Talk:Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War/Archive 1

Archive 1

Updates

Should we put something about all the updates that the game requires? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacemarine288 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Who does what voice?

I really don't like the fact that it just lists the voice actors who did this game. Would it be a bit reasonable to post which voice the actors did as well? Just a thought.67.160.13.149 09:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC) --I don't think individual roles were ever given, maybe in the credits. I know for a fact that Scott McNeil did Lord Bale and Imperial Guardsman, simply because the voices are so distinctive (Bale's, for example, is the same voice he used for Dinobot). SAMAS 20:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I do know that. I know most of these by clicking on the links to the actors. Personally, I prefer Eliphas to Bale. I wonder who did his voice? 67.160.13.149 04:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, I e-mailed Buggo (Allie Henze, Relic Software's Official Community Rep) and got a list of -most- of the voice credits for all 3 games, although some Dark Crusade units (Eliphas, Lukas Alexander, New Chaos Sorcerer, New Nobz, Necron Pariah Narrator, Campaign Narrator, Kroot units, Tau Ethereal, and Comissar/Priest from Winter Assault) were missing from the unit. I sent a followup unit to Allie/Buggo to get that info, but it might be a bit. In the meantime, the information in the space is verified, and you can see the information post in This thread in Relic's forums. Arc salvo 09:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like someone took the list I posted on the Relic Forums and added the appropriate credits to the Dawn of War, Winter Assault, and Dark Crusade pages. I didn't even know Winter Assault and Dark Crusade had separate pages, so just added all the credits to the Dawn of War one. I'm just going to go back and remove the non strictly Dawn of War credits from the main DOW page. Arc salvo 09:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Starcraft 2

Maybe a section that details similariteis in starcraft 2? Starcraft 2 looks like they borrowed alot form this game.

Completely unneccessary, and likely to be inaccurate seeing as not much has been released about SC2 yet. XJDenton 17:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, this discussion is more appropriate for the Warhammer Fantasy/40K and the derivative nature of the Warcraft/Starcraft universes in general; it has nothing to do with DOW or SC2 in particular. Ham Pastrami 10:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Dawn of War

"Dawn of War was mainly criticized for its short and repetitive single player campaign. All missions are fairly similar in both objectives and execution of therein, with few exceptions[1]. Also, despite several patches, some fans still consider the game to be unbalanced in multiplayer. It should be noted though that the ladder statistics show a very balanced gameplay."

The ladder statistics do not "show" said balanced gameplay, infact throughout the history of the patches the ladder stats have been very consistent in showing the majority of the top 50 being players of whatever race was the most overpowered at that time. Anyone who doesnt believe me can check on Relic's official forum. --Question2

Question2, I disagree with the term "very balanced gameplay" as well, I have done some change on the Criticism section. The following is the fixed version:

Dawn of War was mainly criticized for its short and repetitive single player campaign. All missions are fairly similar in both objectives and execution of therein, with few exceptions[1]. Also, despite several patches, many fans still consider the game to be unbalanced in multiplayer. The evidence can be found on the Dawn of War ladder pages (Space marine and Chaos space marine always have the higher winning ratio; opposite for Orks)[2] .[3]. --Your_Neighbour

Currently, all the races have win ratios of between 50% and 57%, with the Winter Assault Orks at 53%. From a neutral point of view, that doesn't seem that unbiased to me. However, this is all original research: where is an actual citation from a reliable source showing that people actually think the game is unbalanced? Cheers --Pak21 08:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps these win ratio numbers could actually be included in the next itself to allow to reader to make up his own mind on whether or not the difference is significant? Something along the lines of "On November 1, 2006, Dawn of War ladder pages showed win ratios of between XX% and YY% (link to original pages)." You're not doing original research as it's not analysis but merely a rehashing of verifiable numbers. My two cents: anon reader -- 84.0.158.5 13:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sold Copies

As this infromation comes from an invalid source (a forum) I am removing it.

Deleted information

What was wrong with the information i added?

