Brother Tyler

A few more updates as we continue to work on this... Longevity is back in - members will receive 1 achievement point at each longevity step (1 year, 5 years, and every 5 years thereafter). The current top rank is "Venerable Brother" and that will soon be changed to "Honoured Brother." Once we make the changes, there will be two ranks above Honoured Brother - Venerable Brother and Ancient Brother. Why change "Venerable Brother" to "Honoured Brother" and then create a new Venerable Brother rank? Math. If we don't do that, many of you will think that you're being "demoted" which isn't what's happening. I spent over 8 hours yesterday and a few hours today analyzing this (and now my head hurts). And "Revered Brother" sounded arrogant, so it has been changed to "Ancient Brother" since that sounds a bit less smug. We're looking at ways to offset the great crash that took place in 2014. A ton of content was lost, meaning many members' achievements don't reflect that lost content. The amount of content varies from member to member, however, so we're going to look at a reasonable number of achievement points (along with a spiffy badge). It will be something along the lines of a "Great Crash Survivor" achievement. I'm looking for a way to have it awarded automatically so that we don't have to go through a database of over 50,000 members to figure out who gets it and have to manually award all of those members. We're also looking at ways to offset our now-abandoned policy of deleting content after it became obsolete. This was something that we did to "clean up" periodically when the site was first created during the ezBoard days, and we continued that practice (albeit sporadically) up through the software update/server migration in 2022. At that time, however, we realized that deleting content screwed members out of achievements. For example, many members' post counts went down (some of us lost over 10,000 posts), so we have adjusted that policy so that no content is removed (minus content that isn't appropriate to the site, and that will get you disciplined). Since content generally wasn't deleted unless it was over 1 year old, we're looking at a way to give members who joined prior to May 2021 a few points. Again, I'm looking for a way to have it awarded automatically to avoid the pain of manually awarding a ton of members. This is also intended to offset the fact that we once had blogs, but removed that feature and all associated content (my original blog was lost ). Naturally, the loss of the old blogs feature doesn't affect a whole lot of people, but there were quite a few of us that had blogs way back when (and it's great to see them back). The points values for achievements have been adjusted to 0-3 (vice 0-4). The swing up to 4 points created too large of a gap, especially since one of the core features is also a new feature and many members have yet to leverage it (BLOGS). This adjustment makes it easier for members to make up for points in one area by contributing content in other areas. Finally, more work is taking place to smooth some of the progressions. The initial progressions sounded fine "in my head," but looked bad once I saw them visually. For example, comments/replies (see graphic in post above) might be adjusted with the top end remaining the same, but the middle values raising slightly to get a less dramatic curve. All in all, the goal is to establish reasonable and achievable progressions. For what it's worth, the core features of the community are the FORUMS, the GALLERY, and the BLOGS. Achievements/behaviors in these areas drive the requirements to reach each rank. So creating topics, replying in discussions, creating blogs/blog entries, commenting on members' blog entries, creating albums, and uploading images set the pace. Members can easily earn points in many other areas, however, so there's no requirement whatsoever to use all of the core features. Things like creating events in the CALENDAR, submitting ARTICLES, creating CLUBS, and uploading files in the DOWNLOADS are great and will earn points, too. The existing topic describing the achievements and ranks will be updated to include all of the relevant information. At this point, it's too soon to describe what things will look like since this is still a work in progress and things may change.

Very sad news, indeed. He had an immense influence on the hobby and this community; and he will be missed.

As usual, please start a separate topic for each release.

