From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


I'm thinking warbands won't be a fully developed thing, all players to the same? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) .

Do you mean you think there will be one or two large warbands for players to be in, similar to Kurzick/Luxon of GW1? --Shadowcrest 01:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Sealing that off from other races wouldn't be the best idea. Cress Arvein User Cress Arvein sig.JPG 17:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Are warbands different from the 4 legions? -- 21:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Vastly. All charr belong to their given warband, and each warband is under the control of the legion it follows. A warband consists of about a dozen or so charr (so we assume) so there are many warbands. - There are only 4 legions. 02:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, we don't know how many legions there are. We only know of 4 High Legions. There are warband names that have nothing in relation to Ash, Blood, Iron, and Flame (such as Frost), after all. A good comparisons for warbands and legions would be like guilds and alliances, warbands being equal to guilds and legions equal to alliances. -- Konig/talk 04:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Isnt there lesser legions?--Icyyy Blue User IcyyyBlue Elementalist Blue.png 02:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
*points to the comment above yours* We don't know. There's both information that implies such, and information that implies there are only four legions. -- Konig/talk 02:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What if...[edit]

What if a Charr was not raised into a Warband and lived away from the rest? What would that Charr be called? Pure curiosity. -- 01:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Any charr not within a warband would be a gladium. But a charr being raised without a warband would also mean not being put into a fahrar, and considering how lacking in blood families the charr are this probably means the charr was either abandoned, kidnapped, or the parents exiled and not allowed to take the newborn to a fahrar. Konig/talk 01:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Warband name as part of surname[edit]

Not sure if this has already been said elsewhere, but at least Night warband (check out an event involving them) has their warband name as the latter part of their surname. For instance, Savor Foulnight. Mediggo 11:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There was also a couple NPCs with dialogue talking about the suffix being the warband name rather than only the prefix. Konig/talk 12:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Kalla's Killers[edit]

As far as i can see, the official name of this warband is the "Scorch warband" (see Aid the Scorch Warband with their assault on the Flame Legion). I wasn't able to check the dialogue in which they bring up "Kalla's Killers", but it seems to me like that's just the nickname, and therefore unofficial name, of the warband. Can anyone confirm? Murethor (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definitely just a nickname. I don't think the Charr particularly value individuality, every other warband is just <name> warband. Felix Omni Signature.png 14:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
According to Legionnaire Vesta Scorchpath when asked who she is: "Vesta Scorchpath, legionnaire of Kalla's Killers. Ash Legion Operations Unit 98." She doesn't once call her warband the "Scorch warband" (nor does anyone else you talk to - I got screenies of all their conversations and will be uploading them when I get around to it).
I take their name is like the Fireshadows, whom Frye Fireburn led once. It was stated somewhere (cannot recall where specifically) that warbands with recognition get a special name to them, to differenciate themselves from other warbands of the same name (as it does happen, and when it does the said warbands will often have a clash). I believe this was in an interview with Jeff Grubb about charr; possibly the TowerTalk one. Either way, the way Vesta calls her warband seems to make it official, and the whole lore around them is that they're an elite warband unit - which would certainly garner the value of a more unique name like Kalla's Killers. Konig 17:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I think the game itself calling them the Scorch warband should take precedence over lore. Felix Omni Signature.png 18:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Given that this is a lore article, I must disagree. Konig 18:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
That is a fair point. I don't feel too strongly about the whole thing, so I'm content to leave it. Felix Omni Signature.png 18:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree on displaying it as "Kalla's Killers", in fact i just remembered we'll need a spot for Kalla's own warband, the "true" Scorch warband. Murethor (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Is it ever said she had a wabrand? Or that it was Scorch and not Razor? Konig 22:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
That's precisely why I decided not to include it, we're not quite sure. But the fact that Kalla's Killers are the "Scorch" warband pretty much suggests that they were originally named (before earning their nickname) after Kalla's presumed warband, which is why I ended up agreeing on leaving Kalla's Killers with that name on the list. We know that female charr were banned from joining warbands since the incident with Bathea Havocbringer, but given the fact that Kalla earned back the right for females to fight, there's an open possibility, so there's the spot in case we need it (who knows, maybe it was an originally "legally not official" warband formed by a small group within those female gladiums being trained in secret). Murethor (talk) 09:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Primus warband[edit]

