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.

tneva82 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Except if you pick Ultramarines as your <CHAPTER> there is no possible way to pick any tactic other than the Ultramarines one.

Well gee. You pick ultramarine the point you pick the chapter tactic. Before that at most you go for "hmmm do my models benefit more from ultramarine tactics or white scars...".

Paint scheme etc is irrelevant. You can run marines painted in ultramarines with all the ultramarine insignia you can think of with FW shoulder pads etc as a white scars or chaos marines.

I think BCB included that line just for completeness' sake.

If you select ULTRAMARINES as your Chapter, you are stuck with their Traits and so on. People tried to run DKoK as Cadians (AND DKoK at the same time), so yeah, it's necessary to state such an obvious thing.

 Lance845 wrote:


Are you citing a supposed email in YMDC?

Yes I am. I'm sorry, I was labouring under mistaken assumption that people were interested in figuring out how this is intended to work rather than winning an internet argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

If you select RED SCORPIONS, you may use any parent legion Chapter Tactic and Stratagems, do not have access to the Chapter Specific Warlord Traits and will benefit from the buffs granted by a Forge World RED SCORPIONS character.

Right. And if the parent legion is unknown, like in the case of Red Scorpions, you can choose.

 Crimson wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Are you citing a supposed email in YMDC?

Yes I am. I'm sorry, I was labouring under mistaken assumption that people were interested in figuring out how this is intended to work rather than winning an internet argument.

YMDC Tenet #2: The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on. This is the reason why you shouldn't be citing an email, no matter how much you are interesting in figuring out how this is intended to work.

If you want to present a How You Would Play It (HYWPI), then just simply mark it as such and people will decide on their own if they want to run it that way. This is allowed under YMDC Tenet #4.

 Crimson wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

If you select RED SCORPIONS, you may use any parent legion Chapter Tactic and Stratagems, do not have access to the Chapter Specific Warlord Traits and will benefit from the buffs granted by a Forge World RED SCORPIONS character.

Right. And if the parent legion is unknown, like in the case of Red Scorpions, you can choose.

Unless Forgeworld releases a document providing a Red Scorpion Chapter Tactic. It has happened before.

nekooni wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
This is what FW answered to me when I asked about Gabriel Angelos:

Forge World wrote:We don't have any Chapter Tactics for the Blood Ravens yet but we know that our studio are working on a set of these along with those for the Space Marine Chapters involved in the Badab War and hopefully these will be published in the near future. In the meantime, as the true nature of the Primogenitor Chapter for the Blood Ravens is uncertain, we suggest using the Ultramarines Chapter Tactics.

It is pretty damn clear that you're supposed to be able to use codex tactics with their characters.

Are you citing a supposed email in YMDC?

Instead of latching onto that minor detail - how about responding to BCBs pretty good summary of how that's the rules as written anyway?
This is a really annoying trend in here - instead of adding to the discussion people just try to discredit contributions of others, as if that would answer the question at hand.

As BCB pointed out it's not a minor detail. Your argument is only as strong as your source. Citing emails and facebook as a foundation for an argument is a incredible waste of everyones time. Each time someone comes into YMDC with a facebook post, a supposed email you received that nobody can verify, or letting us know about that phone call you had with GW, you detracting from the conversation instead of contributing towards finding an actual answer.

 Lance845 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
This is what FW answered to me when I asked about Gabriel Angelos:

Forge World wrote:We don't have any Chapter Tactics for the Blood Ravens yet but we know that our studio are working on a set of these along with those for the Space Marine Chapters involved in the Badab War and hopefully these will be published in the near future. In the meantime, as the true nature of the Primogenitor Chapter for the Blood Ravens is uncertain, we suggest using the Ultramarines Chapter Tactics.

It is pretty damn clear that you're supposed to be able to use codex tactics with their characters.

Are you citing a supposed email in YMDC?

Instead of latching onto that minor detail - how about responding to BCBs pretty good summary of how that's the rules as written anyway?
This is a really annoying trend in here - instead of adding to the discussion people just try to discredit contributions of others, as if that would answer the question at hand.

As BCB pointed out it's not a minor detail. Your argument is only as strong as your source. Citing emails and facebook as a foundation for an argument is a incredible waste of everyones time. Each time someone comes into YMDC with a facebook post, a supposed email you received that nobody can verify, or letting us know about that phone call you had with GW, you detracting from the conversation instead of contributing towards finding an actual answer.

