From RelicWiki

Contents 1 Useful templates 2 Discussion 2.1 Helping With The Wiki 2.2 Article Layout 2.3 Weapons 2.3.1 DPS Values 2.3.2 Weapon Templates 2.4 Tactics section 2.5 Unit Classification 2.6 'Thought of the Day' 2.7 Tau touching up 2.8 Vindicare Assasin 2.9 A Few Questions 2.10 Grammar, etc. etc (especially Eldar section). 2.11 I'd like a word of moderation, please. 2.12 Story units 2.13 DPS values and question 2.14 Inclusion of speed of each unit 2.15 Unit sight radius 2.16 Pages to remove 2.17 Inclusion of % resources returned when deleting 2.18 Morale DPS 2.19 Version 1.2 2.20 Mass and knockback 2.21 Morale Death Penalty 2.22 New default weapon icons

Useful templates

• See Talk:Dawn of War Player's Guide/Templates.

Discussion

Helping With The Wiki

All contributions are welcome, even if you don't have all the data. Just use the Template:DoW Page Needing Data template to tag a page you've started or added to as needing hard stats.Sweedumz 19:22, 13 December 2006 (MST)

I just have a small question. I would love to help out with the chaos section (I like Chaos). I don't know some of the more specific details and would have to do some research. Can I post what I already know, and later add on? or must I know everything and post it all at once? User:Chaos master Eliphas 10:15, 9 December 2006 (GMT +5:30)

If you want to just post what you already know, make sure to add the need more data tag so that if someone else knows what you are missing, they can fill it in. See http://wiki.reliccommunity.com/Category:DoW_Pages_Needing_Data to see some examples of what is short of data.

Article Layout

I noticed Briscoe has edited the layout on the Space Marine pages and moved things around somewhat. When creating the pages for Tau, Necrons and Chaos I've been using the original layout put forward by Octopus Rex as I thought that was the most easy to read and felt the most natural. Take a look at the XV15 Stealth Team for a sample of how it looks. I think we really should try and decide on a finished layout and instruct people to use it.--Cogdiz 01:24, 24 December 2006 (MST)

I prefer seeing the sergeant info up at the top where it was. Sergeant info is critical enough that at one point it was suggested that it be moved to the unit infobox (not practical, unfortunately) and should definitely be the first stat section on the page. I do think we should switch over to the different squad leader infobox that Briscoe is using since squad leaders don't have squad sizes or limits (at least no limits by squad leader type). The other alt-infoboxes (buildable unit, ability, and damage) can be incorporated into the existing infoboxes using if statements. I would like to see the min, max, and min-value entries returned since these can be useful when trying to see why a weapon or ability does the damage it does (ideal for checking if something is bugged).

We also need general unit tactics on each page. time and again I've found out some nifty way to use a unit that improved my game by little bits of info like that. Still torn on whether or not they need their own section or can just be lumped with the unit description, but the setup on the Chaos Space Marine Squad works well. I like having the quotes on there too just because they're fun. Never get tired of seeing the Psycher's quote (of course, I love the crazy dude). Rex's earlier concerns about "liquid text" (which makes the page readable) can finally be addressed at this point now that the stats are 99% in for 5 races. I'm loathe to remove anything that would provide a way to enter this info.

For the squad leader-granted abilities, I think simply putting them in the "Effects" entry of the squad leader infobox Briscoe made for the SM squad page and linking them to the ability description on the squad leader's page along with moving the squad leader back to the top of the page would suffice. I don't quite see an ability granted by the squad leader as an ability of the squad. Maktaka 01:23, 28 December 2006 (MST)

Weapons

DPS Values

Is there anyone that can help me with figuring out the damage done by certain weapons? Some formula or something. User:Chaos master Eliphas 10:15, 9 December 2006 (GMT +5:30)

Use Slowrunners DPS charts Sweedumz 19:22, 13 December 2006 (MST)

Weapon Templates

I'm thinking we need weapons templates, so we can easily handle weapons that are shared amongst units. — ceejayoz talk 13:25, 30 November 2006 (MST)

