The Octaguide

[Grand Master Tyrak]

Reacting to criticism

 

Since Sigismund Himself has already written a piece on recieving criticism (and on how slow the Liber is), it might be worth checking to the DIY Guide for sections that are already covered. You can then put a link to them in the top of your section (something like "You should already have read this") and then expand on what's been said previously. I don't know about everyone else, but if I feel I'm reading something I've already read I tend to switch off, and if this goes in the Guide it will go in after Sigismund's post. That's not what you want in the second section of your Guide.

 

Almost every chapter has a gimmick, a quirk, a trait.

 

I'm not sure about the word "gimmick". Unlike "quirk" (which seems to be more subtle), "gimmick" seems to be applied in the Liber to the big shiny toys that new Chapters claim to have in an attempt to add character. This usually results in Liberites advising the IA writer to drop the Great Shiny Gimmick. I'm not against the sentiment being expressed in that passage, but perhaps a different word could be used?

 

Black and red are not cool and unique

 

Since "cool" is a subjective opinion and you're trying to back up your opinions, I'd recommend just having "not unique".

[Marshal Rohr]

Oct-y, new development you may be interested in. The C:SM says that the number of second founding chapters is unknown, indicating that list may be incomplete. Just something to consider.

[Walter Payton]

Oct-y, new development you may be interested in. The C:SM says that the number of second founding chapters is unknown, indicating that list may be incomplete. Just something to consider.

 

How about a section on the new development of existing chapters, after all, we know bugger all about the Libators or Inceptors, and Ferrata's Black Guard are simply a name from C:SM, fluffed and fleshed out (and damn well I might add).

[Grand Master Tyrak]

Oct-y, new development you may be interested in. The C:SM says that the number of second founding chapters is unknown, indicating that list may be incomplete. Just something to consider.

 

Isn't that the bit about Ultramarines successors with a dozen or so named in the Apocrypha of Skaros (?), but with 23 listed but unnamed in another Apocrypha? If so, that's been there from before 5th ed.

[Marshal Rohr]

From what I understood it was talking about all of the second founding.

[Wolfbiter]

@Octavulg,

 

How about a section recommending people look around to see if their idea/Chapter name/concept has already been done in Games Workshop canon or somewhere else?

 

Doing a search may help people to avoid duplicating information from another chapter (whether a GW or DIY one) and help reduce confusion.

 

(Plus, while I understand it does sometimes happen accidentally, it does bug me when I see someone copy another Chapter's name or concept.)

[Ferrata]

Because that would be in extremely poor taste (in my opinion). I've said this many times before, no-one holds the rights to any chapter name bar GW. If you create a chapter that somehow has the same name as another person's DIY chapter, well it doesn't matter...simple as. For example, there has been countless Iron Dragon chapters. Why? The name actually sounds half-decent for an adjective noun chapter, it has a strong theme attached to it. Do any of the authors own the name? No. Why should someone have to change the name of their chapter just because they've posted it on the board? I could sit here with my own Ice Lord army (yes, there is only one marine in that chapter :lol:), and it wouldn't bother Octavulg at all because he wouldn't know about it. How does this change just because I post my information on a website? It doesn't.

 

Sorry, just a bit of a personal issue I take with the ownership of names.

[Wolfbiter]

Because that would be in extremely poor taste (in my opinion). I've said this many times before, no-one holds the rights to any chapter name bar GW. If you create a chapter that somehow has the same name as another person's DIY chapter, well it doesn't matter...simple as. For example, there has been countless Iron Dragon chapters. Why? The name actually sounds half-decent for an adjective noun chapter, it has a strong theme attached to it. Do any of the authors own the name? No. Why should someone have to change the name of their chapter just because they've posted it on the board? I could sit here with my own Ice Lord army (yes, there is only one marine in that chapter :P), and it wouldn't bother Octavulg at all because he wouldn't know about it. How does this change just because I post my information on a website? It doesn't.

 

Sorry, just a bit of a personal issue I take with the ownership of names.