Behind the scenes, the staff has been working on adjustments to the achievements and the ranks. The current structure (described here) was a "best guess" that was developed when we underwent the software upgrade a few years ago. We have identified several areas where this structure can be improved. The intent with the achievements is to encourage/reward positive behaviors, recognizing members' contributions to the community. Key changes: Increasing from 5 steps to 20 steps Flattening curves Adjusting goals to be more achievable Adjusting achievement points values Increasing the ranks The current achievement steps are green-blue-bronze-silver-gold. In increasing from 5 to 20, we are adding a few colors, but are creating the additional steps by having multiple levels of each color. The green and gold badges will each have a single level. The green badge indicating to a member that the behavior is one that is recognized as an achievement and for which continued instances of that behavior will result in more badges. The gold badge is the highest badge in any progression and indicates that the member has hit that top milestone (and likely exceeded it). We are adding purple, red, and black in between the blue and bronze badges. The blue, purple, red, black, bronze, and silver badges will all have three levels, with Roman numeral I/II/III indicators. So after receiving the green badge, a member will receive the blue I badge at the second milestone, the blue II badge at the third milestone, the blue III badge at the fourth milestone, the purple I badge at the fifth milestone, and so on. The current progressions are decidedly non-linear, sometimes drastically so. The modified progressions are much more linear, the curves largely being flattened. In part, this is due to making milestones more achievable. We examined how many members had earned each of the existing achievements and determined that some of the gold badge milestones were too high. A few of the behaviors are currently single-milestone, but those have been incorporated into the 20-step progressions. Previously, members were limited to a single blog, so there was only a single badge. In evaluating the blogs, however, we determined that allowing members to create multiple blogs was much more useful. Similarly, the award for creating clubs was previously limited to a single badge because we didn't want to encourage members to create useless clubs. With our awareness of how clubs can be used on the site, however, it makes sense to encourage the creation of constructive clubs, and to award achievements for that behavior. Here are some examples of a few behaviors and how they are being changed. The red line shows the current progression (along 5 steps) while the blue line shows the modified progression (along 20 steps). Members are able to create discussion topics in the FORUM feature (obviously), but they are also able to create discussion topics in the CLUB feature (assuming the club has one or more discussion forums). As of 14 February, only 1 member had created 1,000 or more topics and 6 had created 500 or more topics. Under the current rules [for achievements] comments/replies in all areas are counted in this progression. This includes replying in topics (obviously), but also includes comments on events, gallery images, files, downloads, blog entries, etc. As of 14 February, only 35 members had posted 10,000 or more comments/replies and 119 had posted 5,000 or more comments/replies. While we are flattening the curve, we are also breaking the comments/replies out into different progressions for different areas. So there will be a progression for comments/replies in BLOGS, another for comments/replies in the GALLERY, etc. The blue progression shown above is for comments/replies in the FORUM (where the majority of comments/replies are currently located). As of 14 February, 30 members had uploaded 1,000 or more images and 94 members had uploaded 500 or more images. The only images that count towards this progression are those that are uploaded into the GALLERY feature. When a member directly embeds an image into content (e.g., by pasting an image or off-site URL into a post), that image (a) doesn't count towards the progression, and (b) will be automatically deleted by the system after a period of time (this is not something that we have any control over). As the comment/reply progression shows, we are also creating a few new progressions (mostly breaking them out from currently consolidated progressions). This necessitated the creation of a few new designs. I also made some tweaks to create an overarching system, so everything to do with the FORUM feature shares design cues, everything to do with the ARTICLE feature shares design cues, etc. Most of the designs had to be tweaked so that we could fit the I/II/III indicator (I chose the center bottom). Also, standardized iconography for comments/replies and reviews was created. So all review achievements feature a design of five stars across the middle/bottom of the badge, above the I/II/III indicator and superimposed over the feature design (e.g., the badge for a review of an album features the five stars superimposed over the four image icon of the new album badge). I spent all day yesterday working on the badges. At this point I've created the basic designs. I'm considering creating some images for the green and gold badges to fill the space that other badge colors use for the I/II/III indicator, and I may tweak a few of the images a little (I'm not satisfied with the review image). After that it will just be a matter of creating the new backgrounds (purple, red, and black) and then creating the new badges. That will take some time. Under the current system, each achievement milestone is worth 1 point, and this includes the longevity achievement milestones (1 year, 5 years, and then every multiple of 5 years thereafter). With longevity achievements worth points, members can advance in rank simply by logging in without otherwise participating in the community. We also observed that it was very easy to reach higher ranks. In one example, a new member that had been here for less than a month reached the Veteran rank. That seemed counterintuitive. Under the modified system, achievements will be worth 0-4 points (unless we decide to modify that to 0-3 or 0-5). The concept is that the baseline achievements are worth 2 points at each milestone. "Importance" of achievements is based on their ease/difficulty of performing (level of effort) and their contribution to the community. Some behaviors are extremely easy, but contribute little to the community (or their contribution is reflected in other ways). For example, voting in a poll is relatively easy and the contribution is reflected in the outcome of the poll. Also, a more meaningful contribution to the poll is often posting a comment/reply to help others to explain differing viewpoints on the issue being voted upon. So voting in a poll is worth 0 points (that may change as we refine things). You'll still receive badges for voting because we want you to vote and help the community to make decisions, but voting in polls doesn't contribute to rank progression (see below). Meanwhile, a fully realized participation in the hobby involves assembling/painting miniatures and playing games with them, which is best covered in the BLOG feature. So submitting blog entries is worth the highest amount of points (whatever that ends up being, currently 4). We have only started working on the weighting of achievements, but we're trying to keep a sort of bell curve (few 0/max achievements, most somewhere in the middle). The current ranks are Aspirant, Novitiate, Battle-Brother, Veteran, and Venerable Brother. We are definitely adding the Honoured Brother rank (though I've been wishy-washy about whether it should be immediately before or after Venerable Brother). We may add