Talk:Aeronautica Imperialis

	Games portal This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Actually, I think the models are more 6mm scale than 10mm. After all, 10mm is not '5 times smaller' as a 28mm mini.

Chaos, not Chaos Space Marines

In the rulebook they are chaos and not chaos sms. In all the books I have read Hellblades and the like are never piloted by a Space Marine, they are to valuable. Therefore I shall change this.

Wrong url

The info box has GW's website listed. This is erroneous, as it is solely a Forge World product, with all the models to be used sold on their website. Although I will concede that the GW Mail Order has the older Epic 40,000 aircraft and ground defences which are still compatible with Aeronautica Imperialis.

Url changed. Ave dominus nox! 12:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of the Rulebook

What does this have to do with anything, why list it, it is not applicable to anything. In addition the special bases must be redone. I am doing that now.Spacedwarv 02:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I get a chance, I am going to go through and bring the whole page up to speed, adding info on armies and the like. SanchiTachi 02:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Aero-Imp-Cover-visablestore.jpg

Image:Aero-Imp-Cover-visablestore.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 Wikipedia articles 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.

If there is other 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 15:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of info on gameplay

Basically, this article doesn't give much information on how the game is played.

Currently, the article refers to having "not only rules for the games, but also two sheets of cards which are used to make special manoeuvres"... I've only played this game once but I could have sworn that they were intended to mimic flying manoeuvres and that whenever a model moves it must carry out one of these manoeuvres.

Also wikipedia contradicts a statement given here "the major difference between Epic and Aeronautica Imperialis is that instead of a player moving and firing tanks and troops, they are using aircraft and ground defense weapons". The Epic article however says "Epic's rule system incorporates Aircraft as well as ground units, and allows players to utilize many aircraft at once". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Govworker (talk • contribs) 12:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Aeronautica Imperialis. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 01:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old version

This article for the, now-discontinued, Forge World release of the game, but is still written as if it's current. Either the article needs to be rewritten to reflect the OOP status of this version and a new article made for the new, current version, or the current version needs adding here. 194.28.124.55 (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Major overhaul

I've split this article out into the two major editions (Forgeworld and Games Workshop), and tried to add some detail all over. If I get time later, I'll come back and add a bunch of intra-wiki links (e.g. to factions and other games), and look over the external links and references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaketobyhadley (talk • contribs) 07:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've swapped the order of the games so the current edition is displayed first (which also has more information against it). I've updated/added a bunch of external links, plus some internal Wikipedia links (e.g. to specific faction pages). I have added a 'template: wargame' for the current version of the game, but haven't got a suitable image to upload for it. I've removed the 'needs updating' tag as I believe I've made enough changes to warrant it, however I am unsure if I am okay to remove the 'notability' tag. Jaketobyhadley (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the 'notability' tag, to match many other GW products. I think this page overs everything it needs to for the current iteration of the game, but I can't find a solid source of info for the older version. Jaketobyhadley (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Managed to dig out most of the ISBN numbers for the books, which I think is a bit better for referencing rather than their Black Library store pages (i.e. avoids link rot). Found out what supplements were available for the original game. Jaketobyhadley (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After seeking feedback on the Wikipedia:Teahouse page, I intend to make a few changes in the next couple of days:

Look through other Games Workshop related articles, and tabletop/wargaming articles in general, to identify what counts as a good third-part source, so that my premature removal of the 'notability' tag is acceptable. This will be things like GW-specific or tabletop gaming news and review websites, e.g. BellOfLostSouls or Goonhammer (I've yet to identify which of these is an 'official' source, within the niche of tabletop wargaming). My thinking is that some of these blur the line between official sites and personal sites, and some/all of them do not have standards for editorial control, etc.
Remove the original content I have added, i.e. the faction descriptions (especially the descriptions of their play-styles). I'll see if I can find the GW descriptions of the factions, ideally from the rulebooks, or any descriptions from third-party sites.

Jaketobyhadley (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Routine update

Two new factions added as part of "Wrath of Angels" starter set, so added those in. Also added a brief explainer of the campaign books and other supplements (i.e. rules in the box of some models), and made mention of the starter sets.

To do:

Still need to come up with some proper sources (i.e. non-GW ones).
Might make the link between the campaign books and the starter sets (given that they are usually released alongside and support each other).
Should add in some expansion on what/how the game is played. E.g. use of initiative/alternate model activations, ground targets, tailing fire, transports, fuel, aircraft types, etc.

Jaketobyhadley (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]