Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

nekooni wrote:
So warhammer-community is nonsense and a wishy washy source, and posting it didn't contribute anything?

Correct, it contributes nothing.

nekooni wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Again, this isn't about winning a contest. I enjoy the conversation and debate on here. I LIKE being proven wrong because it means I learn something. But throwing in nonsense as evidence from wishy washy sources doesn't contribute anything. You could just as easily say "I would play it like this because I think it's fair and balanced" etc etc... and it would have the exact same value to the conversation.

So warhammer-community is nonsense and a wishy washy source, and posting it didn't contribute anything?

The email was. The facebook run by warhammer community is. Articles not about rules that specifically tell you to do whatever you want because it's your game and you should just have fun are.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
So warhammer-community is nonsense and a wishy washy source, and posting it didn't contribute anything?

Correct, it contributes nothing.

Well, that's one person with that opinion, anyway. I've seen people here who disagreed with that, so saying it contributes nothing seems a bit overstated.

 Lance845 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Again, this isn't about winning a contest. I enjoy the conversation and debate on here. I LIKE being proven wrong because it means I learn something. But throwing in nonsense as evidence from wishy washy sources doesn't contribute anything. You could just as easily say "I would play it like this because I think it's fair and balanced" etc etc... and it would have the exact same value to the conversation.

So warhammer-community is nonsense and a wishy washy source, and posting it didn't contribute anything?

The email was. The facebook run by warhammer community is. Articles not about rules that specifically tell you to do whatever you want because it's your game and you should just have fun are.

Warhammer Community wrote:Excited? Starting your Red Scorpions army is simple – check out Codex: Space Marines, pick a Chapter Tactic you think suits these noble warriors, then grab the rules for your characters – including a pre-Dreadnought Carab Culln in Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Adeptus Astartes.

Seems like a pretty decent write-up of how you create a Red Scorpions army.

At the very least it contributes how GW thinks we should use their rules. You don't have to follow it I guess, but the intention is pretty obvious. Which is why I think that not talking about the authors intention is a relic from days past, because we no longer have to be psychic to know what the designers thought.

The writeup doesn't matter. All it's doing is reiterating what the rules already say. All bringing it up does is cause needless arguments.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The writeup doesn't matter. All it's doing is reiterating what the rules already say. All bringing it up does is cause needless arguments.

It clears up confusion as to how the written rules are supposed to work. It's great if it's not neccessary for you, but it is for others. Adding more information to the discussion helps people to understand the situation better. And that is the goal of a discussions board about game rules.

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The writeup doesn't matter. All it's doing is reiterating what the rules already say. All bringing it up does is cause needless arguments.

It clears up confusion as to how the written rules are supposed to work. It's great if it's not neccessary for you, but it is for others. Adding more information to the discussion helps people to understand the situation better. And that is the goal of a discussions board about game rules.

Lets not pretend that one community article was the only thing presented here. The discusion on what is and is not a valid source didnt start with the announcment of 2 new red scorpion models yesterday. It started with an article about painting up chapters with no rules for funsies and fluff and an email. I stand by my statement about what is and is not a valid source. This latest community article certainly sheds some light on what the community staff thinks you should be doing while you wait for actual rules (which is MAYBE an indication of RAI? Hard to say since its not a rules document so not written by the rules team) But again, its not an actual rules dkcument so doesnt carry much wieght. I would say it carrys more than the email though. But hey... When its worth nothing youve got nowhere to go but up.

 Lance845 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The writeup doesn't matter. All it's doing is reiterating what the rules already say. All bringing it up does is cause needless arguments.

It clears up confusion as to how the written rules are supposed to work. It's great if it's not neccessary for you, but it is for others. Adding more information to the discussion helps people to understand the situation better. And that is the goal of a discussions board about game rules.

Lets not pretend that one community article was the only thing presented here. The discusion on what is and is not a valid source didnt start with the announcment of 2 new red scorpion models yesterday. It started with an article about painting up chapters with no rules for funsies and fluff and an email. I stand by my statement about what is and is not a valid source. This latest community article certainly sheds some light on what the community staff thinks you should be doing while you wait for actual rules (which is MAYBE an indication of RAI? Hard to say since its not a rules document so not written by the rules team) But again, its not an actual rules dkcument so doesnt carry much wieght. I would say it carrys more than the email though. But hey... When its worth nothing youve got nowhere to go but up.

The topic of the thread is Red Scorpions and can they use the Codex. I think the email horse has been beaten well and truly to death.

Now, back to them Red Scorpions. You haven't presented any evidence that they *can't* use the Codex, save for your feeling they shouldn't, which isn't RAW or RAI. Do you have anything in the rules to support your case?

Edit: just read the WHC article mentioned. It literally tells you to use the Codex. Justify how you choose to ignore that however you like, but you're choosing to ignore it... No, it isn't a rules publication. But it's pretty damned official. And very clear: Codex for most stuff, FW:Index Astartes for characters/special stuff. No special army lists mentioned.