Great. Now can you address Red Scorpions and using Codex rules? Because nothing stops them using Codex rules, as others have commented.
You conflating Regiments with bespoke rules and a Chapter without bespoke rules is what was being discussed before the credibility tangent.

The email and community posts are good enough for me. I consider my question answered.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Great. Now can you address Red Scorpions and using Codex rules? Because nothing stops them using Codex rules, as others have commented.
You conflating Regiments with bespoke rules and a Chapter without bespoke rules is what was being discussed before the credibility tangent.

Ive already said my piece. My opinion hasn't changed. Red Scorpions are no more a part of the codex then Dark Angles. They will get their own rules in their own book when FW starts producing imperial armors. If FW releases an actual FAQ/Errata that says otherwise my opinion will change. Until then FW forces are not a part of any codex without express permission from FW to treat them as such.

I don't think that's true, as Red Scorpions are "just" a codex-compliant 2nd founding successor chapter that Forge World the company likes to pick out as their heroes.

Whereas DA/SW etc are first founding "look at me I'm special and break all the rules with my own unique units" chapters.

 Silentz wrote:
I don't think that's true, as Red Scorpions are "just" a codex-compliant 2nd founding successor chapter that Forge World the company likes to pick out as their heroes.

Whereas DA/SW etc are first founding "look at me I'm special and break all the rules with my own unique units" chapters.

Your citing fluff as a reason for crunch. Why are only 2 of the 9 chaos legions in their own codex instead of the C:CSM? Because it doesn't matter that they are all first founding legions. They are different enough that they get their own rules.

Red Scorpions very well might be turned into a basic SM chapter that uses one of the codex tactics etc etc... But until we have express permission to treat them as such they are not. It's more likely that to sell books FW will give them their own WL trait, relic, and tactic in a IA book.

I expect that when they release the Nid book it will come with rules for a Anphelion Hive Fleet with the same treatment.

Why? Because it will sell better.

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Great. Now can you address Red Scorpions and using Codex rules? Because nothing stops them using Codex rules, as others have commented.
You conflating Regiments with bespoke rules and a Chapter without bespoke rules is what was being discussed before the credibility tangent.

Ive already said my piece. My opinion hasn't changed. Red Scorpions are no more a part of the codex then Dark Angles. They will get their own rules in their own book when FW starts producing imperial armors. If FW releases an actual FAQ/Errata that says otherwise my opinion will change. Until then FW forces are not a part of any codex without express permission from FW to treat them as such.

A Dark Angles army would be able to select its Chapter Trait, so in that sense you are correct. (Angles suggests mathematics and engineering, so maybe an Iron Hands trait for them?) Dark Angels are a different matter, though.

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Great. Now can you address Red Scorpions and using Codex rules? Because nothing stops them using Codex rules, as others have commented.
You conflating Regiments with bespoke rules and a Chapter without bespoke rules is what was being discussed before the credibility tangent.

Ive already said my piece. My opinion hasn't changed. Red Scorpions are no more a part of the codex then Dark Angles. They will get their own rules in their own book when FW starts producing imperial armors. If FW releases an actual FAQ/Errata that says otherwise my opinion will change. Until then FW forces are not a part of any codex without express permission from FW to treat them as such.

A Dark Angles army would be able to select its Chapter Trait, so in that sense you are correct. (Angles suggests mathematics and engineering, so maybe an Iron Hands trait for them?) Dark Angels are a different matter, though.

Except they can't. BA, DA, SW are all excluded from selecting Chapter Tactics from codex space marine. They are very specifically said to be getting their own books with their own rules.

Edit: Oh I see. ::rolls eyes::

 Lance845 wrote:

 Silentz wrote:
I don't think that's true, as Red Scorpions are "just" a codex-compliant 2nd founding successor chapter that Forge World the company likes to pick out as their heroes.

Whereas DA/SW etc are first founding "look at me I'm special and break all the rules with my own unique units" chapters.

Your citing fluff as a reason for crunch. Why are only 2 of the 9 chaos legions in their own codex instead of the C:CSM?

Because they still have to put out the codexes for the other god-specific Chaos legions.

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Silentz wrote:
I don't think that's true, as Red Scorpions are "just" a codex-compliant 2nd founding successor chapter that Forge World the company likes to pick out as their heroes.

Whereas DA/SW etc are first founding "look at me I'm special and break all the rules with my own unique units" chapters.