What do you mean? Give an example please.Octopus Rex 10:57, 3 December 2006 (MST)

He means that if two units share the same weapon, then we create a template for that weapon, and call the template on both pages.Sweedumz 15:11, 6 December 2006 (MST)

As it turns out, I don't beleive any two units share the same weapon, so creating a template won't really help an awful lot. However, later on when perhaps someone wants a pages containing say, all SM weapons, or all plasma weapons, then a weapons template would be in order. But this should be left until later, so that editors can directly tweak DPS values etc on the page, rather than go fishing for them. I don't want to make the experts jobs harder than they need to be.Sweedumz 15:11, 6 December 2006 (MST)

So are you suggesting that we have a master set of DPS infoboxes eg Template:DoW Space Marine Tactical Plasma Gun so we can then go round creating various sets of grouped weapons pages extremely easily? That's a good idea and it won't be too hard: if we, like you suggested, just wait until all the weapons are done we can then copy and paste them onto a template for each weapon one page at a time. Hmmm, but that will mean a WHOLE lot of templates. I don't know what drains servers heavily and what doesn't so.... Also, that will be amazing for updating stuff, all the pages will change at the same time after the patch. But yeah, later for that.Octopus Rex 14:52, 7 December 2006 (MST)

Templates only drain the server significantly when they're being edited, and only if there's a lot going on at once - not at all an issue here, really. Let us worry about server load. — ceejayoz talk 16:04, 11 December 2006 (MST)

Well it sounds like a good idea, and I suppose it would make like a lot easier for a DPS expert to just come along and doublecheck values. I'll see what I can throw together.Sweedumz 19:22, 13 December 2006 (MST)

OK. I has a think about it and I created a prototype template. You can see the calls to it in action in the code in the Space Marine Squad page. I'm not exactly sure if this is what is needed. It's a bit laborius to add a weapon to the page, but the call on the page is certainly neater. Also on the plus side, it enables staters to have just one place where they can check and/or update stats. On the downside, they might feel a bit odd about editing the code in a template page. Well, hopefully they might. Anyway, what do you think? Does this work? Sweedumz 17:08, 14 December 2006 (MST)

I think that yes it is a little complex/intimidating, but that it will be good in the long run. It's not really that hard and there'll always be something they can copy and paste. You might want to add some comments into the edit page though, just so an editor can have some useful tips eg a reminder to do both bits of it (the inobox and the bit that says how to use it). So overall: I vote yay!! Octopus Rex 19:23, 16 December 2006 (MST)

Anyone else? To be honest the thought of editing this template fills me with dread. Sweedumz 21:12, 24 December 2006 (MST)

Tactics section

I suggest that we add a section dedicated to different tactics.

I know many will think this will lead to flaming and constant editing of other peoples contributions, but with a little self-restraint and some good discussions here, i think we could manage.

I suggest we divide the tactics section into several smaller parts, or ssubgroups. Each subgroup should be dedicated to a race, and then again subdivided into various tactics. Such tactics include Build orders, Teching speeds, advice and such things. princelarming 18:05, 17 February 2007 (GMT +1.00)

Unit Classification

If somebody can they should move the SM Skull Probe to infantry. It says that it is considered as infantry in its in-game description. User:Chaos master Eliphas 18:07, 9 December 2006 (GMT +5:30)

Do you its armour class? Or its "type" on the unit infobox. If the latter, I was thinking it could go into something like Category: DoW Support UnitsSweedumz 19:22, 13 December 2006 (MST)

Skull probe is indeed infantry, in its lua it has inf low as its type, also its not built out of the vpad, nor does it require it to be built and doesn't use vcap (well it doesn't use squad cap either but what ever). I vote for skull probe moved to infantry.