one other rank (Revered Brother?), though I'm not sure that's necessary. We are deliberately avoiding actual ranks (e.g., Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain), and though we've discussed lore-base steps through a Codex Chapter, we're probably going to stick with the simpler progression. Yes, we're going to stick with an Adeptus Astartes theme based on the site's mascot Chapter, the Legio, and our origins as a Space Marine discussion forum. So I need to create at least one new rank badge, and perhaps a second. Only a few achievements will be considered "core" or "pacing" for the purpose of calculating ranks. Other achievements will earn points and those points will contribute towards a member's rank, but we're only using the core/pacing achievements in calculating the points required to reach each rank. In addition, we are working on notional timelines for members to reach each rank. Our current working numbers are 3 months to reach the Battle-Brother rank, 1 year to reach the Veteran rank, 4 years to reach the Honoured Brother rank (assuming that one comes next), and 7 years to reach the Venerable Brother rank. We'll then make an assessment of which milestones a member would achieve in each of the core/pacing behaviors at those points in time, assuming regular moderate participation over that span of time. The total points a member would earn at each of those points in time, then, become the points for the rank. Since different members participate in different ways, however, they may have more/less participation in those core/pacing behaviors. The other behaviors offer alternatives. In addition, members can lose achievement points as a result of disciplinary action; and having core/pacing achievements and other achievements offers a way for these members to recover rank. So while we may determine that it requires 50 points to reach the Battle-Brother rank based on the core/pacing achievements, members can earn those 50 points via the other achievements. Ultimately, we want members to have flexibility. Each of us participates in the hobby in our own way, and we each participate within the community in our own way. Achievements, achievement points, and rank don't really do anything in that they don't confer authority or privileges. However, they serve as rough indicators of a member's contributions to the community over time. They don't necessarily speak to quality, which is reflected in reputation (earned from the reactions other members assign to one's content), but are simply an indicator of the quantity of one's contributions to the community. They are, as one member put it, imaginary Internet points. They are not pointless, however, as they both encourage and recognize constructive behaviors within the community. To reiterate, however, this is still a work in progress and we have not made our final determinations on everything. Once we get everything done, we'll have to add the new badges, adjust all of the rules, add the new rank(s) and icon(s), and adjust the disciplinary rules (and figure out where we'll need to fairly adjust the achievement points of those members that have been subjected to these disciplinary measures). There is a lot of work that has to be done in one fell swoop, which will be time-consuming. And we may go through several iterations of the points assignments for each rank, just like last time.

Since no one submitted an image in February or March, I've shifted this to May, with a deadline in April.

I'm working on tutorials/guidance for the blogs, but I want things to settle down after we upgrade to Invision 5.0 first (again, we don't have a plan/timeline for that yet, so it's strictly notional at this point). In the interim, however, here is a little bit of info. First, we have created a structure of categories and sub-categories for the blogs. There was some debate about whether or not to include categories/sub-categories for games (e.g., the Horus Heresy Age of Darkness), but we decided to go with the factions/sub-factions since those provide a bit more granularity. Had we gone with categories/sub-categories instead of factions, things would have been diluted. For example, people looking for blogs about Orks might miss Ork kill team blogs in the Kill Team category. While some people might search by game, factions/sub-factions appear to be the more common search pattern. Proper use of tags will help people to provide more clarity on what projects are about. It turns out that members can't move their blogs. I did a bunch of digging around and this is something that only certain staff members can do. Naturally, this throws a spanner in the works for members that created blogs when members were limited to a single blog. For those members that want to take advantage of being able to create unlimited blogs and who want to break their existing blogs up, instructions are provided here. Nobody has to scatter their existing blogs into multiple blogs if they don't want to, but I hope that you all do as it will really help with content findability (yes, that's a real thing) and you'll earn the achievements for having multiple blogs. As far as the confusion about categories that @Norman Paperman described, yes, I get it. There is the overarching structure that we've built, but members are also able to create their own internal blog categories. This gives members considerable freedom in organizing their blogs. For example, a member might have a blog that is solely dedicated to collecting and painting the models for a single kill team. Such a blog might need only one category, or they may decide to create a different category for each model in the kill team. Meanwhile, a member might have a blog dedicated to their DIY Chapter. Such a blog might have many categories, including categories about different aspects of the Chapter (e.g., heraldry, organization, rules, etc.), a category for the development of a Chapter article, categories for different armies/forces they might create for different games (e.g., a combat patrol, a kill team, a BFG fleet, a Terminator squad for Space Hulk, etc.). The common usage of "category" is confusing at first, but once you wrap your head around the differences between the default categories [that we have created for the overall blogs] and the internal categories [that each blog author creates for their blogs], it becomes pretty easy (and it's extremely useful). As far as announcement/outreach posts, feel free to post them in any appropriate forum/sub-forum. For example, if your blog is about a squad of Dark Angels Legiones Astartes (perhaps using the Legionaries rules), it would be acceptable to post topics in the Dark Angels, Kill Team, Heretic Astartes, and Horus Heresy forums since members that frequent each of those forums would likely be interested. Invision has informed me that automatic announcement topics such as are created for downloads and articles are not possible with the blogs, so we are left with manual outreach (which sucks, I know). In the meantime, I've also tinkered with the sidebar blocks, pushing new blog entries closer to the top and increasing the number that appear. I tried to use subject-specific blocks in various forums/sub-forums (e.g., Dark Angels blogs in the Dark Angels forum), but it didn't work the way I wanted. I'm not done with that experiment, but it will require custom blocks (not my forte, so it will take time). Another element of increasing blog visibility was to add links to related blogs in each of the forums. For example, at the top of the Dark Angels forum you can now see a link to all Dark Angels & Successors blogs. In addition, the Resource indices that appear in most of the forums now also have links to the blogs, gallery albums, and, where relevant, decals in the downloads. So if you look at the Dark Angels resources topic, you'll see links to Dark Angels blogs, gallery albums, and decals.