Pece Kocovski 10:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• There was nothing fundamentally wrong with it; just some minor comments: it was written in a different case to the rest of the article (present as opposed to past), it contained at least one spelling mistake (alowed), it was referring to the graphics which had already been mentioned in a different part of the article (hence why I integrated it there) and it contained non-encyclopedic information (what the tab key does). --Pak21 10:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Changes

I have almost completely rewritten the article. I proof-readed it two times but still if someone could check it... I will also add Multilayer section tommorow.

I will make it short, since I am short of time (otherwise I prbly would have done most changes myself, sry for that), but here are my 2 cents:

• "Morale is very rare in RTS" should rather be "Morale is very rare in the most recent RTS". It wasn't rare in times of earlier RTS like in some of Sid Meier's earlier RTS and such.
• "Close combat units are a novelty as well." That's untrue. It is certainly not a novelty but makes the game differ from most recent popular RTS. "Any ranged unit enganged in close combat cannot shoot and must engange in close combat as well." is a feature in other older games too, as far as I remember. There were a ton of semi realistic Civil War games years ago which were quite keen on realism, don't forget that.
• "The game uses 2 kinds of ressources" -> "The game uses two kinds of ressources". There are some other spots where I believe numbers should be spelled out.
• criticism: "Also, despite few patches, fans still consider the game to be unbalanced in multiplayer." Please change it to "some fans", since it's certainly not true that ALL fans do so.

And finally: THX! I'm always glad when anonymous users contribute in a positive way to our (now it's your's too) wikipedia. Ever thought of registering? A username comes with some nice, nifty features ;) --Johnnyw 21:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Points taken and thanks. I would register - I always do - but my nickname is taken and I won't bother with substitutes :P

Article quality

I am beginning to feel that this article is becoming non-encyclopedic: the Gameplay section is pretty close to becoming a instruction manual, there are many claims that DoW is "innovative" without a single citation to back them up, and (without wanting to pick on a particular edit too much), it's really not encyclopedic that certain units acquired finishing moves in the expansion (what expansion anyway? It hasn't even been mentioned in the article at that point!). Any comments, suggestions etc on how to improve things very welcome. Cheers --Pak21 10:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. It was me who upgraded the gameplay section - but looking back it does look like it's turning into an instruction manual. When I put that (somewhat rambling) discussion on tactics and strategy there I was trying to show an example of something that the game's new features added to the genre opened up, but I went overboard, I suppose. I'll try rewriting it a bit. -Jetman123 14:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I rewrote the section so it (hopefully) looks less like an instruction manual. Opinions, anyone? -Jetman123 14:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly looks better to me. What worries me most know is the large number of claims of DoW being "innovative" and "different" from other RTS games without a single citation to back any of it up. Cheers --Pak21 10:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Pak! I went and changed the features section to address some of your concerns. Does it look better to you? I included "modern"'s definition for the point of the article, too. --Jetman123 23:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE IS FAR TOO LONG. Its length far outstrips the importance of the subject matter. An encyclopaedia article should impart the basics of a subject in as compact an account as possible to someone who knows nothing of the topic at the outset. This article is bloated - it's written by devotees for devotees, and in many places the standard of writing is bad - so bad as to make the author's intentions unclear at times. I've made a few ameliorative tweaks where I've seen something I felt I could improve. In sum, this article needs to be pruned and tightened ruthlessly - this will make it more, not less, informative to non-gamers like me.Notreallydavid 06:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. I've been meaning to chop it up and make it more in line with other higher quality game articles (like StarCraft), but it's a lot of work and I've been procrastinating... --DarthBinky 15:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it also possible to restrict editing to members only? Some idiot keeps making ridiculous changes to the article that others have to clean up. Chronolegion 18:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that's kind of against the nature of Wikipedia- anyone can edit, even if what they put in is complete gibberish. Mods can protect or semi-protect articles when there's a problem- like, for example, the John Kerry article was semi-protected because it has been heavily vandalized due to recent events. But the occasional random vandal isn't enough to warrant that here. --DarthBinky 20:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If an anonymous visitor can disagree - I think the article as it is right now is very informative, without going over the top. Perhaps the details of the named characters deserves to be cut or moved to another page. I've never heard of DoW before this article (yeah I live in a cave) but now I know what it is and what its unique points are. Definitely not just an article for the devotees only. -- 84.0.158.5 13:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

While on the subject, don't feed the trolls - putting tetchy comments as edit summaries will only delight them all the more.