'Thought of the Day'

I personally don't like this - it'd be better relegated to User: pages and the like. It's especially out of place on non-Imperial unit pages like the Tau crisis battlesuits... — ceejayoz talk 16:03, 11 December 2006 (MST)

I think it's not that bad but my concern with it is that it is potentially unnecessary clutter at the top of the page.Octopus Rex talk 05:18, 12 December 2006 (MST)

Yes I've been thinking about it too. If put right at the top it seems more disconnected from the article in question (be it Crisis Suits or Eldar Rangers) which feels better IMO. However, if it turns out to be too much at the top of the page it's probably better to limit it to the more general pages.--Cogdiz 07:17, 12 December 2006 (MST)

I put in in on a whim as I thought it would give a 40K atmosphere. It's all over the place on the W40K fluff. Plus it's going to stop working come february. I did think it would be a little inappropriate for non imperial race pages and as you say, it is cluttering up the top of the page. I think perhaps it would be better used on a few pages. Perhaps just for fluff pages, or where someone wants an additional decoration. Sweedumz 19:11, 13 December 2006 (MST)

I fiddled around a little with it, and tried Sweedumz idea to incorporate it into the index. I just thought I'd try and see what happened, but I actually think it looks pretty good. No immediate changes necessary so to speak. What's the general opinion? --Cogdiz 06:26, 18 December 2006 (MST)

Doesn't really solve the problem of it not being applicable to non-Imperial races... Frankly, I think it's better relegated to user pages. — ceejayoz talk 14:28, 22 December 2006 (MST)

Well, I think it does actually. Having at the bottom as part of the index gives it a very neutral feel which, in my mind, does not intrude on the article as a whole. Just as Sweedumz mentioned it's a prevalent part of the 40K fluff and you can find it in almost all of the books regardless of which race it portrays. It's not as much a pro-Imperial addition as a pro-40K addition. Oh well.... --Cogdiz 08:58, 23 December 2006 (MST)

I think the TFTD in the index box works very well. It's a 40K thing. Sweedumz 21:13, 24 December 2006 (MST)

Tau touching up

Well, the Tau is basically finished. There are some stats missing here and there, but they're all in "Pages Needing Data" section. Thanks for the help and the icons Octo! --Cogdiz 07:36, 12 December 2006 (MST)

I'll get on to those Icons tonight, they must be in the engine part. By the way, I found a fair few unused icons in there, it was quite interesting to see some of the Tau stuff that they didn't use.Octopus Rex 11:29, 12 December 2006 (MST)

Vindicare Assasin

The Exitus Rifle can kill any infantry unit in one shot so how did you figure out its damage? Just wondering...

It's quite simple. You just dig into the game (.lua) files and check it's factual damage value. --Cogdiz 13:12, 22 December 2006 (MST)

A Few Questions

Should production buildings have a tactics section? Obviously Webway Gates, Turrets, and Mine Fields deserve tactics, but what tactics are their to a Chapel-Barracks for instance? Also, should their be links at the bottom for leader units such as sergeants? --noob_of_destiny 28 January 2007

One tactic common for chapel barracks in winter assault was to built 3-4 buildings, each with terminators with burn stance on overwatch. unit production was then accelerated, and a skilled player could quicikly overwhelm an enemy base.

How do you link to a the heavy bolter turret, listening post, or plasma generator of a specific race? --noob_of_destiny 31 January 2007

Grammar, etc. etc (especially Eldar section).

The spelling and grammar I've found in the Eldar section are rather atrocious. Unless anyone has a huge objection, I'll fix it up now.

I'd like a word of moderation, please.

Eldar Section [1]

Are you quite serious? I'm pretty sure everybody can agree that these changes are for the worse.

insomniac_tendency 19:43 Feb 12 2007

Well, there's no need for moderation at all. This is a wiki. If you disagree with something like the wording of text then feel free to change it. Stats should only be altered IF YOU'RE SURE AND ALL LOOKING RIGHT AT THE LUA/RGD!!

Story units

Should inquisitor Toth or colonel Brom get pages? I saw someone already started a page for inquisitors, but neither colonels nor inquisitors are available for multiplayer.