Your citing fluff as a reason for crunch. Why are only 2 of the 9 chaos legions in their own codex instead of the C:CSM?

Because they still have to put out the codexes for the other god-specific Chaos legions.

But thats apparently not the plan. It's only DG and TSons with their own codex. 7 of the 9 original plus renegades are in C:CSM.

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Great. Now can you address Red Scorpions and using Codex rules? Because nothing stops them using Codex rules, as others have commented.
You conflating Regiments with bespoke rules and a Chapter without bespoke rules is what was being discussed before the credibility tangent.

Ive already said my piece. My opinion hasn't changed. Red Scorpions are no more a part of the codex then Dark Angles. They will get their own rules in their own book when FW starts producing imperial armors. If FW releases an actual FAQ/Errata that says otherwise my opinion will change. Until then FW forces are not a part of any codex without express permission from FW to treat them as such.

...to you. To others it would appear fairly clear that Space Marines with no specific, different army list (e.g. Wolves and Angels) use the Codex. How can you claim that units that may get rules at some point in the future can't use the basic Codex? You're normally for RAW, so why this made-up justification? As others have said, they're just FW's paint scheme of choice. I know this post wont change your mind, I just wanted a counterpoint in the thread as the loudest voice is, in my view, incorrect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Silentz wrote:
I don't think that's true, as Red Scorpions are "just" a codex-compliant 2nd founding successor chapter that Forge World the company likes to pick out as their heroes.

Whereas DA/SW etc are first founding "look at me I'm special and break all the rules with my own unique units" chapters.

Your citing fluff as a reason for crunch. Why are only 2 of the 9 chaos legions in their own codex instead of the C:CSM?

Because they still have to put out the codexes for the other god-specific Chaos legions.

But thats apparently not the plan. It's only DG and TSons with their own codex. 7 of the 9 original plus renegades are in C:CSM.

This isn't even confusing fluff and crunch. It's confusing 'which Legions have a modern, available model line being marketed' with crunch. It's patently obvious why only these two legions are getting fleshed out... because they launched model ranges in (approx) the last year for both. It also proves nothing for either side of the argument... if we know one thing about GW it's that assuming something is a precedent or a pattern is often foolish.

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Silentz wrote:
I don't think that's true, as Red Scorpions are "just" a codex-compliant 2nd founding successor chapter that Forge World the company likes to pick out as their heroes.

Whereas DA/SW etc are first founding "look at me I'm special and break all the rules with my own unique units" chapters.

Your citing fluff as a reason for crunch. Why are only 2 of the 9 chaos legions in their own codex instead of the C:CSM?

Because they still have to put out the codexes for the other god-specific Chaos legions.

But thats apparently not the plan. It's only DG and TSons with their own codex. 7 of the 9 original plus renegades are in C:CSM.

And the models for those special codex legions were out before the Dark Imperium. That may change, and when it does, the situation will change. Just like when Forgeworld presents Chapter Tactics for Red Scorpions, the situation will change for them, just like in 6th Edition.

 Lance845 wrote:

As BCB pointed out it's not a minor detail. Your argument is only as strong as your source. Citing emails and facebook as a foundation for an argument is a incredible waste of everyones time. Each time someone comes into YMDC with a facebook post, a supposed email you received that nobody can verify, or letting us know about that phone call you had with GW, you detracting from the conversation instead of contributing towards finding an actual answer.

Those give insight to writer intent and are valuable to people who are actually interested in figuring out how the rules are supposed to be used instead of some rules lawyer duel on the internet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MattKing wrote:
The email and community posts are good enough for me. I consider my question answered.

Exactly. These are pretty good indications of how the writers of the rules intended them to be played, and if any FAQ on the matter will be issued, it most likely will follow this intent.

 Crimson wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

As BCB pointed out it's not a minor detail. Your argument is only as strong as your source. Citing emails and facebook as a foundation for an argument is a incredible waste of everyones time. Each time someone comes into YMDC with a facebook post, a supposed email you received that nobody can verify, or letting us know about that phone call you had with GW, you detracting from the conversation instead of contributing towards finding an actual answer.

Those give insight to writer intent and are valuable to people who are actually interested in figuring out how the rules are supposed to be used instead of some rules lawyer duel on the internet.

They give AN insight. They are not always written by the rules writers, but people in an other department. That is also not even considering the fact that they can be easily spoofed. They are only valuable to those who are willing to believe you.

Again, the Tenets of the YMDC are clear and specifically state to not include emails from GW as evidence.