All done, hopefully correctly. If I screwed anything up, please let me know ASAP so I can fix it.

Okay, my search for some setting(s) has been fruitless. I've come up with a workaround. It involves a lot of work for me, but I'm willing to do that work for anyone. First, you need to create all of the new blogs into which you want your existing blogs/blog categories to be moved. If you don't want the original blog in the Miscellaneous category, don't create one of the new blogs (ideally the one that has the most entries in your original blog) - I'll change the category of the original blog (see below). To keep me honest (you'll find out why this is important below), you should take a screenshot of the listing of all of your blogs (and as much more as you want). This is for your protection. Then you'll need to post a reply in this discussion telling me: Which new blog each of your categories/entries [in your original blog] should be moved. The name of the category that you want each blog category/entry to be moved into. Which category you want your original blog moved into (assuming you don't want to keep it in the Miscellaneous category). This is where things get shady (hence my recommendation for screenshots above)... Once I have your PM, I will change ownership of all of your blogs to me. This will allow me to move everything around according to the instructions that you provide. After that, I'll delete the now empty categories in the original blog. Once I've completed all of that, I will change ownership of all of your blogs back to you and I will post a reply in this discussion letting you know that the work is complete. The reason I suggest replies in this discussion rather than PMs is so that there is public visibility (another element of keeping me honest). This won't be a difficult task, but it will be time-consuming - the more projects you plan to have, the longer it will take (and I don't mind that one bit). Now if you don't want to go through this hassle, that's completely up to you. However, the staff is in the process of revising the achievements and there will be a progression for the creation of new blogs. There is already a progression for the creation of new blog entries, so those won't be affected whether they all remain in a single blog or they are spread around multiple blogs. If you have a dozen or so projects collected in a single blog (i.e., your original blog), you'll only earn the achievement for that one blog. If you create blogs for separate projects, however, you'll earn multiple achievements. The choice is up to you. If you want to see the outcome of the process I've described above, take a look at @Ioldanach's blogs here. He was the guinea pig that was trying to help with the tutorials, then found out that only the admins can move blog entries around (so it's all his fault ).

There are two concerns with members being able to delete their own posts. First, if subsequent replies quote that post or refer to it, the discussion becomes disjointed. Second, if someone posts content that is against the forum rules, they might be able to delete the post before we see it/take action, effectively getting away with something (granted, they can always edit posts, but that's a risk we're willing to take since it has less of an impact on the community). Note that even if we were to allow members to delete their posts, we wouldn't enable them to delete their topics. Topics have a more significant impact on members since the deletion of a topic also deletes all replies to that topic, removing content that other members have submitted (and affecting their achievements). I'm just bringing that up because it's something we learned the hard way with account deletions (which is why content that deleted accounts submit remains on the site, but is attributed to a "Guest"). As @Grotsmasha said, the best practice when you want to delete a double post is to report the post. The staff can easily take care of it.

D'oh! I couldn't move another member's blog category/entry into one of their new blogs. All I could do was move it into one of my own blogs (I didn't do that, of course, but that's what my options were limited to). I'm going to have to dig into this more. It's perplexing that I can move my stuff around but others can't be given similar permissions. My assumption is that I'm missing something (and must therefore submit myself to the pain glove once I figure it out).