 

@Ferrata,

 

After looking at my post again, I realize I did not express myself completely clearly. I was not referring just to DIY Chapters but GW established canon chapters as well, but did not make that specific enough. I'll edit it to make it more clear.

 

That said, the reason I suggested this is not because I feel that someone "owns" a chapter name just because they write an IA, but it saves a person from unnecessary criticism and re-editing. For example, if someone with perfectly good intentions posts an IA for a DIY chapter called the "Rampagers," they're likely to get several people pointing out, "Hey, they are an established Games Workshop chapter." It saves a bit of time and effort to run a search on a Chapter name either here or at Lexicanium.org just to see if it's in the established canon already.

 

Also, I have noticed that sometimes people like to use the same "gimmick" (as Oct puts it) for their DIY article. Which is fine, if both people can write it in interesting and individual ways, but again, I think it's a good idea to do a bit of looking around to avoid repetition of certain ideas. (After all, the DIY Guide provides tips for this.) For example, there's nothing wrong with two DIY articles that both take the theme of "Space Marines with an Ancient Spartans theme" But if someone wants to use this theme and by coincidence writes something near-identical to another IA, they're likely to get dinged by a critic for that...and it could have been avoided by a bit of research.

 

I suppose I see the whole "owns a name" thing differently. When I was developing my Chapter, I didn't want to use a common or already established name in the Liber, because I felt it would be more courteous to try and avoid this, so I put in a lot of time trying to come up with something that wouldn't step on someone else's toes. Though I agree that names aren't "owned," I still thought it was more considerate to try to come up with something that hadn't been used yet. If I recall correctly, I threw out a few names I considered at first because they were being used in other people's articles at the same time I was writing.

 

Again, I completely agree...two Chapters with the same name can coexist just fine. And I think it would be great if Oct mentioned the points you make about the issue, too. But I don't see anything wrong with a bit of effort to avoid overlapping, especially with canon material or other people's ideas.

 

My last point of personal concern would be avoiding potential plagiarism. No, IAs here aren't copyrighted, I do understand that. But if I spent six months writing an IA that was published about the Uber-Woodchucks chapter that was highly regarded (for instance), and then a week after publication someone else posts the same theme with a Chapter called the "Uber-Groundhogs" I wouldn't sue, but I think I'd be a bit peeved. Though I'm sure whoever reviewed it would bring this up if it a plagiarized article was submitted to the Librarium.

 

My two cents and a kopeck. :D

[Ekim_Trub]

I think i'll add my two cents to this topic.

 

Personally speaking, i found this article to be of immense use to me.

I am not the best writer in the world, but i am still working on my own IA as a labour of love. Its a slow process and one that i have dropped and picked up more times than i can count, but this has actually gave me the kicksatrt i was needing to carry on.

 

I will agree that for a complete newcomer to fluff and the world of IA's it is a bit harsh- but as with other things in life, if you are hard from day one, it gets easier. Train hard, fight easy sort of thing?

What about labelling this as "the advanced guide to IA's"??

 

I for one will no doubt find myself returning to this guide numerous times as i work on my own IA.

Thanks for taking the time to write this sir, i commend thee.

 

Trub.

[Octavulg]

Alecto:

 

-Perseverance

-Finding themes (I'd recommend watching a few good movies or clicking random page on wiki)

-Giving C&C

 

All thoughts worth exploring. They will be added to the list. ;)

 

All in all, an invaluable resource. If I had to make a criticism, it seems very 'loyalist focused'-Not very much on traitors. Of course, if that is what you want it to be, then fine, but I can't help but think that the lack of Traitor chapters in the Librarium has something to do with the lack of a focused ITs guide.

 

Traitors are an eventual step. But I'd want to at least try to make one before I started getting too stroppy about how to do it.

 

Plus, I need to come up with some seriously good advice on how to break out of the "and then the Chapter Master was corrupted by a Chaos artifact/cult/book." Seriously. That gets old.

