Welcome to Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum! Log in and join the community.

Talk:Blood Angels

From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
Jump to: navigation, search

18 June 2005 - Updated Basic Information - Sgt John Keel

Could we keep gameplay out of Fluff.

5 September - Blood Angels and Sanguinius - Koki

Ok, this is copied from Wiki, and it turns out really weird because it has more details on Sanguinius that article about Sanguinius himself. I don't know what to make of this, maybe redirect Sanguinius to Blood Angels like in Wiki, or cut everything about Sanguinius from here, leaving only his death as it concerns Red Thirst and Blood Rage.

The article was edited from ... the number of marines in the chapter was changed from 1,000 to 10,000. No source was given (but there isn't any in this article anyway). Now my knowledge of this Chapter is very limited and I don't have their codex to verify but what I gather is they are reasonably stric with the Codex Astartes and thus have approx. 1,000 marines... Unless ofcourse the editor was referring to pre-Heresy since it is a first founding chapter... So I changed it to 10,000 (pre-Heresy) ~1,000(post-Heresy). Please correct me if I'm wrong here :) -- JoeneB, 12 June 2006, 19:37 CEST.

8 January 2008 - The Black Rage, older information?

What's the general attitude to noting differences in fluff between editions of 40K? I ask because in older version the Black Rage was said to have been a result of having to culture geneseed directly from Sanguinius' corpse rather than a psychic shock. Deny the Foe 18:46, 8 January 2008 (CET)

Fleet disposition

Can anyone confirm the information given there? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 22:11, 7 July 2008 (CEST)

New details emerged

I finished reading Red Fury by James Swallow. A tremendous amount of details poured out from the book, including many current Chapter Master names from the 2nd Founding chapters, details surrounding their combat M.O.s, plus details very relevant to the current state of the Blood Angels. How appliable are these facts to this article? --He2etic 22:48, 4 September 2008 (CEST)

Novels are part of the canon sources (even if the books are really bad like the BA saga). Include the information with proper sources/ footnote and if there are contradictions both "views" have to be included and sourced. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 13:32, 6 September 2008 (CEST)
I'd like to keep Red Fury separate from the other two books for the sake of when the details emerged. The Blood Angels saga came out in rapid succession, but Red Fury came out years later and expounds a lot of details that people may want to contest. Thus, if anyone wants to argue over a point, they can more readily find where we drew the citation. --Lygris 18:52, 8 September 2008 (CEST)
I think it's safe to say now that the BA books have gone in an entirely different direction lore-wise, judging from the details of the new 5th Edition BA Codex. I think that a 'in the BA Novels' caveat should be added to details when they contradict Codex material. --Myssa Rei 13:14, 4 April 2010.

Details from the 5th Edition Blood Angels Codex

While it's a little early at this point, I think it would be good to update the page with information from the new Blood Angels Codex, especially new background information, as well as new units such as the Sanguinary Guard and the Stormraven Gunship. --Myssa Rei 13:17, 4 April 2010.

Just to quell this beforehand, the codex blatantly states on the page with the rest of the successors, that the Blood Swords are not, nor do they pretend to be, successors of the Blood Angels. --Geoff Walter 11:45, 6 April 2010.

Materials to be added upon template completion

Noted Elements of the Blood Angels



Noteable Members

Heresy Era

References will be included upon editing

Main Colours

Would anyone object if I moved the helmet colours out of the main info box and into the main article as a whole, as it is - it makes the main box very cluttered. Thelemur 02:58, 8 January 2012 (CET)

I agree with you, move them. However the Company breakdown table needs reworking as it is too wide for my page resolution and i am running 1280 x 1024.--Ytokes 12:02, 9 January 2012 (CET)
It is too big for me too and I am running 1366 x 768. Could be fixed by moving the pics to the same column as the information on the company itself, thus contracting the too-wide columns.-- Shadowhawk2008 12.13, 9 January 2012 (CET)
Done, hope that is better. The Ultramarines page has a similar table - are the columns on that page too wide aswell? If so I'll alter that table too. Thelemur 12:56, 9 January 2012 (CET)
That one is actually fine. Shadowhawk2008 12.58, 9 January 2012 (CET)
Yeah BA is sweet as. The Ultramarines one is too wide by half a column. This one (BA) was too wide by a whole column before. It seems like it doesnt take much for it to go out of whack.--Ytokes 13:26, 9 January 2012 (CET)

Conflicting sources footnote (formerly "Canon conflict")

The footnote did not and does not have a corresponding endnote. So the conflict between sources should be detailed in the section I have prepared at the end of the article. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)