Okay, it turns out that members can't move blog categories/entries. I've confirmed by using a Frater Domus account, and I determined that there wasn't a setting that I could change to enable blog category/entry movement by members. All you can do in this effort is create the new blogs in the appropriate categories. Once you have created all of the new blogs that you want, you can contact me to let me know which categories/entries to move from your existing blog into the new blog(s) (and which blog to move each into).

I think the easy answer at this point is for me to add links to the Aeldari and Harlequin blogs (in addition to the link to the Asuryani blogs). I'll look into the ability for blog authors to recategorize blogs/entries. I'll have to enlist someone's help with that (and I'm already working on that) since I have broader permissions as an Administrator and don't always see the limitations that other members work under. I noticed that one of your entries isn't published. Was that deliberate? Speaking of enlisting someone's help, I'm working on that so that I can get the tutorials done for everyone. I already created my additional blogs and moved things around, so the only way for me to create the tutorials would be for me to either create a bunch of new entries (I am far too busy for that right now) or get help from someone else. That person has just agreed to help, so I hope to have the tutorial up late this weekend or early next week.

View File Adherence/Compliance With and Divergence From the Codex Astartes A recurring topic among Warhammer 40,000 hobbyists is whether or not different Chapters of the Adeptus Astartes qualify as being either adherent/compliant with or divergent from the Codex Astartes. Debate covers a variety of issues, including how Chapters with known divergences from the Codex Astartes can still be considered adherent/compliant in the official lore. This article presents one possible framework by which such an assessment might be made, as well as complicating factors that have to be taken into account. This is the downloadable/printable .pdf version of the article that can be read online here. Submitter Brother Tyler Submitted 03/12/25 Category Background (Lore)  

Adherence/Compliance With and Divergence From the Codex Astartes By Brother Tyler The Codex Astartes is the masterwork of the Primarch of the XIIIth (Ultramarines) Legion, Roboute Guilliman, defining every aspect of the Chapters of the Adeptus Astartes created from the Legiones Astartes in the wake of the Horus Heresy. While many Chapters have endeavored to faithfully adhere to the dictates of the Codex Astartes, none but the most careful and reverent have succeeded over the millennia, for the Codex Astartes has been subject to interpretation, translation, and modification. Indeed, some Chapters eschew portions of the Codex Astartes, preferring their own traditions. They are the Defenders of Humanity. They are my Space Marines… …and they shall know no fear. The Codex Astartes as we understand it today was first presented in the 2nd edition of the Warhammer 40,000 game, notably in Codex: Ultramarines. The concepts were later solidified in Insignium Astartes, which was published during the 3rd edition of the Warhammer 40,000 game, providing the definitive version that hobbyists understand today (albeit, with minor modifications over the years and editions). Interestingly enough, the Codex Astartes didn’t exist during the 1st edition of the Warhammer 40,000 game (“Rogue Trader”). Instead, it was the Codex Imperialis that served as the official order of battle for all Space Marine Chapters at that time. This was presented in an early Index Astartes article in White Dwarf Magazine, later republished in the Warhammer 40,000 Compendium in 1989 (and republished in Index Astartes Apocrypha in 2016). From left to right: Warhammer 40,000 Compendium (1st edition, 1989), Codex: Ultramarines (2nd edition, 1995), Insignium Astartes (3rd edition, 2002), Index Astartes Apocrypha (1st edition reprints, 2016) A recurring topic among Warhammer 40,000 hobbyists is whether or not different Chapters of the Adeptus Astartes qualify as being either adherent/compliant with or divergent from the Codex Astartes. Debate covers a variety of issues, including how Chapters with known divergences from the Codex Astartes can still be considered adherent/compliant in the official lore. The most famous of the Chapters that adhere to the Codex Astartes are the Ultramarines, though other Chapters are said to be equally (or more) compliant. Such Chapters include the Imperial Fists and Black Consuls. At the opposite end are those Chapters that are well known for ignoring the Codex Astartes, or at least vast portions of it. These include the Space Wolves and Black Templars. The rest of the thousand or so Chapters are scattered in between, though many such as the Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Iron Hands, and Salamanders are considered to be compliant with the Codex Astartes despite known divergences. Debate, then, typically focuses on how Chapters with known divergences can be considered adherent/compliant, and where a line, if any exists, might be drawn to demarcate the point at which minor deviations from the Codex Astartes result in a Chapter being truly “divergent.” This article does not seek to provide a method by which Chapters might be assessed as being either adherent/compliant or divergent, nor does it aim to define where any particular Chapters might fall in such an assessment beyond reiterating conclusions that Games Workshop has presented in official material. Instead, this article merely presents one possible framework by which such an assessment might be made, as well as complicating factors that have to be taken into account. In essence, this article presents a method by which one might visualize an assessment of a Chapter’s