 Charistoph wrote:

They give AN insight. They are not always written by the rules writers, but people in an other department. That is also not even considering the fact that they can be easily spoofed. They are only valuable to those who are willing to believe you.

Again, the Tenets of the YMDC are clear and specifically state to not include emails from GW as evidence.

It was obviously good enough for some people, so if you choose not to believe me, that's your problem. And the community article followed the same logic, so at this point the writer intent is clear enough for me. This is the problem with YMDC, some people just consider to be a some sort of rules-lawyering mini game they need to win, rather than an place where people who actually want to play 40K can get practical insight to how resolve ambiguous rule situations.

 Crimson wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

They give AN insight. They are not always written by the rules writers, but people in an other department. That is also not even considering the fact that they can be easily spoofed. They are only valuable to those who are willing to believe you.

Again, the Tenets of the YMDC are clear and specifically state to not include emails from GW as evidence.

It was obviously good enough for some people, so if you choose not to believe me, that's your problem. And the community article followed the same logic, so at this point the writer intent is clear enough for me. This is the problem with YMDC, some people just consider to be a some sort of rules-lawyering mini game they need to win, rather than an place where people who actually want to play 40K can get practical insight to how resolve ambiguous rule situations.

Amen!

 Lance845 wrote:

Your citing fluff as a reason for crunch. Why are only 2 of the 9 chaos legions in their own codex instead of the C:CSM? Because it doesn't matter that they are all first founding legions. They are different enough that they get their own rules.

Red Scorpions very well might be turned into a basic SM chapter that uses one of the codex tactics etc etc... But until we have express permission to treat them as such they are not. It's more likely that to sell books FW will give them their own WL trait, relic, and tactic in a IA book.

Disagree. That's exactly what Red Scorpions are - a basic SM chapter.

Marines are split into two types:
Codex Compliant - use codex space marines
Non-codex compliant - use specific codex

Red Scorpions have never had a codex and will never get one. They might get some chapter tactics etc later (I hope so as I have >3000 points of them!) but they are currently Pick Your Own.

Crimson wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

They give AN insight. They are not always written by the rules writers, but people in an other department. That is also not even considering the fact that they can be easily spoofed. They are only valuable to those who are willing to believe you.

Again, the Tenets of the YMDC are clear and specifically state to not include emails from GW as evidence.

It was obviously good enough for some people, so if you choose not to believe me, that's your problem. And the community article followed the same logic, so at this point the writer intent is clear enough for me. This is the problem with YMDC, some people just consider to be a some sort of rules-lawyering mini game they need to win, rather than an place where people who actually want to play 40K can get practical insight to how resolve ambiguous rule situations.

Then why are you treating this like a mini-game? You are arguing against the standards of the forum when they are properly presented to you.

The Tenets are there to keep things proper and organized. Tenet #2 is specifically used so that the information presented is limited to that which is accessible by everyone, aka the proper books and GW/FW's websites, not just those with access to your email account.

Silentz wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Your citing fluff as a reason for crunch. Why are only 2 of the 9 chaos legions in their own codex instead of the C:CSM? Because it doesn't matter that they are all first founding legions. They are different enough that they get their own rules.

Red Scorpions very well might be turned into a basic SM chapter that uses one of the codex tactics etc etc... But until we have express permission to treat them as such they are not. It's more likely that to sell books FW will give them their own WL trait, relic, and tactic in a IA book.

Disagree. That's exactly what Red Scorpions are - a basic SM chapter.

Marines are split into two types:
Codex Compliant - use codex space marines
Non-codex compliant - use specific codex

Red Scorpions have never had a codex and will never get one. They might get some chapter tactics etc later (I hope so as I have >3000 points of them!) but they are currently Pick Your Own.

Tell that to the Black Templars. They are far less codex compliant than either of the Angels, but are still in Codex: Space Marines.

And it is quite likely the Red Scorpions will get their own Tactics again, eventually. The 6th Edition FW Tactics sheet didn't come out till some time after the Codex was released, after all.

 Charistoph wrote:

Crimson wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

They give AN insight. They are not always written by the rules writers, but people in an other department. That is also not even considering the fact that they can be easily spoofed. They are only valuable to those who are willing to believe you.

Again, the Tenets of the YMDC are clear and specifically state to not include emails from GW as evidence.

