sonsofcorax.freeforums.org

Regardless of where the information comes from or if it is accessible in other places on the net, it's a good thread to have on here, the only active Raven Guard dedicated forum. Many new players won't know where to find this information, and it's conveniently here compiled by a member of this very forum. So that in and of itself is of great value.

1) collection of the few "historic" bits we have isn't easy to do. If you find not much, you will try to research more.

So i think its good to have this work done by Vash.

2) no rumored additional fluff to come and only 1 article from GW ( sadly not "link-able") gives us 1 choice:

- stress GW for more attention

3) source(s) are in the article. Needed and well done.

Criticising Lexicanum is easy, may try to support instead? At least they accept only "original" (english) sources and demand to
have the sources available to control the reliability of the entry. As far as i found out, there is no made up stuff on lexicanum
at their "first language", but some non-trustworthy in english. Would help to fill the "review" function of a wiki and tell them
when things can't be true.

Another point:
why not generate a review or C&C thread? As it is, we get a lot of "articles" followed by discussion. Seperate the main
"article", makes it possible to add or change (edit) it and everyone interested won't have to read the arguments aftermath.

Alright gentlemen, cool it.

Vash's contribution to the community may not be in the form of something that some of you would consider original, however, you cannot deny the time and effort it took nontheless. A little more diplomacy would be in order.

On the other hand, Vash, your contribution is a treasure to the community without a doubt. The same way no one can deny that fact, is the same way you must accept that there are similarities to the sources you've cited. I would advice you to be a little less defensive especially since you'll be contributing many more works.


Truth be told, all this bickering has shown me something that i'm very proud of...We have many strong personalities here, and it is that clash of wills/opinions/etc that causes these bickerings. While the quarrels are not very good for the community, strong minded individuals always are. Especially if they contribute as much as you guys have.


Now put this aside and see the other man not for his flaws, but for his strength. For he is your brother, as you are his.

This goes to ALL Sons of Corax.



Consider this a reminder of our bonds of brotherhood....and a warning.

Victorus Aut Morits

Ok, Moderator stepping in.

Vash. You did a good thing compling and putting that stuff in its rightful home. But you had exactly the same sources as the rest of us, and as there is so little out there those sources are VERY well known.

I don't feel anyone was insulting you or your work in collaborating the material. There is simply not much out there, so similarities are bound to be noticed.

Play nice, no one meant to do any harm.

I don't doubt no harm or insult was intended but as a writer I take accusations of plagiarism, blatant or otherwise, very, very seriously and it's a bit disconcerting that no one considered the other possibility. That the lexi/wiki material might have been copy/pasted from mine, this article is not new by any means and has existed on Tau Online and the Bolter and Chainsword for some time and like I said when I first wrote it there was very little on lexi.

I appologize for over reacting, but like I said I take the issue of plagiarism seriously.

i like this part of Fhad's post, as there are still some folks who have not seen the IA article for our chapter, or dont trust Lexicanum, so we should try to make sure that sources are noted in articles.


additionally, if you wish to post an article, but want to keep it easy to distinguish when changes are made, then you can sticky the article (or have a mod do it) and create a C&C thread, linked to the original article.

Are you talking about the Comp. History or articles in general because the article does have the sources listed though there aren't very many.



I see a lot of that here but don't see the reason for it, it just makes it harder to keep things harder switching between two different threads.

well, the reason for it in some cases, such as people putting up fluff stories and things of that nature, it does make it easier to read whenever a new bit of the same story is put up. It may not work quite as well for things like articles, but i am willing to give it a shot.


in reference to Fhad's post, i was referring to how he did praise that you put your sources down, that they werent many but were good. and in the way he worded it, to me was about as civil as you can get. He explained what he was trying to say about as well as i could explain something that i might debate.

Nice read

The net is full of information, and there is no "Single" source or anything.

I was really happy seeing the color scheme for the Assault, Tactical, Devastor, Sgt, Captain.

Because I've been looking for that for awhile, and the new Marine Codex shows many different schemes but doesn't give reason for why some are Green and some are Red Trim.

EDIT: It's a dead issue, let it lie ~ SyNidus~

Well I'm glad it helped then.

All of it in one spot ... awesome.

Hate to be an arse.

Being a Codex chapter aren't RG displaying company colors on their right shoulder trim and not squad colors?

1st Company - White (Silver)
2nd Company - Yellow (Gold)
3rd Company - Red
4th Company - Green
5th Company - Black
6th Company - Orange
7th Company - Purple
8th Company - Grey
9th Company - Blue
10th Company - Usually none as it's entirely made up of scouts.

All painted RG from GW seems to confirm that they do (which makes Shrike the Company Capt as we all know from fluff and painted reference), but if you could point me to official reference for displaying squad colors instead, I'll shut up.

All painted RG marines show that GW doesn't read their own fluff.

1) Codex marines field their company color at both shoulders.
2) codex markings are also tactical signs, this is the only part of RG and codex marines painted correct at most models in the codex but still some field 2 different tactical marks ( example : assault+veteran) at the same time which isn't RG or codex.
3) Squad markings are those tactical signs at the shoulder, codex doesn't use colors for that. But RG scheme does.

Why this issue?

4) because the GW-painters got it wrong.
You either use the codex scheme or the RG scheme. The models in the codex SM are a mix of both.
5) official Legion/chapter painting scheme for RG comes from the Index astartes IV.
There you get a pre-heresy scheme and a past-heresy scheme.
These schemes field the full black shoulderpad with the raven + a "colored" shoulderpad with the tactical sign.
So shoulders half black and half black+another color are RG, not codex. Thus the red would be assault, not 3rd company.
6) secondary issue is the change that happened, when RG turned from all black to IA IV and then codex was assumed to be also right.

SoC reference:





SoC thread covering the markings

Crap, this means I have to shut up ...

Thanks for clarifying