adherence with or divergence from the Codex Astartes. This is simply one hobbyist’s views on the subject; and other hobbyists might have their own views that are equally valid. A significant challenge that we face as hobbyists is that we don’t know exactly what the Codex Astartes says. We can speculate on multiple elements of the Codex Astartes based on the known information, but we don’t know the full range of information, nor do we know if the information that we do know encompasses the full range of information on any particular topic. Indeed, there might be a delineation between what the Codex Astartes might recommend or prefer, what it might allow, what might be interpretation or addition, or what might be proscribed. For example, we know that company affiliation is most often indicated by the color of the shoulder pad rims, and we know that other common variants include the color of the chest decoration, the color of a kneepad, the color of the helmet, etc. We might draw some reliable conclusions based on the examples in Insignium Astartes, but we don’t necessarily know if there are any other options that are within the dictates of the Codex Astartes. Equally as important, we don’t know exactly what the original Codex Astartes says. The original Codex Astartes was compiled nearly ten thousand years prior to the current era, though its original format is unknown. Copies were distributed in manuscript form, most likely being received by each of the Chapters created in the 2nd Founding. The oldest known copy is thought to be the Apocrypha of Skaros, though the Liber Arcanum of Grand Marshall Tolof, the Holo-Record 442/33508, and the Gant Manuscript v2 of the Ceris Archive contend for this honor. In addition, the Codex Astartes has been copied and recopied many times, and different organizations, including Chapters of the Adeptus Astartes, have reanalyzed and reinterpreted the document. As a result, different versions of the Codex Astartes might be considered as “true” while being different from both each other and from the original. Roboute Guilliman likely has the original stored in his eidetic memory, and there may be a true copy somewhere, but we as players don’t have access to the full original version. The best that we as hobbyists can do is draw certain conclusions about elements of the Codex Astartes based on the information that has been provided in official publications. Admittedly, there may be some inconsistencies, but a solution for those would be to consider the most recently published information as authoritative, as well as any previously published information that isn’t contradicted by more recent information. In this, with the exception of elements of the Ultramarines Chapter that are explicitly identified as being peculiar to that Chapter (e.g., unique characters, units, and wargear), we might use the current rules for the Ultramarines Chapter as the model for the core allowances of the Codex Astartes. We have to keep in mind that a degree of variation is allowed, but the Ultramarines represent the most commonly accepted dictates of the Codex Astartes. What do we know about the contents of the Codex Astartes? The most readily apparent areas include the organization and livery of a Chapter, as well as tactics and strategies. Moreover, the Codex Astartes provides exact details about the wording of orders, training methodologies, titles, etc. Many of these might be expansive, with broad areas having many subordinate areas. For example, a Chapter’s livery might include basic heraldry such as concepts for Chapter badges and how to display them, methods for indicating company affiliation, methods for indicating squad affiliation, methods for indicating rank, methods for indicating special qualifications and honors, etc. Others might be more limited, with only a few subordinate areas. Some, too, might be more important than others, with divergences in those areas being more impactful with regard to a Chapter’s level of compliance with or divergence from the Codex Astartes. One interesting addition was the presentation of the Chapter Traits rules in the 4th edition version of Codex: Space Marines. The Chapter Traits rules allowed players to create Chapters who retained the Codex Astartes at the core of their training, but with varying levels of divergence. The text described three levels of acceptable divergence: minor, notable, and significant. The fact that these levels of divergence are considered “acceptable” means that Chapters that fall within these levels are still considered to be compliant with the Codex Astartes. Moreover, these levels implied two other levels: strict compliance and non-compliance, giving us five general levels along a spectrum. Those levels haven’t been repeated in subsequent editions, and the mechanisms for adjusting Chapter rules have varied, but those five levels remain useful in visualizing a Chapter’s compliance with or divergence from the Codex Astartes as a spectrum. A notional rendition of the spectrum is shown in Figure 1, below: The different levels are labeled across the top while the assessments of “Codex” and “divergent” are labeled across the bottom. The varying widths of the different levels are based on the theory that the less deviation that is allowed, the less variation there is and the narrower the representation of possibilities. Conversely, the more deviation that is allowed, the more variation there is and the wider the representation of possibilities. As a result, the range of strict compliance is the narrowest (likely more narrow than is represented in the image) while non-compliance is the widest (and is likely open-ended, hence the arrow). Practically speaking, the different levels probably aren’t neatly delineated, but are more likely overlapping. The most important element of the figure, however, is the portrayal that Chapters can be “Codex” (i.e., compliant