Talk:Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000)

Cleanup needed

This article is INCREDIBLY overlong and contains a lot of spurious information. I think it needs pruning and cleanup. --Agamemnon2 12:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Saberwyn's Crazy Cleanup Plan

I've been thinking about this article over the past few hours, and here's what i think needs to be done to tidy it up.

1. The entire Notable Imperial Guard Forces section should go to its own article, something like History of the Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000), below a summary of the history of the Guard in general (taken from the 4th edition Imperial Guard Codex) I can easily set that up.
   • History of the Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000) has been created. Saberwyn 06:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Components of an Imperial Guard Regiment doesn't belong here.Replace it with what exactly, I'm not entirely sure, but a selection-by-selection breakdown of the army list (in its current format) doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I wouldn't suggest a seperate article, but the Ogryns and Ratlings can be added to the Abhuman article, and the vehicles can be merged out to either the Leman Russ article, the Warhammer 40,000 Imperial Guard Equipment and Weaponry list, or something similar.
3. Go on a Great Crusade to redirect the various wikilinks to their new homes.
4. In place of the army list, maybe a description of how the Imperial Guard as an army and collection appeal to a player? Inspirations?

Do this, and the place should look a lot tidier. Any suggestions/comments? Saberwyn 21:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• I am in agreement with that idea. The current stuff goes too far, typing out Codex entries that are of no use to the average reader, or aspiring hobbyist. --Agamemnon2 10:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• I'll do the first step sometime this weekend, and might start moving some stuff around pertaining to the second. If you come up with any ideas for a replacemet chenk of text for the army list, lemme know here, please. Saberwyn 12:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with most of it. What I don't agree with is the removal or moval of the components section. It is part of the Imperial Guard in general and therefore, imo, sould remain in this section rather than be given its own section. It most certainly shouldn't be deleted. The only way I think a move would be justifiable is if a new page was created with a list of every unit that has been made for the Guard, split into two sections, Past (old discontinued models e.g. Praetorians) and Present(current active ranges). Unfortunately, I am a Chaos collector and have little knowledge of the Imperial Guard outside of the novels and general background fluff. Maybe someone else might like to start it? --Nayl 17:15 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with both Saberwyn and Agamemnon2 on this one: lists of units are of no interest to the average reader, and have no place in a Wikipedia article on the subject. Cheers --Pak21 11:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Then surely a new article should be made. If the Imperial Guard are to be documented at all on Wikipedia, they should be documented fully, not just in parts. --Nayl 10:07 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• No, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a reference manual for the Imperial Guard. Wikibooks would be a more appropriate place for that kind of information (or just read Codex: Imperial Guard). Cheers --Pak21 11:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Definition of an Encyclopedia with the relevant part highlighted: "A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically." A unit list, with images of the units and possibly a brief history of them. This belongs here on wikipedia for greater in depth reference of the units of the Imperial Guard and basically, the other armies. As you lot don't seem too keen on the idea I'm going to do it myself. All I ask is that you observe it, maybe add to it or correct any mistakes I made and once it's finished comment on what you think. If in the end it clearly cannot be done, we can simply delete it. --Nayl 17:35, 8 January (UTC)

• What I am concerned over that we lose the substrance by grasping at some ephemereal standard of completeness. I will not object to writeups of the general organizational units of the Guard, but to go through the entire armylist unit-by-unit is incredibly tedious and results in an unreadable article. --Agamemnon2 19:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• If you really want to do it, I'm not going to stop you, but (1) Put it on a seperate page, and (2) If, in my personal opinion, this ends up nothing more than a copy of info from Codex: Imperial Guard's army list and Games Workshop's Mail Order pages, I'm nominating it for deletion. Saberwyn 22:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly agree. I think we've already established a strong consensus for deleting this kind of stuff from 40K-related pages, and I really don't see why this is any different. Cheers --Pak21 07:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• I feel the same as both of you. Thats why I want this to be more extensive and detailed, giving both a general overview and history of how the units have developed with up to date images of each unit. What I intend not to add is the technical specifications for each unit, stuff like wounds, weapons skill etc. as this definately does not belong on Wikipedia, but belongs in a codex. --Nayl 15:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think there has been any development. Well, back in Rogue Trader you couldn't customize the weapons, but that's pretty much it. the IG has alwaýs been a stagnant list. --Agamemnon2 05:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• There are various differences in the models. It is (or was, I'm not sure if you still can or not) possible to get Iron Mordian guard units. They look different to regular Guard units but are fairly similar. Nayl 09:18 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• A-Levels prevented me from doing this article. Now I don't have the will to do it --172.143.234.48 05:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It is now possible to get mordian iron guard models from GW (although they are ridiculously overpriced) Eralam (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Complete Rewrite, nothing less