It was obviously good enough for some people, so if you choose not to believe me, that's your problem. And the community article followed the same logic, so at this point the writer intent is clear enough for me. This is the problem with YMDC, some people just consider to be a some sort of rules-lawyering mini game they need to win, rather than an place where people who actually want to play 40K can get practical insight to how resolve ambiguous rule situations.

Then why are you treating this like a mini-game? You are arguing against the standards of the forum when they are properly presented to you.

The Tenets are there to keep things proper and organized. Tenet #2 is specifically used so that the information presented is limited to that which is accessible by everyone, aka the proper books and GW/FW's websites, not just those with access to your email account.

To be fair, the tenets say what the only official sources are, but you can treat them as unofficial sources, at least as an indication of RAI and probably how the person bringing it up would play it. Is it hard RAW? No, but that does not mean that there is no place for it in the discusssion since we're also allowed to discuss RAI and HIWPI. The person posting it though needs to keep in mind it's not evidence of RAW. But, it's just as wrong for somebody to say that you can't post them because they're not official RAW, if they're being used for an argument based more on RAI or HIWPI (there have been some people in other threads trying to claim that RAW is the only discussion we're allowed to have here...that's just as wrong as trying to pass off facebook as an official source)

 Charistoph wrote:

Silentz wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Your citing fluff as a reason for crunch. Why are only 2 of the 9 chaos legions in their own codex instead of the C:CSM? Because it doesn't matter that they are all first founding legions. They are different enough that they get their own rules.

Red Scorpions very well might be turned into a basic SM chapter that uses one of the codex tactics etc etc... But until we have express permission to treat them as such they are not. It's more likely that to sell books FW will give them their own WL trait, relic, and tactic in a IA book.

Disagree. That's exactly what Red Scorpions are - a basic SM chapter.

Marines are split into two types:
Codex Compliant - use codex space marines
Non-codex compliant - use specific codex

Red Scorpions have never had a codex and will never get one. They might get some chapter tactics etc later (I hope so as I have >3000 points of them!) but they are currently Pick Your Own.

Tell that to the Black Templars. They are far less codex compliant than either of the Angels, but are still in Codex: Space Marines.

And it is quite likely the Red Scorpions will get their own Tactics again, eventually. The 6th Edition FW Tactics sheet didn't come out till some time after the Codex was released, after all.

I would not be surprised for FW to put out those Tactics again. It might take them a while, and they might do it in a publication which also includes some relics for those chapters and possibly some chapter specific warlord traits, but it's also possible that they'll just put out the Chapter Tactics in a pdf the way they did for 6th.

 doctortom wrote:
To be fair, the tenets say what the only official sources are, but you can treat them as unofficial sources, at least as an indication of RAI and probably how the person bringing it up would play it. Is it hard RAW? No, but that does not mean that there is no place for it in the discusssion since we're also allowed to discuss RAI and HIWPI. The person posting it though needs to keep in mind it's not evidence of RAW. But, it's just as wrong for somebody to say that you can't post them because they're not official RAW, if they're being used for an argument based more on RAI or HIWPI (there have been some people in other threads trying to claim that RAW is the only discussion we're allowed to have here...that's just as wrong as trying to pass off facebook as an official source).

They also state that emails can be spoofed, which is why they don't work as evidence. It is only hearsay, at best. It can work for a HIWPI, but it is only a "I just wanna do it", nothing else. Which is why people were complaining about bringing it up in the first place.

 Charistoph wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
To be fair, the tenets say what the only official sources are, but you can treat them as unofficial sources, at least as an indication of RAI and probably how the person bringing it up would play it. Is it hard RAW? No, but that does not mean that there is no place for it in the discusssion since we're also allowed to discuss RAI and HIWPI. The person posting it though needs to keep in mind it's not evidence of RAW. But, it's just as wrong for somebody to say that you can't post them because they're not official RAW, if they're being used for an argument based more on RAI or HIWPI (there have been some people in other threads trying to claim that RAW is the only discussion we're allowed to have here...that's just as wrong as trying to pass off facebook as an official source).

The also state that emails can be spoofed, which is why they don't work as evidence. It is only hearsay, at best. It can work for a HIWPI, but it is only a "I just wanna do it", nothing else. Which is why people were complaining about bringing it up in the first place.