with the Codex Astartes) while also being divergent. In the strictest sense, true compliance with the Codex Astartes leaves limited options; and any divergence from the Codex Astartes renders a Chapter divergent. There are varying levels of divergence, however, with many still allowing for a Chapter to be considered compliant with the Codex Astartes. This is why… …the Dark Angels can have Company Masters, Interrogator Chaplains, the Deathwing, and the Ravenwing… …the Blood Angels can have the Death Company and the Sanguinary Guard… …the Ultramarines can have the Tyranid Hunters and the Victrix Guard… …the Salamanders can be organized into seven companies… …The Red Scorpions accord their Chief Apothecary a senior leadership role… …each of the clan companies of the Iron Hands is responsible for its own recruits… …and each of these Chapters can be considered as compliant with the Codex Astartes despite their obvious divergences. How might a Chapter be assessed to determine where it falls within that spectrum, however? The Chapter Traits rules based the levels of divergence solely on rules – game play. Other aspects of the dictates of the Codex Astartes such as livery, training methodologies, formatting of orders, titles, etc. were not included. To develop an accurate assessment of a Chapter’s relative compliance/divergence, we would need to examine every aspect of the Chapter. Since we don’t know exactly what the Codex Astartes dictates on every area, and since we don’t even know what all the areas are, however, we are unable to develop accurate assessments. At best, we can speculate. We might use the criteria for the different levels as provided in the Chapter Traits rules as guidelines, but we must keep in mind the fact that those were limited to rules and didn’t address other areas in which a Chapter might diverge from a strict interpretation of the Codex Astartes. It might even be fair to speculate that any Chapter that requires a codex or codex supplement other than Codex: Space Marines is at least notably divergent. For example, the Blood Angels might fall into either the notable or significant divergence levels. Meanwhile, the Black Templars, Grey Knights, and Space Wolves clearly fall into the non-compliance level despite the fact that each draws upon elements of the Codex Astartes. The Ultramarines, despite their divergences, most likely fall into the strict compliance level, though some might argue that they belong in the minor divergence level. At the most basic level, and solely from the perspective of rules/gameplay, it could be argued that any Chapter for which there are rules (e.g., Chapter Tactics, Stratagems, unique units not counting named characters, etc.) outside of the core Codex: Space Marine rules is divergent to one degree or another. A key exception to this is Chapters that use the Chapter Traits of the Ultramarines, which represent their adherence to the tenets of the Codex Astartes. Likewise, there may be other Chapters whose special rules render them exceptions. Rules, though vitally important for game play, aren’t the sole determinant of whether or not a Chapter diverges from the Codex Astartes. For example, rank names and squad badges may differ from those prescribed in the Codex Astartes. Such divergences may range from inconsequential (e.g., a different rank name without any other changes in responsibilities or roles) to non-compliant (e.g., Chapter Approved heraldry that bears no resemblance to the systems described in the Codex Astartes). Other divergences may be difficult for hobbyists to measure. For example, while we know that Roboute Guilliman included explicit instructions on the format of [some] combat orders, we don’t know what those formats are, whether or not formats were prescribed for the full range of orders that might be issued (assuming the Ultramarines Primarch could foresee all of the possibilities), and what degree of flexibility was incorporated into the Codex Astartes in this area. Lacking this important information, we are left to guess at how the aggregation of such divergences might affect any attempt to classify a Chapter along the spectrum of compliance/divergence. To facilitate visualizing how a Chapter’s compliance/divergence can be assessed, the following model is provided. The model assumes that tenets of the Codex Astartes can be broadly categorized into multiple areas, and that each area has multiple criteria. For the sake of simplicity, neither the areas nor their criteria are being named. In addition, ten areas each with ten criteria are being shown. The scope of the Codex Astartes is known to be vast, so it’s likely that an accurate application of this model would require more than ten areas, that each area would have a varying number of criteria, that some criteria might have sub-criteria, that some criteria (and sub-criteria) might intersect in multiple areas, and that different areas/criteria/sub-criteria might have different weights. Each criterion is assigned a value from 0.5 to 10, with 0.5 representing strict compliance with the Codex Astartes and 10 representing non-compliance. The more divergent the Chapter is in that criteria/area, the higher the number. The value for any area is the average of the values for each of its criteria, and the overall value of a Chapter’s compliance/divergence is the average of all the values of the areas. An added complication is the subjectivity of assessing a Chapter’s compliance with or divergence from the Codex Astartes. Inevitably, a Chapter may judge itself based on how faithful it is to its own version of the Codex Astartes. As has already been pointed out, however, the Codex Astartes has been copied, re-copied, reassessed, reinterpreted, added to, taken away from, and otherwise modified throughout the millennia, and the “Codex Astartes” that one Chapter has may be very different from that which