Starcraft crossover

this game is like a warcraft-starcraft crossover. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.46.160.253 (talk • contribs) .

While I am a big fan of both Blizzard masterpieces, I believe the Warhammer 40,000 universe was created much earlier. There are close similarities between Warhammer Fantasy and Warcraft III in that there is a group of otherworldly beings from the Realm of Chaos/Twisting Nether who manipulate mortals in order to grant them passage to the world. StarCraft does not have the same mythical feel to it. Everything that happens there happens because of what regular mortal beings do. Also, I believe the working title for StarCraft, "Orcs in Space", was influenced by the 40,000 universe. Chronolegion 23 October 2006

Criticism section and images

I have added the 'unreferenced' tag to the criticism section as this could be seen as POV otherwise. We need to know who and where these complaints were made by - and we cannot use forums etc...

Also, I think the article might be stretching the fair use argument with the number of images being used. We can use a limited number of them in order to help with critical commentry/analysis but I think a lot of the images seem to just be random clips that don't actually show anything different to the others (for example 'Blood Ravens in action' shows some soldiers fighting, so does the Imperial Guardsmen image. There are 2 shots of ultramarines attacking orks too).

I would suggest an image cull and marking some of the images for deletion. We also need to provide fair use rational for each image that is used on this page under fair use as per this page. -Localzuk ^(talk) 10:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe this section should be revised. I play DoWWA extensively online and only a very small subsection of players, noobs basically, believe that the sides are unbalanced. The phrasing of this section makes it seem like the blanacing is a significant problem.--Havoc8844 06:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

--Havoc8844 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Expansion Criticism

I have removed the paragraph at the end of this article, where the author claims that orcs are no longer used online becuase they have been heavily marginalised. This sounds like it was written by a noob orc player trying to vent some petty frustration at getting beat all the time.

Also the statements about the composition of chaos forces sounds a little hairy. As uncanonical as it may be, the W40k canon changes whenever GW feels like it, and as far as they are concerned, although I cant provide references for this, GW seems to be supporting Relics view of the universe, as evidenced by their companion novels to the plot. --Havoc8844 06:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Realistically, I think GW realise they have a marketing opportunity from Dawn of War and are very happy to release novels based around that. I wouldn't read too much into the canonicity or otherwise of things due to that. I think the criticism mentioned is somewhat fair as it is true in both Warhammer 40,000 itself and in Epic that Khornate followers cannot summon daemons of Tzeentch. Cheers --Pak21 09:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. However Ive got the chaos codex open in front of me, and there is nothing in there which stops a chaos lord with a mark of khorne fielding tzeentch daemons or troops. A squad cant be of one gods type and have a leader of another type, which may have been what the author was referring to. However the real issue of the statement was to me that it seemed to portay DoW in a bad light, like it was some petty hack of the warhammer 40k universe. Regardless of your PoV on that it is highly PoV in itself, and one not shared by the majority of the games players. --Havoc8844 20:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Although in retrospect I suppose my incredible enjoyment of the game could be biasing me in the opposite direction :) Nevertheless, as this is part of the war40k improvement thingy, which as I understand you are part of Pak21, perhaps you could also double check whether or not an army led by a Khornelord, in base War40k, can or cannot have tzeentch demons like flamers? Because I cant find anywhere where it says they cant except for world eaters, which the DoW chaos army usually isnt and in the WXP campaign Lord Crull isnt (worshipping Khorne does not make you a World Eater). Accuracy to the rules is one of the aims of the improvement project and this would be an example of a discrepency I think. Cheers, --Havoc8844 02:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Which legion are you referring to? I don't have the Codex handy (haven't played Chaos in 40k for a long time), but my belief would be:

• Black Legion: yes.
• Death Guard, Thousand Sons, Emperor's Children: clearly no (no Khornates).
• World Eaters: no (can't summon Tzeentchian daemons)
• Word Bearers: no (led by Dark Apostles)
• Iron Warriors: no? (can summon only Furies?)
• Night Lords, Alpha Legion: no idea.