I've been thinking this has been redacted somehow. Malice Swordshadow, Gaheron Baelfire, and Bangar Ruinbringer don't have Ash, Flame, and Blood in their respective surnames. Smodur we have no clue about. Either the Primus warbands have changed, or this bit about them has been retconned (and I use the term only in the meaning of "ideas changed during development" given that it comes from The Ecology of the Charr which it and it's counterpart, The Movement of the World has had some alterations to it during development of the game). I'm thinking we should remove this bit, since we don't know the situation anymore. Konig 17:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a solid argument to me. I'll keep the High Legions' naming inheritance bit only, as you didn't say anything about it (and it's very unlikely that this part has been retconned).
Edit: In case we finally keep it, should we add the doubt about the possibility of primus warbands being able to change (suggested by the current imperators' surnames themselves)? I know we're getting really close to the threshold between canon and speculation here, but I think it's an obvious reasoning, even more given the fact that we're already talking about "unclear" lore in that bit of the article. Murethor (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Warbands (separate articles for each warband?)[edit]

moved from User talk:Louise

Do we really need a page for every warband? Ones like Stone and Soul that are well-represented in the lore should obviously be documented here, but minor warbands that we only know from a single NPC don't seem like they need a page. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 13:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt anybody. Plus, the only way to see them is to go through the Category:Charr culture, it's more of a personal thing, I've always wanted to documentate them. Louise 13:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
There are THOUSANDS of charr warbands per legion, and some warbands share the same name. Furthermore, without knowing two members of the same warband or being told the name of the warband somewhere, it is impossible to know a single charr's warband name, as the warband can take up either the prefix or the suffix. I don't think we even know Almorra's warband's name - it could be Soul... but it can also be Keeper. IMO, only those that have a strong standing in lore should be documented. So those like Stone Warband, Pick Warband, and the Fireshadows - maybe those relevant to meta events or large event chains, such as Kalla's Killers (having a unique name makes them important as that means they're a warband that has a lot of victories behind them). The rest can just be put into a list at warband, as it was before you changed it. Konig 14:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Having a large quantity of stub articles (which is what most of these warband pages are) actually does harm the wiki, because they clutter up search results and maintenance lists. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 14:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Well actually, none of them are stub articles so I don't know why you are saying that.
@Konig, I know that there are a large number of warbands across the charr armies but I am only listing the ones that we know that exist in-game. Plus, if 3-4 charr located in the same camp/area all have the same prefix (i.e Shatter Warband), it's safe to assume that they form a warband. Louise 16:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Whatever, you're arguing semantics here. They are super-short articles that provide little, if any, useful information. And they do clutter up the wiki. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 19:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I frankly don't see how a few pages like these clutter the wiki when it already contains 38K articles. Louise 19:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Konig, just provide a list of warband names on the Warband article. We would end up annoying users who see an article for a warband and then find it's literally a list of charr in the warband. This also makes the contents of the charr culture category useful instead of having a ton of frivolous warband pages among ones people might want to read about. The warband should be documented in the NPC infobox already, so I don't see that as a concern?--Relyk ~ talk < 20:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
After putting all the warbands, I'll just make a subcategory for it so it doesn't crowd up the Charr culture category. Louise 20:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Uh, that doesn't change anything. You still end up with tons of frivolous warbands in the category.--Relyk ~ talk < 21:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Atleast they won't be in the way in the Charr culture category. If people want to look them up, they can go to the Warband page or the subcategory. Louise 21:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I really like the job Louise did, documenting all these warbands. At the same time, it feels kinda disappointing clicking through all those and more often than not ending up with just a couple of sentences to read. It may put off many readers from actually reading the more complex and important warband articles.
May I propose an alternative / compromise? What if we made some sort of table on the warband article where the ones with little info gets that info added on the page. As long as the warband don't have more info than a couple of sentences + maybe about max. 5-6 members, it shouldn't take up too much space. The longer articles are kept as separate articles and linked to (with perhaps a "see main article" reference in the "description" and "members" columns). Could something like that be a solution for both parties here? Titus User titus the third.png 00:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Edit: something like this (this is only showing Ash Legion):
Perhaps show the most prominent Warbands at the top (the ones with their own articles), then a full listing like this down at the bottom (with normal STDT formatting, sortable, not collapsible - just didn't want to take up all the space here). Titus User titus the third.png 01:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
If all the warbands listed would be like that, I'd be cool with that. Thing is, I don't know how to do that. If you can do it for all, I'd appreciate it. :) Louise 1:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Relyk, Konig, Ishmael: what are your thoughts on this? If you're ok with it, I can fix them all (tomorrow though, 4 am here now, so nightynight :)). Titus User titus the third.png 02:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
As long it precludes the need for a bunch of tiny next-to-useless articles, go for it. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 02:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