This article is insipid, spelling out every single unit entry in the Imperial Guard Codex in a way that is not at all helpful to anyone not already familiar with the subject matter (to them, it is merely pointless). There is no real information being passed here, too little is done to elucidate the reader on what the Imperial Guard are, how they wage war, how they fit in the WH40k backstory, the current model range, etc. --Agamemnon2 15:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Too bloody right! I finish up at my temp job just after Xmas; I'll have a lot of free time on my hands. If someone can give me something to work with, great. If not, I'll start a user subpage, write one up, and post the link here for approval. Saberwyn 12:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Attempted Rewrite

I've had a crack at rewriting the article, simply by cutting out all the crap, reorganising the rest, and adding some bits from the "Why Collect An Imperial Guard Army?" section of Codex: Imperial Guard. Have a look and a play with it. Saberwyn - 03:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• I like it, I like it. Kudos on a bold edit that has increased the worth of this article. --Agamemnon2 06:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• I (very belatedly) agree, and have removed the {{cleanup-rewrite}} tag. Cheers --Pak21 11:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000 army) → Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000) – Consistency with other Warhammer 40,000 army pages

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support. No need for this page to have "army" at the end of end when no other 40k pages do. --Pak21 16:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Common sense and consistency. -- Saberwyn 21:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. If no other 40k page has army after it then it is useless and should be removedGeneral Aion 05:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Imperial Guard Books

Personally I think the novels section requires a little tidying. At the moment we have a long list of book that "feature" the Imperial Guard. I think that it should be split up into novels that are specifically about the Imperial Guard e.g Gaunt's Ghosts and books that simply feature them at some point e.g. the Einsenhorn Trilogy. -- Nayl 18:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• All the books listed are specifically about the Guard. That said, I'm personally not 100% happy about having a straight list there, and would like to see a little bit of writing about the Guard as the subject of a fair whack of Black Library's novels. -- Saberwyn 20:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• I also felt the list was somewhat too long and made it look out of place. What about removing all the published gaunt titles, leaving only the projected titles and putting a link to the black library Gaunt's Ghosts page instead? --Nayl 12:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Given that our Gaunt's Ghosts article contains all that information anyway, why not just use {{main}} to point people there instead? Cheers --Pak21 12:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggested 40k Article Guidelines

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)

I think this is a good idea, maybe getting round to notable in fluff regiments and forces having their own pages as someone on this page clearly has a problem with my adding them here Eralam (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Force make up edit

Just wanted to add that I changed the 'men only' part of the IG summary to include women as well as changing 'fighting men' to 'fighting soldiers'. It is well documented in the Gaunt's Ghost series that women fight in the IG too. I also cite for proof page 27 of the Tyranid codex "Every able-bodied man and woman on every world in Ultima Segmentum, Segmentum Pacificus and Segmentum Solar will need to be drafted into the Imperial Guard if we are to have any chance of repelling this foe"

Strictly, I don't think that last quote implies that women currently fight in the IG, but that it would be necessary for them to do so in order to defeat the Tyranids. That all said, I have no problem whatsoever with your edit! Cheers --Pak21 10:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Other examples of Women in the Guard already exist. For example, the original 3rd ed IG codex includes the examples of "Rocket Girl" and "Warrior Woman" in the Schaeffers Last Chancers entry and in the "Famous Regiments" section there is an illustration of a "Xenonian Warrior Woman" implying that there are entire Woman only Imperial Guard Regiment. Also, in the Index Imperial Guard article in WD284, the article on the Mortant 303rd "Acid Dogs" Regiment features an illustration of a female Veteran Sergeant. Within the model line, aside from the Last Chancers special charcters, there are at least two female Guard figures currently available - a Tanith trooper and Catachan Special Weapons trooper - and there have been several others in the past, including a Female Commissar and some very early RT era metal Guardswomen. Getztashida 14:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There is also the example of the Commissar Cain novels, which reenforces the idea that in most cases the Guard uses gender segregation at the regimental level. Many planets do however have one gender dominating the military (or at least its combat units), and this is usually the males (but not always by any means).--Darth Fanboy 19:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Rank Structure