The Lost and the Damned probably can.

Im going by the latest edition which I think is...4th? From the chaos space marine codex, pg 38, chaos lords with marks of khorne cant field units from slaneesh and vice versa. Similarily units from Tzeentch cant field units affiliated with Nurgle. If we are adherring to the standard army list then Lord Crull, who is a khorne lord, has no restrictions in fielding flamers, which are from tzeentch, just as he has no issues with chaos sorcerors.

Going by legion the four legions not affiliated with a specific god (Black Legion, Word Bearers, Iron Warriors and Night Lords) have no restriction on either what mark their lord takes or what daemons he can field, pursuant to the rules above. As lord Crull has a mark of khorne he cant be death guard, emperors children and definitely not thousand suns. However he cant be world eaters either, as in that case he would not be able to field 90% of the forces he fields in DoW but more importantly his colours and affiliation with sorcerors do not match. Cheers, --Havoc8844 10:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure about all of that? "The only Daemons that are allowed in a Night Lord army are Furies" [1] (OK, I got the wrong army. Fairly obvious if you think about it). "The only mark allowed to the Word Bearers is the mark of undivided" [2] "Iron Warriors can only have the Mark of Chaos Undivided." [3]. While the accuracy of the last two of those links is possibly up for debate, the first one is pretty much the definitive word on the subject :-) However... none of this stops Crull being part of the Black Legion in which he could certainly field Tzeentchian daemons, which is actually the important point here. Remove the criticism, in my (revised) opinion. Edit: actually, I think this depends on whether Crull summons the daemons himself (in which case I believe it's wrong), or whether they are just part of his army (which is fine: they were summoned by someone else). Cheers --Pak21 11:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah I think you might be right about some of the neutral legions beign restricted to marks of chaos undevided. I dont have the codex at work unfortunatly :) Ill make the edit, although afterwards this section is going to be little sparse. In fact, since the speculation on the difficulty is definitely PoV (and one I dont agree with at that) the section might as well be removed altogether.

Yeah, I was the one who fudged up that section, re: the World Eaters. Prior to my edit, it was far worse; I wasn't sure about leaving it (it seemed a bit POV, and was loaded with weasel words; I wasn't aware of how the citation needed tags worked at that time), but I decided to leave it to someone else to decide if it should go. Crull was a member of the World Eaters- at least in the game he is, judging by the colors/heraldry he wears (I can't speak for the novels). He did not personally summon the daemons (it's done at a building, and I believe there was one mission where you already had a unit from the start). He did, however, have a sorceror (a World Eaters one) do some dirty work for him, and that has always been one of the constants of GW fiction, both in Fantasy and 40,000, since at least 1993 (when I started)- pure Khornate armies, at least background-wise, never have sorcerors/wizards. It's pretty much moot now (like I said, I do agree with the action taken, no problems there), but I thought I'd clarify that.