If you feel that you have something both substantial and informative to write about either of these characters then by all means go ahead. Do not hesitate to contribute anything positive. Bilgetalk • done 08:57, 19 April 2007 (MDT)

Well duh, this is a wiki, and I have contributed more than a few positive things, so don't patronize me. What I'm asking is should they be added into the template for the DoW Player's guide, and whether they should have full pages with DPS etc? Or would it better to just have a note about them like the current inquisitor page? Or what about a full page with no link, similar to how squad leaders are treated? Morifen

It might be worth it to just create a full page dedicated to the three single player campaigns to cover that sort of stuff. I know there's already some information on some of the race pages about their roles in the three campaigns, but having a central location for the single player fluff would be convenient. I'd recommend against adding single player only units to the main template though. Just providing links from the single story page should be fine. Maktaka 10:27, 19 April 2007 (MDT)

DPS values and question

Can anyone tell me how the DPS values in this wiki correspond to those found in game? The ones in game are a lot higher.

What do you mean by "a lot higher"? Are you taking into account that some weapons are listed once although they appear twice on the unit? Are you taking into account the focused fire that multiple units provide? Also, these DPS values are AVERAGES. In any given shot, a weapon is not guaranteed to do exactly DPS*reload damage, the damage can vary quite a bit for some weapons. These values are calculated directly from data extracted from the game files. Check the DPS page to see the forumula used. Maktaka 03:38, 25 April 2007 (MDT)

I mean the values in the DPS charts seem to be a lot lower overall than the DPS values listed in game. In game the scout marine does 14-17 damage, but all the listings for its damage is a lot lower than that on the charts, and it says it takes accuracy into account in game. I just want to know what value to trust to use that unit appropriately. Tarantar 06:30, 25 April 2007 (EST)

The numbers printed in-game seem to be pulled out of thin air. They're not the min/max damage values, they're not the DPS, they're pretty much meaningless. Maktaka 06:30, 3 May 2007 (MDT)

Also to what was mentioned above the game stats seem not to state DPS but per shot/melee attack. eg The Avatar. In the game it states it does (approx) 1100-1200 damage but looking at the DPS chart he has a max base damage of 600 and his highest amount of damage against a unit is 365.6 against H.Med Infantry. Think about when you watch him play and he swings his sword, he is a slow attacker so therefore his DPS is an average of his few attacks Dr.Sperm 18:53, 3 May 2007 (EST)

Inclusion of speed of each unit

Can the information contained within the DoW Unit Infobox be amended to include the speed of each unit? I think the inclusion of speed inside the Dawn of War Player's Guide will be a worthy addition. I am unfamiliar with the discovery of unit information through lua extraction and am hoping that someone who knows how to discover this information can add it to the Dow Unit Infobox. User:ObsidiaN

Added. It won't show up unless the unit actually has a speed specified. Add the code |unit_speed = X to the infobox section of the unit, where X is the speed of the unit. I'd recommend adding it right after armor type, but anywhere in the infobox code is fine. You can find this information in the ebps file of the unit (which is for the unit stats instead of the squad stats), although you might need to follow the inheritances up a few levels. Or you can just get Relic's or Corsix's mod tools which will take care of inheritances for you. Don't be afraid to get started on something small like looking up this one stat, this is great way to get your feet wet with the stat side of DoW. Maktaka 18:04, 12 June 2007 (MDT)

Unit sight radius

I've been mulling over adding the unit sight radius to the unit infobox. This would replace the Detector entry with something more detailed to include both sight radius and detection radius. There will be two entries, not just one. The first is sight_radius, the second would be detection_radius (. If only sight_radius=25 is supplied, it would look like:

Sight radius 25 (cannot detect)

The (cannot detect) portion would be automatically added using an if/else statement when detection_radius is empty. If detection_radius=15 is supplied, it would look like:

Sight radius 25 (detection 15)