 

How about a section on the new development of existing chapters, after all, we know bugger all about the Libators or Inceptors, and Ferrata's Black Guard are simply a name from C:SM, fluffed and fleshed out (and damn well I might add).

 

Very good. Especially since I'm doing that myself (the Stone Hearts. Who are going to be really neat when I get back to them. I think).

 

* * *

 

Tyrak:

Since Sigismund Himself has already written a piece on recieving criticism (and on how slow the Liber is), it might be worth checking to the DIY Guide for sections that are already covered. You can then put a link to them in the top of your section (something like "You should already have read this") and then expand on what's been said previously. I don't know about everyone else, but if I feel I'm reading something I've already read I tend to switch off, and if this goes in the Guide it will go in after Sigismund's post. That's not what you want in the second section of your Guide.

 

If this goes in the guide, it will go in in pieces, with a link to the larger work. I'm still pondering how or even if I want to do that.

 

Besides. I'm not done.

 

Which is really why it would go in the guide that way. This thing is likely never to be wholly finished.

 

I'm not sure about the word "gimmick". Unlike "quirk" (which seems to be more subtle), "gimmick" seems to be applied in the Liber to the big shiny toys that new Chapters claim to have in an attempt to add character. This usually results in Liberites advising the IA writer to drop the Great Shiny Gimmick. I'm not against the sentiment being expressed in that passage, but perhaps a different word could be used?

 

Hey. Sometimes it's a gimmick. The secret is to have it be a good, well-thought-out gimmick.

 

Fallen taking over a Chapter? Gimmicky as all hell. But I like to think it worked out OK.

 

Since "cool" is a subjective opinion and you're trying to back up your opinions, I'd recommend just having "not unique".

 

The guide is subjective opinion. Me saying it's not cool is that opinion. :)

 

* * *

 

Marshal:

Oct-y, new development you may be interested in. The C:SM says that the number of second founding chapters is unknown, indicating that list may be incomplete. Just something to consider.

 

Is there anything Matt Ward can't fornicate up? I can't think of it.

 

Since there appears to be debate and I can't find my codex, I'll deal with this when I'm back from Easter.

 

* * *

Wolfbiter:

How about a section recommending people look around to see if their idea/Chapter name/concept has already been done in Games Workshop canon or somewhere else?

 

Doing a search may help people to avoid duplicating information from another chapter (whether a GW or DIY one) and help reduce confusion.

 

(Plus, while I understand it does sometimes happen accidentally, it does bug me when I see someone copy another Chapter's name or concept.)

 

Good thinking. On the list. Will likely be part of "how to be unique" - which includes, of course, the reminder that you don't have to be if you don't want to be.

 

* * *

Ferrata:

Because that would be in extremely poor taste (in my opinion). I've said this many times before, no-one holds the rights to any chapter name bar GW. If you create a chapter that somehow has the same name as another person's DIY chapter, well it doesn't matter...simple as. For example, there has been countless Iron Dragon chapters. Why? The name actually sounds half-decent for an adjective noun chapter, it has a strong theme attached to it. Do any of the authors own the name? No. Why should someone have to change the name of their chapter just because they've posted it on the board? I could sit here with my own Ice Lord army (yes, there is only one marine in that chapter tongue.gif), and it wouldn't bother Octavulg at all because he wouldn't know about it. How does this change just because I post my information on a website? It doesn't.

 

It doesn't at all. But if you're trying to make a new Chapter, most people'd like to make a unique one, too. Or at least one that wasn't too much like someone else's.

 

Some people want a unique nameand concept. Some people don't. But the people who do should probably be warned that checking before you pour several hours into something is kinda a good idea.

 

I mean, if I made a dark-red Chapter which lived on a tidally-locked desert planet full of mutants with a population and Chapter dedicated to purity, I would not be pleased to discover the Castigators. And I might just decide to make some Castigators instead.

 

* * *

trub:

 

Personally speaking, i found this article to be of immense use to me.