As for the daemon issue, it depends on the rules being used. A "pure" World Eaters army (ie one that uses the World Eaters rules) cannot field any daemons that do not belong to Khorne. However, if the army is using the standard rules (aka "Black Legion" rules, with a General who worships Khorne), they would be allowed to use Horrors- they would, however, be prohibited from fielding Slaanesh's daemons. So I suppose the World Eaters in DOW:WA represent the latter, a BL style army led by a Khorne Lord. Cheers. :) --DarthBinky 01:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No New Zealand flag on your personal page? Wheres the love? :) Anyhoo, I wasnt aware that Lord Crull or the sorceror were world eaters. Do they wear the insignia? Ill have to go back and look. --Havoc8844 01:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been to the southern half of the world yet.  :) But yeah, just to be sure I just fired up the game and checked to make sure I wasn't lying to you... Crull's leading a force called "The Blood Legion of Khorne", but they all are definitely wearing WE colors (blood red and brass) and the distinctive WE symbol (a planet being munched by some jaws).--DarthBinky 01:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) My updated revised opinion: if Crull is leading a World Eaters army, then summoning Tzeentchian daemons is non-canon and commenting on it is fair, and putting something in to that effect would be reasonable (if players really have commented on this). If the army he's leading isn't clearly a World Eaters army, then it's not a problem and shouldn't be mentioned. Cheers --Pak21 08:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it could be just a World Eaters army done in the "Black Legion style" that I mentioned earlier. Supporting this is the fact that they also get Obliterators and Raptors, which are illegal in a WE army (since neither are Khornate), but they not illegal in a BL-style army. --DarthBinky 16:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont think it can possibly be a WE army, but nevertheless its a little weird that a WE leader would be commanding a non WE warband. Not necessarily against cannon though. The sorceror with WE markings could be considered uncanon assuming that all WE's have a mark of khorne (which according to the rulebook prohibits sorcery). This however is a minor issue, perhaps suitable for a trivia section, but definitely not contentious enough that it should go in its own section labeled "Criticism". --Havoc8844 20:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely that it's worthy of a miscellaneous info/trivia section but not part of general "criticism" section. As for WE commanding non-WE stuff, it's perfectly fitting with both the rules and the background. Since Skalanthrax (sp?), the WE has operated in warbands; it's entirely possible that a WE warband leader could rally other non-WE CSM's to his cause. In fact, one of my WH40K armies is a Black Legion army based totally on that principle; I have mostly Black Legion units led by a BL Daemon Prince. But my Terminator Chosen are painted to look like Word Bearers; I also have a couple squads of World Eater Berzerkers, a bunch of Thousand Sons stuff (3 Rubric squads, a Chosen squad and a dreadnought), a big squad of Iron Warriors CSM's, and a squad of Fallen Dark Angels (as well as Cypher). The idea being that all these others have joined the Prince's BL contingent in order to go bash Imperials and all that mumbojumbo. :) --DarthBinky 21:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty much in favour of what a few people are saying here: Lord Crull's force is either: a) a World Eater army represented with Black Legion force organization or b) a World Eater warband with non World Eaters under it's cause. Invisible pyromanic leprechaun 14:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What's up with the Reception section? It's, well, to be honest, full of lies. All the ratings it gives are wrong. Both IGN and Gamespot gave it an 8.8, and MetaCritic has an 86. The section here says they gave it 5.5, 6, and 49 respectively. WAY off. Seems someone really didn't like DoW and is vandalizing the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.65.113 (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Colonel Brom

It says here that he is a Commissar attached to the Tartarans. However, I do not recall this ever mentioned in the game and a line in the novel describes him as a "commissar in all but rank". So basing my judgement on this, I thought he was just a Colonel who executed cowards in his unit, not an actual Commissar. I would change this in the article, but just to check with you guys about this first. Invisible pyromanic leprechaun 14:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

i have to agree, Brom is not a commissar. if he was, i doubt he would have turned to Chaos in the Novel. I also believe that PDF do not have Commissars, so Brom acting like a Commissar is probably due to a lack of leaders Shas'o sodit 22:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for Information: There are Commissars at the PDF, there mentioned in a Dan Abnett novel, which is counted as "canon". But i don't think he is a commissar, he doesnt have the black uniform, he's just acting like one.

Release Date For Dark Crusade Expansion

I've changed the release date to Gamespot's date (Oct. 9th, 2006), but the reference has to be changed (I don't know how to do this). http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/warhammer40000dawnofwarexp2/index.html?q=dawn%20of%20war:%20dark%20crusade

That's the page for it, and it says the release date along the right hand side. Hopefully someone can fix it for me. Hanzolot 01:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried to do the reference, and I think it's done properly. It'd be cool if someone could make sure for me, though. Hanzolot 01:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the game is out now (the article simply says "October 2006"). Gamestop is advertising it on their homepage, but I checked the availability of the stores within 200 miles and none of them have it. Best Buy, however (and according to their store availability feature), has the game at several of their nearby stores. This could just be a mistake, especially since Gamestop had none in stock. Could someone else check other stores and see if it's out? The Gamer 22:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The game was released October 10 in the US, but I don't think it is necessary to change the release date in the article as the European release date is also in October (but near the end of the month.)

