Talk:Pariah

Pariah and Nulls are diffrent. Null refers to having NO psychic presence, which means that no psychic attack can directly effect them. Pariah are diffrent in that the have a NEGATIVE psychic presence, meaning that psychic powers will be negated by their presence. This is a common mistake that has been made by both games workshop hobbists, and the people working for the company itself, as the two things are similar so can be easily confused, and the background commonly contradicting itself. -Lester Drake 15:39 22-01-06

--

Some of this article looks pretty much copied word for word from the codex. I know it's with the best interests, but isn't it against some kind of plaigairism rule? Sorry if I am mistaken.

--Ktan 19:07, 30 August 2006 (CEST)

Oh, so Lexicanum has a rule against copying from the codices? That explains a lot of unreliability. --Zahr Dalsk 01:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't be a smartass, it's against copypasting, yes, but the concepts need to be preserved. Summarizing is the key.--Madness 08:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they really ought to be preserved. --Zahr Dalsk 05:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean? --Madness 09:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Which concepts do you think are not being preserved exactly? --Cherubael 03:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the meaning of "devoured ones"

It seems more likely that "devoured ones" is in reference to the Necrons as opposed to the C'tan, if only for the fact that the Eldar would have likely either named the singular C'tan responsible (the Deceiver, likely) or used their word for C'tan.

Hmm, I never thought of it like that. You could put that in next to the bit about the c'tan as a second theory?--Jonru 12:49, 13 December 2006 (CET)

"En-Mass"

Owned. :) --Rye 05:23, 8 August 2008 (CEST)

Gone

These guys no longer exist in the necron codex, i have no idea why and have no idea what to change in this article.--Ashendant 20:41, 6 November 2011 (CET)

Haven't read the new codex, so I'm not sure if they're simply not listed anymore, or have actually been removed from the Necron race as a whole. However, there's no reason to remove the article. Even if they are no longer available in the current codex, they still existed, and have made appearances in other sources besides the old codex. The only changes I would make is if there's any update on their "fate" in the new codex; if it's just an omission, then leave the article as is (or improve it using the old codex & other appearances they make. BeeWolf 21:03, 6 November 2011 (CET)

I have, not even a single mention, it's like they never existed at all, and i don't support deleting the article--Ashendant 21:15, 6 November 2011 (CET)

Articles are never deleted because GW removes a unit/race/character etc. (we still have articles on Zoats and Squats, for example). Just some small section added to mention that they are not present in the new codex and their place in the current canon is unsure would be the normal procedure I believe Thelemur 22:59, 6 November 2011 (CET)

Then if it's simply not there by omission, I wouldn't make any changes then. Unless GW flat-out retcons the Pariahs out of existence, these things have still made appearances outside the old codex, like the Ciaphas Cain books and DoW games. BeeWolf 18:00, 7 November 2011 (CET)

I think that nothing should be done with the article except perhaps make a note saying that they were featured in 3rd edition but not mentioned in 5th. That just explains to readers the history of the unit and allows readers to come to their own conclusion without any speculation being added to the article. C'tan 18:14, 7 November 2011 (CET)

Yes a note would be fine--Ashendant 19:23, 7 November 2011 (CET)

Needs Reformatted

Page should have description first - then later section describing differences between editions Thelemur 02:35, 14 November 2011 (CET)