OK, then please explain to me how I spoofed warhammer-community. I don't think you, personally, "decried" bringing that one up, but it was one of the two occasions in this very thread were it was CLEARLY labelled as "this is not a rulebook, I know, but this still exists", and the response was basically "get out, this is not allowed in YMDC" and that's just not the case. As long as it is clear what the source is, it is allowed. If it helps people to make a call (hint: look at the board title) as to how a rule should be played, it's fine. Because, unlike what I criticised earlier, it actually contributes to the fething topic.

I provided an answer that I received directly pertaining the topic of the thread, in case someone would find it helpful. People are free to take it or leave it, I really don't care. Personally I consider the matter settled to my satisfaction.

nekooni wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
To be fair, the tenets say what the only official sources are, but you can treat them as unofficial sources, at least as an indication of RAI and probably how the person bringing it up would play it. Is it hard RAW? No, but that does not mean that there is no place for it in the discusssion since we're also allowed to discuss RAI and HIWPI. The person posting it though needs to keep in mind it's not evidence of RAW. But, it's just as wrong for somebody to say that you can't post them because they're not official RAW, if they're being used for an argument based more on RAI or HIWPI (there have been some people in other threads trying to claim that RAW is the only discussion we're allowed to have here...that's just as wrong as trying to pass off facebook as an official source).

The also state that emails can be spoofed, which is why they don't work as evidence. It is only hearsay, at best. It can work for a HIWPI, but it is only a "I just wanna do it", nothing else. Which is why people were complaining about bringing it up in the first place.

OK, then please explain to me how I spoofed warhammer-community. I don't think you, personally, "decried" bringing that one up, but it was one of the two occasions in this very thread were it was CLEARLY labelled as "this is not a rulebook, I know, but this still exists", and the response was basically "get out, this is not allowed in YMDC" and that's just not the case. As long as it is clear what the source is, it is allowed. If it helps people to make a call (hint: look at the board title) as to how a rule should be played, it's fine. Because, unlike what I criticised earlier, it actually contributes to the fething topic.

Well, Warhammer-Community is official, as it is where GW is keeping their most current FAQs (for now). GW has been using it for their own presentation of communication of late, but it is a very recent development that is having some teething problems in the community at large as a result. I can't say YOU are spoofing it (nor have I suggested it at any point), especially when you should be able to provide a link to its page, but some people are having trouble accepting that this may be GW's new communication method.

My own point was answering the question about the email, and kept it focused on such.

 Charistoph wrote:
My own point was answering the question about the email, and kept it focused on such.

Yeah, and my point is that some folks in here should think about how they respond to people that want to contribute something to a discussion, especially when they properly disclaim that the source isn't as valid as e.g. the BRB. We're trying to solve the puzzles GW puts in front of us, not win an online contest of who gets to be right. GWs stance on a lot of rule interpretations has become much clearer thanks to their improved communications, so maybe it's simply time to revise the tenets. I'm sorry this has derailed the thread as much as it has.

nekooni wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
My own point was answering the question about the email, and kept it focused on such.

Yeah, and my point is that some folks in here should think about how they respond to people that want to contribute something to a discussion, especially when they properly disclaim that the source isn't as valid as e.g. the BRB. We're trying to solve the puzzles GW puts in front of us, not win an online contest of who gets to be right. GWs stance on a lot of rule interpretations has become much clearer thanks to their improved communications, so maybe it's simply time to revise the tenets. I'm sorry this has derailed the thread as much as it has.

It's not about winning a contest. There are decades of 3 people writing emails about the same question and getting 3 different answers. The rules team is not sitting around answering emails all day. The rules team is busy writing and (acording to GW at least) testing rules.

The reason people don't take facebook, emails, and phone calls to mean anything is because they don't mean anything. Your not adding pieces of the puzzle to the table to help sort out whats going on, your throwing in pieces from another, similar puzzle and making it harder to sort through the actual pieces.

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.

 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?

nekooni wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
My own point was answering the question about the email, and kept it focused on such.

Yeah, and my point is that some folks in here should think about how they respond to people that want to contribute something to a discussion, especially when they properly disclaim that the source isn't as valid as e.g. the BRB. We're trying to solve the puzzles GW puts in front of us, not win an online contest of who gets to be right. GWs stance on a lot of rule interpretations has become much clearer thanks to their improved communications, so maybe it's simply time to revise the tenets. I'm sorry this has derailed the thread as much as it has.

When it comes to emails, I sincerely doubt the standard will change in the tenets, nor should it. Emails can easily be spoofed and altered to fit what the person wants them to say. A link to a GW website, though, is much harder to do, which makes them operating under two completely different standards.