Dark Crusade Units

What is the new units for each race in Dark Crusade? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dawnofwar (talk • contribs) .

This talk page is for discussing the article about DoW, not about the game itself. You'd be much better off asking this sort of question on one of the many, many DoW forums on the web. Cheers --Pak21 08:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Dark Crusade - standalone or DOW required?

The wiki says it's standalone and I've also read on Gamespot that it is standalone, but on the official Dark Crusade website it says its an expansion that requires the original DOW to play. Which is it? Emburst 15:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)emburst

Its a little of both. You can use it as a standalone, but you only get to use the Tau and Necron (this may only be for multiplayer purposes, no one's real specific if this affects the campaign or not). If you own the original Dawn of War then you can also use the Space Marines, Eldar, etc. If you have Winter Assault you will be able to use the Imperial Guard. 70.112.66.120 01:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The Impereal Guard can actually be used if you don't have Winter Assault. As it is a Hybrid Expansion Pack it only requires the original game if you want the Eldar, Orks, Space/Chaos Marines.

Hmm, does the game know if they have been installed before? I believe am able to use any race (although I've only tried to play campaign so far with Blood Angels, Guardsmen, and Eldar), but I do not have the original or 1st expansion installed currently (I had before). Chronolegion 23 October 2006

I have this game. You need the first games to play online, but in skirmishes and campaign you can use the races without them.

How to clean this article up

This article is a mess. I don't know who thought it would be a bright idea to do it this way, but what really needs to happen is to seperate the Dawn of War articles with the expansion articles. Most other games that comes to mind - The Sims, Civ, etc - all have seperate articles. That way, someone can read about the original game's plot and information, without having to skip over the WA/DC stuff. If someone doesn't do it, I will. Scumbag 22:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Winter Assault and Dark Crusade both have their own pages. Martin23230 11:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Dark Crusade - Blood Ravens

Strange, I am pretty sure that the Blood Ravens were ordered to purge Kronos and protect the ruins specifically because they knew that there was something in them that could damage the chapter's reputation (apparently, even more than killing fellow soldiers). I'm sure it's possible that only the higher-ups knew what was hidden in the ruins, which is why I doubt they would want Thule or his men digging there. Faith is one thing, security is completely different. Chronolegion 15:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Tense

I noticed that much of the Dark Crusade "Other updates" section of the article is written in the future tense. But the game has been released in many countries already (though not Europe yet). Has there been any discussion on whether it should be put into past tense? Fneep 04:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Dawn of War Campaign

At the end of the Dawn of war Campaign. A daemon appears and talks to Angelos, what is that daemon. Elfly 11:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is a novel that continues the story of Dawn of War. "Ascension" is the name. Chronolegion 13:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ascension has a different story, altogether.

Everyone: Ascension has a different story.

...Right. Seriously, though. It does take place after the events of the game, and just before and during Winter Assault. But the events in it have little to do with what happened on Tartarus. SAMAS 20:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Dialect Spelling

Why do people keep changing the spelling based on their preference? Someone just changed the word "armor" to "armour". I realize that it would seem more correct to someone outside the United States, but I don't think this article is the place to fight spelling wars. In these cases, the game's spelling should be used. Unfortunately, I don't remember at this time which word spelling is used in the game. Can someone who is currently playing please check? Chronolegion 13:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The general principle is that Warhammer 40,000 articles use British English (as Games Workshop is a British company). If the game uses "armor" even when locali[sz]ed into British English, I can see you could make the exception here, but I can equally see the reasoning for keeping all 40k articles the same. --Pak21 15:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I wasn't trying to attack anyone's spelling preference. I'm not sure how they spell in Canada (Dawn of War was designed in British Columbia) and was merely trying to see if there are ground rules for these things. I apologize in advance if, when I add something to the article, I don't use British spelling. Chronolegion 17:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Essentially, the ground rules are "use what's there already". Cheers --Pak21 17:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, Canadian English mainly uses British spellings- although, according to the article about Canadian English, there's some bleedover of American spellings. I've not encountered that, but it does make sense. --DarthBinky 17:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a British Columbian, and I have always seen it spelt "armour" around here. But that's just me. --The F50 Man 18:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous vandalism