(Reset indent) *pops in here again* Since I wasn't so full-though-exposing last time, let me state this: I like the notion of documenting everything, I always have. But I think Titus summarized why I don't think every warband deserves their own article: "it feels kinda disappointing clicking through all those and more often than not ending up with just a couple of sentences to read". Now, I feel a little hypocritical being of such a stance when I have been in favor of articles like gw1:Desmina, gw1:Sara, and a dozen other one-liner articles for lore figures, but the difference as I see it is that there's only one Desmina, Sara, etc. while there are (in lore) hundreds of Death Warbands even if we only see one, maybe two or three, in-game. Which makes individual articles more difficult.
That said, I like Titus' proposal and that was rather what I was trying to say - those who have something to read about can get their own article, but the rest should just be in a list of some sort (or table) on warband - or better yet, Ash Legion, Blood Legion, Iron Legion, and Flame Legion, so that we can instantly separate them by legion and not overflow the warband article (plus those articles could use a rewrite and expansion). By placing them on the legion articles, you can also get rid of that "Affiliation" column. ;)
TL;DR: yes, that works.
On the matter of which warbands should get their own article - from that list, I'd say only the Steam Warband (being historical, I don't think it should be listed with the current ones - and weren't they Iron?), Grim Warband (this one is also historical, you missed that in the table! - and I thought they were Blood?) Mane Warband, and Scorch Warband should be getting their own articles. In total, I can think of less than 10 atm that would. This would reduce the cluttered articles greatly. And for how to treat warbands that have their own articles, simply put a one-sentence summary in the table with the name being a link.
Question though... do we know for certain that the Mane Warband is Ash? I don't recall that being mentioned... Konig 13:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree with both of you here. I've always wanted to documentate the warbands in-game but the way I did it wasn't the best one. I never thought about making a table, but since I'm not an expert with all this, I decided to just roll with it. But if Titus wants to make it, I'm all for it :)
And about the Mane warband, I don't know if it is mentioned, but I just assumed so because they all look sneaky and stuff :p Louise 14:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I was kind of aiming for documenting on the NPC infobox and then generating a table of the warbands with SMW, probably a row template so users can add a description of each warband. Identify the legion with organization parameter and then a warband parameter for the warband. We have plenty of methods for compacting information at this point. I don't like collapsible tables and an exhaustive list of warbands is fine on the article. If it gets too long, we can switch to semantic query or form link to generate the page dynamically (Think the approach used with base ingredients).--Relyk ~ talk < 22:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I think Titus just made the table collapsible for the talk page, no reason why it has to be in the final form too. AFAIK, and I could easily be wrong here, but wouldn't a table from SMW not have all the information we have with Titus' example - but instead just the names? That's less beneficial than the current format of a page per warband. Konig 22:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. I don't like collapsible tables myself. But do anyone else think it looks a bit messy right now (I've added tables with warband names, just not all the info)? Ehrm, realised now while typing that "sortable" is no use. I intentionally put it in to be able to sort after name and after affiliation, so that should be removed next edit. Titus User titus the third.png 01:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Edit @Relyk: it's a massive job putting in all this info. And the table layout can be very hard for many to use/update. If you have a good idea of how to keep the same amount of info, but automate/simplify the listing with SMW or similiar - please go for it! Titus User titus the third.png 01:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
@konig, The only information that isn't or shouldn't be part of the npc infobox is the description. I was specifically referring to that in terms of having a row template. If we replaced the description of the location of the warband with the a simple list area(s) for the NPCs, the table would be generated automatically.--Relyk ~ talk < 02:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Warbands move. NPCs can be in multiple areas via patrol. The description should be what the warband does - their assignment - not where the NPCs are located. Who gives a damn about that? Those that do can simply click the link to the NPC articles. Konig 14:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
So despite all of the above being discussed on how smaller warbands shouldn't have their own pages that just simply list the people in them (as this table was/is a great solution to creating a million pages), plenty of these pages exist as orphaned links. (many made before this discussion took place, it seems.) I eliminated a few orphans by linking to them from their member pages, but once I realized how many of these orphan warband pages exist, I wanted to see a better solution. I don't really know what to do with these since from the above text it seems like they were unwanted pages to begin with. It's a lot of pages to just nominate for deletion.--Rain Spell (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)