another Chapter possesses. For the purpose of this article, it is assumed that any assessment is based on a comparison of the Chapter in practice against the original Codex Astartes – an objective assessment. A strict representation of the Codex Astartes might resemble: A more flexible representation of the Codex Astartes, on the other hand, might resemble: Conversely, though a Chapter believes that its version of the Codex Astartes is “true,” there are bound to be differences compared to the original Codex Astartes. The inevitable translation errors, additions, preferences, and incorporation of the Chapter’s own warrior cult will create divergences. The variance of that version from the original might be represented to resemble: They shall be pure of heart and strong of body, untainted by doubt and unsullied by self aggrandisement. They will be bright stars in the firmament of battle, Angels of Death whose shining wings bring swift annihilation to the enemies of man. So it shall be for a thousand times a thousand years, unto the very end of eternity and the extinction of mortal flesh. This article doesn’t seek to address the debate over the differing views of the rigidity/flexibility of the Codex Astartes. For the sake of simplicity, it is assumed that any value of 3 or lower (blues) is within the tenets of the Codex Astartes. Values higher than 3 represent some level of divergence, with values higher than 8 (reds) representing significant divergences. If a Chapter were to be assessed for its adherence to and divergence from the Codex Astartes in ten areas under this model, it might look like: Again, what each area and criterion covers is irrelevant. One area might address the overall organization of the Chapter, with criteria covering the companies, the reclusiam, the librarium, etc. Another area might address the system of heraldry used by the Chapter, with criteria covering company affiliation, squad affiliation, rank identification, etc. Yet another area might address tactics, with one criterion covering siege warfare, another covering orbital assaults, etc. The key here is that a Chapter’s compliance with and divergence from the Codex Astartes involves a complex assessment of diverse criteria. In this theoretical Chapter, most criteria remain within the broad tenets of the Codex Astartes. There are numerous criteria, however, where some level of divergence is noted, including several criteria where there is significant divergence. Despite these divergences, however, most areas average within the allowances of the Codex Astartes; and the few areas in which there are significant divergences remain close to the acceptable levels of the Codex Astartes. If we were to average all of the areas to get an overall assessment of the Chapter, we would have: Despite a Chapter’s divergences, it can still be assessed as being compliant with the Codex Astartes. And if this theoretical Chapter’s version of the Codex Astartes closely resembles the version depicted in the Overall image, it might even consider itself to be in strict compliance. Chapters that are uncompromising in their views of the Codex Astartes and who have something more closely resembling the original might look upon our theoretical Chapter with some level of disdain, and from an objective perspective they may have some merit in their views, but the fact that the “true” Codex Astartes is not available (except insofar as the returned Roboute Guilliman might endeavor to make it happen) means that we are largely left with subjective assessments of Chapters. An interesting development has been the revelation that Roboute Guilliman has taken issue with the Codex Astartes since returning to the Imperium. The antecedent to the Codex Astartes was the Principia Bellicosa, which formed the guidelines for the Legiones Astartes during the Great Crusade. Over time, each of the legions incorporated changes based on their experiences and the influence of their respective Primarchs. In compiling the Codex Astartes, Roboute Guilliman drew upon the Principia Bellicosa and the changes wrought by each of the legions, including those that turned to Chaos. In determining that his masterwork was insufficient, not least because the introduction of the Primaris Space Marines (a project of his own devising) compelled a reassessment of the tactics, weapons, and wargear of the Adeptus Astartes, Roboute Guilliman has turned to updating, expanding, and improving his guidance in writing the Codex Imperialis to supplant his previous work. The lore in the game setting is now bringing us full circle with the real world since the Codex Astartes replaced the Codex Imperialis in the real world with the transition to the 2nd edition of the game. When the Codex Imperialis eventually replaces the Codex Astartes, however, there will inevitably be adherence/compliance with and divergence from the strictures of the new guidance. CONCLUSION Though the method depicted in this article doesn’t purport to be the method by which a Chapter’s adherence/compliance with or divergence from the Codex Astartes (and eventually the Codex Imperialis) might be assessed, it serves as one possible way to visualize such an assessment. More importantly, Games Workshop has made it abundantly clear that Chapters can have divergences while still being considered compliant with the Codex Astartes (i.e., it’s not an either-or situation). How do you envision assessing a Chapter’s relative adherence/compliance and divergence from the Codex Astartes? Brother Tyler has been a member of the Bolter & Chainsword since 1999 and has been involved in the Warhammer 40,000 hobby since 1987. His first assignment as a moderator at the Bolter & Chainsword was in the Codex Astartes forum, which developed into the Ultramarines forum. This article represents his own views. You can download a .pdf version of this article here. View full article