Somebody who knows more about Warhammer 40k then me should fix that. Some of the recent edits look okay, but a lot of them seem to be vandalism. o_O --Ryajinor 23:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if this is what you mean, Ryajinor, but this looks like it could be vandalism to me: In Notable Features, one bulleted paragraph reads The squad system is innovative and had never really bummer been |thumb|right|Close-combat finishing moves in Dawn of War can be particularly violent]] . This doesn't seem right to me, but I don't know the subject matter enough to know what it should read (or I'd edit it myself)! - TunaSunrise 12:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've changed some of the points in Notable Features back. Not sure what the deal was there, but I found what looked like vandalism in every bullet point. None of the changes made any sense, and it looked like someone had just cut sentences out at random. Macd21 15:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That's normal. Vandals don't seem to have any sense - deleting random things and adding nonsense. I find I revert about 40 vandal edits a day throughout the site.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Summaries

The 2 expansions should be summariesed individually. A summary saying that 'there are 2 expansions' followed by a generalised explanation of what an expansion is (as that is what it was) doesn't do this. The subject of this article is DOW, therefore it should briefly talk about the 2 expansions - as they are relevant to the subject of the page. A single paragraph each should suffice, but one paragraph between them doesn't. They also don't need to have full headings each. I will make some adjustments. -Localzuk^(talk) 20:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree. You say they shouldn't be the other way- why shouldn't they? I will await a response before reverting the last change.--DarthBinky 20:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, look at StarCraft, which is a featured article. They do not provide a summary for the expansion there- they just link to the article for it. You also mentioned in the edit summary that the manual of style says to not do that- could you please provide a link to that MOS, as I have been unable to find it? Cheers --DarthBinky 20:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a MOS guideline, but it is mentioned between these 2 WP:SPLIT and WP:POVFORK - in particular on WP:POVFORK it says Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique.

I have never seen a single section summarising 2 expansion packs of any game in the way you have suggested. This method has a single paragraph for each sub-article, which follows the guideline and provides a brief explanation of what the person would be clicking off to look at.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem those is that they're talking about subsections of a single large subject (the example they give in the summary page is World War II, with spinoffs dealing with its cause, participants, aftermath, etc). This isn't the same thing- the two expansions are their own separate articles, not subsections of this article (although they were originally presented that way). As I already mentioned, FA StarCraft does it the way I originally suggested- no summary at all; it just mentions the expansion (StarCraft: Brood War) in the opening body and later in a "See Also" section. --DarthBinky 20:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Then I would suggest that the StarCraft article should expand on those points. The expansion packs here are directly relevant to the subject matter - so much so that they were included within the article originally before splitting off. Therefore, we should summarise the subject matter. Take a look at Warcraft III - you will see that the expansion pack is summarised and then split off. The only other place where I see a combined expansion packs section has it summarising each one in a single sentance, that is at The Sims. Either way, we need explanation of the individual characteristics of the expansion packs. A single paragraph each does not detract from the article and the article is not overly long. I would suggest that our time would be better spent fixing the unreferenced sections and fiction sections of the article instead. Cheers, Localzuk^(talk) 20:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with those examples is that neither are FA or even GA; The Sims in particular is a mess. And I still strongly disagree that "we need explanation of the individual characteristics of the expansion packs"; I think a single paragraph each does detract from the article. Yes, it's true that they were originally part of this article- but that doesn't mean they should have been (ie two wrongs don't make a right). I agree that those other problems need loads of fixing, but that doesn't mean we should ignore smaller issues.--DarthBinky 20:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should wait a while and see what any other editors think.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Finally, something to agree on. :) --DarthBinky 21:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dawn of War Userbox?

Just wondering, is there currently a specific Userbox for the Dawn of War series? I was searching through the Userboxes under the Games section and I can't seem to find it (nor anything Warhammer 40,000 either). If it does exist, can someone please point it out? Hope this is the right section for this question... Nic tan33 13:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

{{User 40k}} Cheers --Pak21 13:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That was a fast reply! Thanks Pak21, but there is a "Dawn of War" Userbox right? Nic tan33 14:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Relic's big hit? Info?

