least mention the Epic stuff. This article is about the Warhammer 40,000 universe, not just its appearance in the main game. --Pak21 16:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Titans and Baneblades are both mentioned in Vehicles of the Imperium, both of which are available only via Forge World rules in the main game. For the IG, we don't mention all the armoured vehicles, and we don't mention the Hunter (the only Space Marine ground vehicle in Epic but not in the main game), but I'd have no objections to doing so. We don't mention aeroplanes or space vehicles at all; the latter are possibly a slightly separate case, and possibly tie in more with Battlefleet Gothic. For the Eldar, I don't think we mention the Epic vehicles at all, but that article is very much a work-in-progress at this point; ditto for the Tau.
Is someone going to gripe at me yet? I'm waiting for insults.... Colonel Marksman 02:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oops

message: I have:
* An overall page of general guidelines
* A list that defines different types of articles on differt subjects
:* For Armies "Army Page"
:* For Technology "Technology Page" (equivalent to "Weapons, Vehicles, Equipment Page", or, "WVE page")
:* For Notable Planets "Notable Planet Page"
:* (User:Pak21 already made guidelones for notable characters, but a link to that is included)
* A statement of purpose for my guidelines
* Left room for more guidelines to come
--Nothing offical will be done with the guidelines (moved or put to use) until several Wikipedians involved in the Warhammer 40,000 project have verified it.--
Colonel Marksman's Proposed Guidelines
Colonel Marksman 20:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested 40k Article Guidelines

message: I heavily cleaned up and restructured the article to make it read better, but as I don't know much about the Tyranids I was only working with what was already there. I attached an  tag to the "Notable engagements" section, as it's the part in most need of attention from someone who knows the details of their history, but the whole thing could do with a once-over. -- Colm O'Brien 23:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FAO Tyranid players/experts...

message: The new section only seems to concern the Tiamet fleet, or am I missing something? -- Colm O'Brien 21:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hive fleets Ouroboros and Collossus? 

message: I think a brief outline of how Tyranid ranged weaponry works wouldn't go astray. It would fit nicely as a subsection of "Tyranid biology". -- Colm O'Brien 22:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weaponry? 

message: Removed. There's no sources where any of that can be verified. It's only presumed thoughts. Colonel Marksman 16:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Influences

message: The Death Leaper is no where in the 4th Edition Codex, BUT there IS a model available. So... where is it, and is it referenced? Colonel Marksman 16:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the Dark Stars players pack if nowhere else, so I expect it will be making an appearance during Medusa V. Cheers --Pak21 19:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It will. Thats the 'Nids' 'mission', to readsorb the Death Leper genus. -- Saberwyn 21:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The death leaper isn't a special cahcter in games and you don't need your opponents premission to play any tyranid.General Aion 04:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Death Leaper

message: Removed. There's no such thing as any specified Tyranid tactics on the tabletops because Tyranids are too broad of varied tactics and techniques. How one uses the Tyrands (or any army for that matter) is purely opinion and should be avoided. Exceptions are those tactics specifically mentioned in the Codexes and massive player's perspective (e.g. Tau are considered a long-range shooty army, but has nothing to do with the "hunt" as noted in their codex) Colonel Marksman 16:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tyranids in Play

message: This is terrible! Who changed all this? A look into the history reveals a lot of unidentified persons in a rapid change over the past several days. (History verifies that Colm O'Brien did mostly minor edits and is not the culprit)
Although several of the additions look good, its chalked full of POV'ing (was. most of it was removed) and no references or explainations behind any changes. Such is that of Wikipedia! Colonel Marksman 17:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Another'' Rewrite?

message: On a minor note, should the title be Tyranid or Tyranids? The latter is currently a redirect, but it's consistently used as the name of the race in this article and elsewhere. -- Colm O'Brien 19:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: This still badly needs to be footnoted. Marksman, you have the codices, so it seems like you're it... -- Colm O'Brien 14:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just on the subject of the plural of Codex, GW use "codexes", so that's the "standard" for 40k articles. Cheers --Pak21 15:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Colonel Marksman votes "yes" for using footnotes. Colonel Marksman 22:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Comment: please come and join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Style on referencing styles before doing anything here. Cheers --Pak21 08:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing 

message: There are some tyranid species that haven't been included in this article I wonder if they should be included. These include the dactyile, haruspex, malefactor, and Hydraphant. Also I think that tyranid ships should be in the biology becuase they are acctually living things General Aion 09:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tyranid Species

message: Let's at least be consistent - there's a lot here that's describing tyranids in the backstory without taking the proper tone. Let's make this clear - tyranids are models and playable units as far as wiki's policy on fiction is concerned. A section specifically devoted to tyranid backstory is perfectly acceptable as long as it's done from the point of view of pulling and referencing pertinent chunks from publications.Sojourner001 11:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to this, I've started rewriting this article in my user sandbox and have back-pasted the WIP version. I didnt want to delete anything that was already there as it was good content, just a bit lacking. I'm slightly worried that I've used a few too many bullet points; does anyone else have a problem with this or is it ok? Sojourner001 11:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact-as-fiction

message: Just a Random Passerby... isn't "protagonist" a good guy, or main character?  I'd change the word to "antagonist" (bad guy) in the initial description, but I don't want to screw it up if the Tyrranids were EVER protagonists and not antagonists. --ReaverKing
:You're absolutely right. --Falcorian (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the context that it's used in this article, I think it's fine to use the term antagonist; Tyranids were, in fact, the antagonists faced in early versions of the game (such as Space Hulk), where the "protagonist" was the Imperial troops.  Contrary to what the anon said, being an "antagonist" doesn't make one a "bad guy" or "evil".  The Tyranids overall aren't considered an "antagonist", and this article doesn't say that either.  --DarthBinky 01:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Binky though, in this context it is no representing modern 40k, but their origins. --Falcorian (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good guys?

message: There is problem with the description in this section, as it says "The Imperium has bought itself a century at least to prepare for the next attack, but there is no telling how the Tyranids may evolve thanks to the newly-harvested Ork DNA" but goes on to mention the destruction of the same fleet "Leviathan, inevitably in the end, was immobilized and destroyed".  Could also do without the clunky "inevitably in the end." Aristoi 19:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, the Leviathan section needs ruthlessly edited down to (say) half its current length. It is currently narrative prose (possibly copied from a 40K article or novel?). For example, "worlds on the edge of the conflict have begun to file pict-captures of Tyranids" is (a) in present tense and (b) presented as fact. Also, no original research please ("self-inserted guess"). Thanks for your help making this page one of the better 40K ones! --Air 15:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hive Fleet Leviathan