Again, the extra text is added automatically. These fields will need to be added to every unit and building in the game, since they all have sight and occasionally detection radii, so I have no illusions about the time it'll take to get the new data added. Does this setup seem easy to understand? Any ideas to make it better? Maktaka 19:32, 19 June 2007 (MDT)

That looks simple enough to understand. And it'd clear up one of the things that I've been itching to know for a while.--Dumas 22:53, 19 June 2007 (MDT)

The infobox has been updated. It works exactly as described above. I've gotten Imperial Guard infantry, vehicles, and buildings along with Eldar infantry. Any help on the remaining units (which would be most of them) would be greatly appreciated. Maktaka 02:17, 23 June 2007 (MDT)

Pages to remove

There are a handful of pages I've found that look like they're part of an aborted attempt to create central weapon lists. There's also a batch of obsolete infoboxes. No pages use them and their capabilities have been absorbed into the main set of infoboxes. Nothing links to or uses these pages anywhere. Does anyone feel any need to keep them or want to take over working on them? If not, I'll wait a week or so for people to decide, and if nobody gives any reasons to save them I'll delete them. No reason to take up server space with dead pages.

The dead pages are:

Chaos Weapons
Flamers
Imperial Guard Weapons
Space Marine Weapons
Tau Weapons
Template:DoW Ability Infobox Alt
Template:DoW Buildable Unit Alt2
Template:DoW Leader Infobox (and the redirect to this Template:DOW Leader Infobox)
Template:DoW Weapon Infobox Alt
Template:DoW Weapon Infobox Alt2

Maktaka 10:34, 25 June 2007 (MDT)

I don't see how this improves over the existing unit pages with tactics or the current hero/squad leader pages. I vote delete. Morifen

Nuked em (it's been more than a week anyways). I spared the Flamers page because 1) the author actually seemed to have (at least for a while) some intention of continuing to develop pages like that and 2) it's the only one that actually has useful content out of the lot of them. Maktaka 10:02, 4 July 2007 (MDT)

Inclusion of % resources returned when deleting

Though I had though that % returned from deleting had been lowered to 10% across the board, after reading http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=153476 and doing some in-game tests I now see that some buildings seem to still return 50%, such as waaagh banners, pile o' gunz, and ork mines. Is there a way to get an infobox entry that allows for this info? Morifen

That could probably be added right under the building cost (and should only be used for buildings). I think something along the lines of Return Value should fit all on one line. I'll take a look at that after the control, sight, and detection radii are added to the remainder of the units. By the way, anything on the issue above? Maktaka 10:50, 3 July 2007 (MDT)

'K, Return Value has been added. The infobox field is unit_return_value, and use the DoW costs template to fill in the value (like with the build cost). See Chapel-Barracks for an example. I'm going to pimp my own post for a sec here, but I made [a post] a while back that described resource returns for buildings and units. Use that if you need a reference for the return values on buildings. I'm going to be out of town for a couple weeks here with limited access to a computer and even more limited access to the DC data files, so someone else will probably need to take the time to add these values. Maktaka 01:00, 10 July 2007 (MDT)

I've been adding return values to some pages now, but I have a question. Buildings that change price depending on how many exist also change return value. That return value is the cost of building another of this building type, not the price actually paid. For example, if an SM player (for some reason) deletes his 1st HQ without having a second one, he will receive 70/15, not 45/0. I'm just curious on how to note this. Do we need another infobox field? Cold_Crusader 1:15, 4 August 2007 (EST)

Yeah, it looks like the return value is based on the current value of the building, not its value when constructed. An unusual oddity of the game engine I guess, and probably the same reason that add-ons don't increase the return value. Nevermind on the previous edit, I got it working (it was missing a proper clear row). It looks kinda ugly as is though, so I think you're right and another infobox entry will be necessary. I'll get that added in tomorrow, I need some sleep right now or I'll end up doing more edits to clean up the things I break than adding in the new field. Maktaka 01:24, 4 August 2007 (MDT)

Sorry for the delay in getting that added, I got sidetracked. It's in now as unit_additional_return_value. Just add, assign, and save. The Stronghold has been updated as an example. Maktaka 03:19, 14 August 2007 (MDT)