Is there any information on sales figures or how well the game has done? It seems like this is the big hit for Relic and their cash cow for the future, but I'd like some figures or something in the article to show this. It must have outsold their previous titles by quite a margin by now.

mods

Are there any notable DOW mods? 58.169.52.99 10:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a mod that adds the Tyranids into the game.

Hmm...

They have most of the races available to play, but not the Tyrranids (spelling?). I wonder if Relic will release an expansion making them available for play.

Relic has said in interviews and in their forums that they believed that the Dawn of War engine (with requisition/power and strategic point capping as "resources") as well as the graphics engine didn't allow them to do justice to the Tyranids, and that Tyranids would not be added in a future expansion. Rumors abound that Dawn of War 2 will almost definitely feature Tyranids, however. Arc salvo 09:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

E3 Trailer

What was the song played in the E3 trailer for Dawn of War?72.195.158.95 06:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Mike Reason

Gameplay cleanup

Does notable features seriously need its own section? Surely it would be better to integrate it into an expanded, sectioned Gameplay section? XJDenton 03:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Game of the Year

I can't read any of the images i've searched on google of that edition, who awarded it because its not listed in the awards section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stabby Joe (talk • contribs) 21:37:24, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Patches

Neither THQ or Relic have posted patches on their websites because the game supposedly downloads them automatically. But I have the Gold Edition of the game, which ships as 1.40, and I don't see any way to update it. Anyone know what's going on here? Ham Pastrami 11:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Just log on multiplayer and the game will patch itself Slup 12:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DawnofWar-Dreadnought.jpg

Image:DawnofWar-Dreadnought.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

List of units in the Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War series

I'm creating an article at List of units in the Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War series. If anyone feels like they have some time, feel free to come by and help out in creating it. I'm aiming to make it as comprehensive as the List of units in the Age of Mythology series, which I'm using as a guideline. Anyway, I look forward to seeing anyone there! Cheers. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 00:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect engine

The enginge was changed to IC 01:32, 11 March 2007 by 200.117.204.142 with no comment or reference. I have removed this as DoW quite obviously uses the Warcraft III engine. They even have the exact same menu style. Signed Pretender2j

Oh my God, please, before making such changes educate yourself and look for sources written by people who know more than you. The technology behind Dawn of War is obviously completely different than that from Warcraft which can be seen in almost every single aspect of the game. The GUI is indeed inspired by WC3 but this is the case with most modern RTS games. Also: Dawn of War was developed by Relic and Relic's previous game was Impossible Creatures - many traces in DoW point to the same engine (starting with the fact that several tools used to modify IC still work with DoW). This was also confirmed in early news about DoW. And as far as I know Blizzard hasn't EVER licensed any of their engines to third party developers, this means that no game besides WC3 uses WC3's engine. --188.106.103.101 (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I just found a reliable source for this and added it to the article. Cheers. --188.106.103.101 (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

4 million sold

http://play.tm/news/23724/dawn-of-war-passes-four-million/ that's really surprising —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.182.57 (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Asian Gamers of America

I am deleting the review about the Asian Gamers of America, since I haven't heard of it. Though if I am wrong, add a citation for it.Kidcorona (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Article for the series

Now that W40k:DoW is up to 6 releases of which 5 can act as stand-alones, perhaps an article for the series (Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War (series)) would be appropriate? --Krainert (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201132337/http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/wh40kdawnofwar/similar.html?mode=versions to http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/wh40kdawnofwar/similar.html?mode=versions
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041204055613/http://www.gameinformer.com/Games/Review/200411/R04.1119.1239.41106.htm to http://www.gameinformer.com/Games/Review/200411/R04.1119.1239.41106.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201132332/http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/wh40kdawnofwar/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary%3Breview&page=3 to http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/wh40kdawnofwar/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary%3Breview&page=3
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.elspa.com/?i=3942
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68AWigLQy?url=http://uk.gamespot.com/warhammer-40-000-dawn-of-war/reviews/warhammer-40000-dawn-of-war-review-6108038/?page=1 to http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/wh40kdawnofwar/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary%3Breview&page=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)