I am not the best writer in the world, but i am still working on my own IA as a labour of love. Its a slow process and one that i have dropped and picked up more times than i can count, but this has actually gave me the kicksatrt i was needing to carry on.

 

Glad I could help!

 

More seriously, don't worry about the dropping and picking up. It makes things better, and the accomplishment of completion greater. If you take ten years and write an IA that is as good as you can make it, I will be far more impressed than I am by someone who churns out an OK one in two months.

 

I will agree that for a complete newcomer to fluff and the world of IA's it is a bit harsh- but as with other things in life, if you are hard from day one, it gets easier. Train hard, fight easy sort of thing?

 

A good summation. :D Get the hard work out of the way early, and you'll save even more hard work later.

 

What about labelling this as "the advanced guide to IA's"??

 

Christ, you think people call me arrogant now... :)

 

More importantly, I don't want this to be seen quite as an advanced guide. It's not. It may be a serious guide, but it's not advanced. Advanced carries an implication that this where you come once you've been writing for a while, which is certainly not my intention.

 

I for one will no doubt find myself returning to this guide numerous times as i work on my own IA.

Thanks for taking the time to write this sir, i commend thee.

 

Hey, I enjoyed it. Glad you did, too. There's no gratification like people enjoying your thoughts. :D

[Walter Payton]

All in all, an invaluable resource. If I had to make a criticism, it seems very 'loyalist focused'-Not very much on traitors. Of course, if that is what you want it to be, then fine, but I can't help but think that the lack of Traitor chapters in the Librarium has something to do with the lack of a focused ITs guide.

 

Traitors are an eventual step. But I'd want to at least try to make one before I started getting too stroppy about how to do it.

 

Plus, I need to come up with some seriously good advice on how to break out of the "and then the Chapter Master was corrupted by a Chaos artifact/cult/book." Seriously. That gets old.

 

I would never claim to be an expert, but the recurring themes for traitor chapters/warbands (in GW's stuff) seem to be:

 

-Mystery (Company of the Shadow)

-Unjust Excommunication/Alienation leading to turning (Thousand Sons, Sons of Malice, Constantinius the Liberator, my own Nurgle DIYs, The Solemnitas Company)

-Lost in the Warp (I imagine that we should ignore this one)

-Corruption by Internal Influence (Word Bearers)

-Corruption by External Influence (Emperor's Children, Horus the Warmaster)

-Separation from an existing Traitor Legion (The Sanctified, an Alpha Legion splinter that I will eventually get round to called the Hydra Battalion)

-Simple Flaws in Character (Night Lords, World Eaters, Silver Guard, Sons of Vengeance)

 

How about a section on the new development of existing chapters, after all, we know bugger all about the Libators or Inceptors, and Ferrata's Black Guard are simply a name from C:SM, fluffed and fleshed out (and damn well I might add).

 

Very good. Especially since I'm doing that myself (the Stone Hearts. Who are going to be really neat when I get back to them. I think).

 

Thanks, glad to be of some use :huh:

[Marshal Rohr]

Marshal:

Oct-y, new development you may be interested in. The C:SM says that the number of second founding chapters is unknown, indicating that list may be incomplete. Just something to consider.

 

Is there anything Matt Ward can't fornicate up? I can't think of it.

 

Since there appears to be debate and I can't find my codex, I'll deal with this when I'm back from Easter.

 

 

I hope I didn't ruin your Easter :rolleyes:

 

 

And one more time: I love the 'why you arn't the [blank] Templars. Makes me all warm and fuzzy.'

[Walter Payton]

I did just notice one thing-you disparaged putting the battle-cry in Latin. I don't think that this is bad as long as you translate for those deprived souls who haven't studied the language-look at the Raven Guard:

 

Vinctoris Aut Mortis-Victory or Death!

 

Or the Alpha Legion: Hydra Dominatus

[Octavulg]

Marshal:

I hope I didn't ruin your Easter sad.gif

 

And one more time: I love the 'why you arn't the [blank] Templars. Makes me all warm and fuzzy.'

 

Nah. Homework did that.