I'm slightly modifying the section on ranks, replacing Brigadier General with Brigadier (the rank is only used once to my knowledge in recent publications, in the Gaunt's Ghost books, and the British form is used). I'm also adding a bit on NCOs--Darth Fanboy 21:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to say something about the ranks.In the novel, Fifteen Hours, larn states that he is "Trooper First Class Larn, Arvin, Number-81576-389-472-1", wouldn't this imply that there is a "Private First Class" rank?I think i'll add that.Centurion Ry 16:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't actually think of any usage of the rank of private, trooper being used instead at least in the Imperial Infantryman's Uplifting Primer and throughout the Guants series, and also in the Codex and White Dwarf from what I can recall. The only thing that your reference would seem to indicate is the existance of at least two grades of Trooper.--Darth Fanboy 19:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Can I make the suggestion that lists of ranks are revised to match that given in the Imperial Infantryman's Uplifting Primer. Include ranks mentioned in books or short stories would not necesseraily apply across the whole of the Guard because of the nature of the organisation. Indeed, the list from the Primer would not extend across the entirity of the Guard but it is the only Guard rank structure I am aware of. I believe some of the ranks shown, primarily the highest of the commisioned ranks such as Lord Marshal and Lord Castellan, are positions within a Sector rather than actual rank.

Ive made a minor change which is to say that there are two examples of the rank of Colonel- Commissar, as Gaunt's forerunner and mentor Delane Oktar also held that rank.Lemming42 (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

'Sarcastic'

...what on earth? I'm pretty certain this should be removed. Xzamuel 14:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I know. I removed it as vandalism, somebody reverted it. Shrumster 15:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

VANDALISM? Wow. Sorry. - The writer of that peice, who shall remain safely anonymous

But how the hell was it vandalism?

Removing it was way to far. It is somthing that is implied in the Codexs. that is why i added the ref tag. --Mcgrath50 06:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's unsourced speculation, that's what it is. It has no place in an encyclopedia. --Agamemnon2 06:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Agamemnon. If it's implied, then it's not allowed on wikipedia until it's explicitly stated. Shrumster 14:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Language gents.--Mcgrath50 23:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, it's back. However, the paragraph it's in is very POV. Can someone fix this please? Shrumster 04:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The imperial guard do not share the unshakable faith of the Space Marines in the Emperor of Mankind. Therefore, they are a very disillusioned, dishartened, and quite sarcastic, group. Therefore, they suffer from weak morale.

This seems a fair comprimise--Mcgrath50 04:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The statement is inherently POV though. The IG do not have weak morale, they only do so in relation to the Space Marines. The IG (standard trooper) has the standard morale as an ork, Tau fire warrior, mutants, and even a few Chaos daemons. And even if they were to be considered that, we need a reliable source explicitly stating it. Shrumster 05:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

QFT. --Agamemnon2 09:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I see. I can stop putting those in, if you want...

This is flogging a dead horse, but I was speaking using the Dawn of War version as guidelines.

They don't 'ave morale az gud as ours!--Warbozz of Orks (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A question. For defending millions of worlds you need a bit more than a few billions of troops. As far as I know the Imperial Guard counts 5 billion soldiers. How is it possiible to defend such a large number of planets with a "handfull" of soldiers ?? Theoreticaly every single planet needs a large imperial guard garrison. I think, trillions of soldiers would be realistic because like the story tells, soldiers beeing recruited on every single world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.94.72 (talk) 08:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That is a fair point. However, bare in mind that there are also PDF (planetary defence forces) to defend planets, and they are the first line of defence. Every planet raises them, and no exact number has been given for them, so there could be trillions. The guard are only called in if a problem arises that is too big for the PDFs to cope for. If a problem is too big for local guard forces, more will be called in from further afield.Lemming42 (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Stylistic Links

IMHO, while amusing, these don't belong here as they are original research. Shrumster 10:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Mess

This article is a mess! It not only lacks insurmountable loads of information and sources, but is giving individual units their own page!