Morale DPS

Thanks to Corsix's updated mod tools (0.5.2) you can now write your own scripts to process the weapon rgds. A slight modification to the existing DPS script gets you the morale DPS for all the weapons without having to manually calculate everything, the main reason morale DPS wasn't included originally. Definitely something worth adding to the wiki, but unless I can get some assistance, it's gonna take a while to update all the weapons on all the pages. I can show whoever wants to help how to run the modified script, and reading the resulting table is exactly the same as reading a normal DPS table. Maktaka 11:11, 5 July 2007 (MDT)

Okay, I've got the weapon infobox modified to accept weapon_morale_dps values now. I'm not really happy with the way it looks though, particularly with regards to the unusually large width of the morale dps column and the lack of a sub-header for the column. Any suggestions to improve the presentation there? Maktaka 00:47, 6 July 2007 (MDT)

Tweaked it again, I think it looks good now. Maktaka 13:39, 7 July 2007 (MDT)

Version 1.2

Have the units been updated since the version 1.2 DOW:DC patch? If not, this may cause some problems. I don't know if this is listed somewhere else, And I don't want to fill up this page, so the list can be found on my userpage. Tesfan 08:42, 13 July 2007 (MDT)

All of the Dark Crusade units have been updated for DC 1.2. I think most, if not all, of the units that may have been missed in some way or another (didn't get completely updated even though the version number on the page was updated) have been caught and updated. Maktaka 23:33, 14 July 2007 (MDT)

Mass and knockback

You may have already noticed this if you keep an eye on recent changes, but the main unit infobox has been updated to include the unit's mass (the field is called unit_mass) after a suggestion by Melonplant from the forums. SM, Chaos, Orks, and IG have all been updated already, leaving Eldar, Tau, and Necons to do. Knockback is the next step.

For abilities, a new entry could be added next to the range value, above cooldown time. Just generic Knockback, with "25-35 force, 40-60 angle" as the entry.

For weapons, I dunno. I don't want to have to add a whole new row to the infobox, and we need the extra blank space next to requirements to avoid compressing that field. Right now I'm thinking just adding it in parentheses after the mention of knockback in the weapon's notes. If it's done this way for weapons, it should also be done this way for abilities for consistency. I prefer this last option since it's the easiest to implement.

Special attacks have two possibilities. The first is to list JUST the knockback and aoe values and put them in the main unit infobox in a whole new subsection, akin to the reinforcement or weapon subsections in there now. The second is to create a new section on the main page, perhaps between Abilities and Weapons, where special attacks, including their damage values and everything else would be listed. Or a mix of the two, a single new infobox on the main portion of the page to list only the knockback, aoe, and base damage values. Maktaka 04:14, 5 August 2007 (MDT)

So nobody has anything to say on this? I'll make the decision unilaterally if I must, but I'd like to have some kind of consensus on the implementation. I'm still leaning towards parentheses for abilities and weapons with a brand new weapon-style infobox for special attacks. Maktaka 09:30, 7 August 2007 (MDT)

I would go for a new section on the main page. If somebody is interested in knockback, it's a good thing to have the information in one spot. Derrondo 09:35, 7 August 2007 (MDT)

It would probably be best to consolidate the knockback/special attack info into a single page of its own, as Derrondo suggests. A list could suffice, broken into race/unit type (veh, inf)/weapon/weapon abilities, with included links. This is pretty specialized info, and the mention in the weapon infobox seems good enough as is. Morifen

I don't think we need to move ALL the knockback info to a separate page. The knockback info for abilities and weapons can be seamlessly integrated into the existing infoboxes (I set up a test with SM frag grenades). The special attacks though... you're right in that separate page is probably the best choice even if it does split up a unit's info. I don't want to sacrifice detail just to get the info on the unit's page, and that means including damage per hit, base damage, aoe radius and angles, frequency, dps from all special attacks combined, heck there's more info for EACH special attack as a weapon. Maktaka 14:57, 7 August 2007 (MDT)

Morale Death Penalty

There's one more useful data point^ that could be added to the guide: Morale Death Penalty. When any squad member; regular, leader, or attached; is slain, the squad takes a corresponding loss to morale. For example, Guardsmen inflict a 60 point morale penalty to the squad when they die (30 after morale armor), GM Sarges also cause 60 morale damage, while the loss of a Commissar deals a very painful 300 morale damage. The value is in the ebps file under health_ext\morale_death. Anyways, I'm looking for a good two word term to use in the infobox. I don't want it to be two lines in the infobox, which "Morale Death Penalty" would be, and it can't be put in the existing "Morale" entry since Sergeants don't have morale values but still inflict morale damage on death. Thoughts?

^Minimum broken time could be useful as well, but the only unit I know of where the squad hits their min morale to restore more than just one or two seconds before the min broken time is GM. Maktaka 07:21, 2 December 2007 (MST)

About the "Morale Death Penalty", we could simply call it "Death Penalty" by example, for the GM Sarges it could look like: "Death Penalty: 60" (in blue) or "Death Penalty: -60" (in blue). I can't do a real example because of the infobox limitation... Gabthelazy

So something like this then? I added morale values to the Greater Knarloc on that page so you can see the comparison. Maktaka 19:50, 2 December 2007 (MST)

Look ok but perhaps we could add a «-» before the Death Penalty value. Gabthelazy

Sure, but I've got one more thought before the pages get updated. I think the value used should be the post-default-morale-armor value, not the raw value from the data files. Although I'd like to include the raw value (e.g. 60 for the GM), I'm concerned people will simply subtract that straight from the total morale and think that the squad loses 60% of its starting morale when a squad member dies. I already intend to add a note to the Morale page and definitions section on the front of the guide to explain the new value, to make sure people already aware of morale armor don't reduce the reduced value. Thoughts?

I see no problem with the note on the Moral page, but what do you mean by post-default-morale-armor value? The Moral of the Guardsmen squad after the death of the GM Sarge? (60+50 (the moral bonus of Double Time) = 110 moral damage when the GM Sarge die. Also if we follow this example we will need to add the 35 hitpoints/squad member bonus to the Death Penalty.)

All units have a morale armor value that reduces the morale damage taken, regardless of the source. This is near-universally set to 0.5, so the unit takes 50% morale damage. This means that although the death of a GM has a morale death penalty of 60, the damage inflicted to the squad is only 50% that, or 30. To avoid confusion, I'm leaning towards using the already-reduced value in the infobox. Maktaka 08:24, 3 December 2007 (MST)

OOOOH, now I understand what you wrote, ok then lets do this, but what are the exeption of the 50% rule? I know there is the Scout Marine Squad who have 70% and the Termies who have 25%... Gabthelazy

Those are the only two I know of. Techpriest Enginseers and XV88 Broadside Battlesuit Teams have a morale armor of 0, so they don't take any morale damage at all but still have morale values. They're also not squads so their morale death penalty won't be included anyways. Maktaka 08:50, 3 December 2007 (MST)

Oh, and the code has been added to the infobox. Just add |unit_death_penalty = X right below the other morale values for the unit (after the above is confirmed). The "-" will be added automatically, so just use a normal positive value. Maktaka 06:03, 3 December 2007 (MST)

New default weapon icons

I talked to Octopus Rex about creating a pair of updated default weapon icons that used colored backgrounds instead of black and white (see ranged and melee) that are much more vibrant and are easier to distinguish from each other. If no one has any objections, I'll update the existing images with the new ones. Maktaka 12:57, 4 December 2007 (MST)

Nice icon you got there! If you want, I could start right now to update the units pages with those icons. Gabthelazy

I just uploaded them over top of the existing icons. Perhaps not the correct name (they're not black and white anymore), but far less painful that correcting so many unit icons. Maktaka 19:55, 4 December 2007 (MST)