I don't think the individual units need to be having their own articles, ESPECIALLY if those articles are as small as they are. Colonel Marksman 00:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ, colonel. In fact, I think this article is pretty damn good. It contains more information than some people may wish to read, but that's why we have headings, so that people can see what the paragraph is about, and choose to skip it. The point of an Encyclopedia as a whole is to present as many facts as required to give information on a subject. The only thing I would support cutting down is the "Imperial Guard Organisation" section. I think it's a good section, but way too big, (900 words- a short essay.) I think just keep the list of non-comm ranks and comm ranks, and then cut some of the paragraphs.

Finally; this article presented me with the information I needed to make decisions about the Imperial Guard, its units, its structure and its history. It gave me more information than you get from many articles on real life army units, such as the Household Division. --The Bryce (talk) 07:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this article provides a lot of info and is easy to navigate from the top bar so I don't really see what the problem is. Project WH40K aims to be COMPREHENSIVE right? Then let it be so, as long as the necessary links are added at page top and formatting is kept to! --Eralam (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Gaunt redirects here

Who has deleted the page of coronel-comissar gaunt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.193.58 (talk) 09:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop Changing the gameplay over view section!

"A full guard platoon can boast up to 55 models, not counting independent characters, per troops choice" is an understatment, the platoon can take far more than 55 models, they can take 50 conscripts for one squad, the number is 132 in 5th edition guard, this is backed by Army Builder and the Codex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreg102 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I do think gameplay information this specific isn't really appropriate in an encyclopedic entry. However, you're actually off. Maximum models without vehicles is 138. You can add Commissars to the Command Squad and the Infantry Squads. Adding Chimaeras to every squad that can bumps that up to 144. Shrumster (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The text before that states "not counting IC" so 132 is accurate. Dreg102 (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Attached Commissars aren't independent characters. :) Shrumster (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean 'per platoon' strictly things within the platoon, or stuff that can be attached to its squads (e.g chimeras and commisars) That's what needs cleaning up here before a definite number can be established as of 7th Edition. --Eralam (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding Guard Regiments

I would like to create a new subsection which describe the myriad cultures found within the Guard, eg, Mordian Iron Guard, Tallarn Desert Raiders, D-99 etc. Also what would people think about adding information on the guard's predecessors to this page (most notably the Solar Auxilia) or are they worthy of their own pages. I would ask the same with regards to the Militarum Tempestus --Eralam (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

a subsection on the hobby-aspect with maybe a small gallery (3 or 4) of the more obviously-different regiments would go down okay. Just resist the temptation to put tooo much info in there. Its not really encyclopedic to have the entire background of the Iron Guard, Cadians etc Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Whyever shouldn't we put all the details in? The very term you used, 'encyclopedic' means: (as quoted from google) Comprehensive in terms of knowledge. So no disrespect, but surely it is more encyclopedic to add everything we know? If wikipedia is truly an enclyclopedia I see no reason in principle why all the information at our disposal shouldn't be put down on this article. If formatting is the problem then let me state here and now I am willing to create sub-articles if people think the article is becoming a 'cluster****' (seriously, is the f-word needed there?!) --Eralam (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

So I've decided to put some basic bits in without causing the article to overflow, if there is calling for me to put more details in I will do so, but it might be a good idea to do this under separate articles, for space and ease of navigation, and then just link them all to make sure none become orphaned. --Eralam (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

So someone has put up two tags against my work here. (though they have decided to remain anonymous)I would ask whoever did this and all others interested as to whether they would like it transplanted into separate articles, which I'm more than happy to do.Eralam (talk) 07:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so if detail may cause unbalanced weight here, if there are any admins about, would a spinoff article on the individual regiments be acceptable? Eralam (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

"Lord Commander Solar Macharius" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lord Commander Solar Macharius. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)