 

And I was pleased with it myself. :(

 

* * *

Alecto:

-Mystery (Company of the Shadow)

-Unjust Excommunication/Alienation leading to turning (Thousand Sons, Sons of Malice, Constantinius the Liberator, my own Nurgle DIYs, The Solemnitas Company)

-Lost in the Warp (I imagine that we should ignore this one)

-Corruption by Internal Influence (Word Bearers)

-Corruption by External Influence (Emperor's Children, Horus the Warmaster)

-Separation from an existing Traitor Legion (The Sanctified, an Alpha Legion splinter that I will eventually get round to called the Hydra Battalion)

-Simple Flaws in Character (Night Lords, World Eaters, Silver Guard, Sons of Vengeance)

 

Which all end up coming down to "One day, Bobby the Space Marine talked to/touched/bought/sold/saw/read something he shouldn't have. Then he gave up the beliefs of years, and became a traitor!" :P

 

Of course, that may be cynicism brought on by reading too many of the ones produced on the Liber.

 

Vinctoris Aut Mortis-Victory or Death!

 

Or the Alpha Legion: Hydra Dominatus

 

Those are, respectively, the Chapter motto and a load of Black Library excrement.

 

Also also, the Raven Guard don't translate theirs.

[Imperialis_Dominatus]

I remember reading this in its first incarnation... and I actually liked the vehemence. Both of the 'I really mean it' flavor and 'sarcastic, cutting, and blunt' flavor. This may be, however, because I can be like that too and Octavulg and I get on pretty well. I am slightly less in a state of ROFL over the newest version, but otherwise I really like it.

 

And a few notes on Octavulg and his criticisms: I'll admit, he nails your IA to a cross, but he does expect you to get around to resurrecting it on the third day (at the latest). To use a bit of holiday humor. I'm still in the process of applying some of his suggestions to my very favorite IA.

 

And ignoring 90% of what Octavulg says does, in fact, make things easier. Because there's so much of it. Also because ignoring it saves you a lot of work that you'd be presented with by heeding it. But that's just unproductive.

 

Actually, I kinda don't like the published numbers on aspirant ages. They don't make much sense if you think about them for any real length of time. I should do a thing on it.

 

'A thing' being translated as 'another 10,000 word essay, it's no big thing, I'm Octavulg, this is what I do!'

 

A note on the article: in the section about reading your IA aloud, this phrase appears: "swiftly see your writing improving swiftly' (or something to that effect). I thought it was ironic. :)

[Walter Payton]

A note on the article: in the section about reading your IA aloud, this phrase appears: "swiftly see your writing improving swiftly' (or something to that effect). I thought it was ironic. :D

 

Not as bad as Mat Ward in Codex:BA:

 

"Trapped behind their own defences, the rebels are swiftly crushed"

 

Around four paragraphs later:

 

"Trapped behind their own defences, the rebels are crushed swiftly"

 

:D

[Octavulg]

ID:

I remember reading this in its first incarnation... and I actually liked the vehemence. Both of the 'I really mean it' flavor and 'sarcastic, cutting, and blunt' flavor. This may be, however, because I can be like that too and Octavulg and I get on pretty well. I am slightly less in a state of ROFL over the newest version, but otherwise I really like it.

 

Remind me to link to RChristiansen's (or whatever his name was) spoof IA sometime. It's too perfect, and too relevant, and too, too right.

 

You saw it, right?

 

I kinda miss all the snarky. I'll work some back in sometime. Likely with my commentary on my own IA. ;)

 

And a few notes on Octavulg and his criticisms: I'll admit, he nails your IA to a cross, but he does expect you to get around to resurrecting it on the third day (at the latest). To use a bit of holiday humor. I'm still in the process of applying some of his suggestions to my very favorite IA.

 

Oh, that's beautiful. I'm saving that one. ;)

 

'A thing' being translated as 'another 10,000 word essay, it's no big thing, I'm Octavulg, this is what I do!'

 

It's alright to be afraid of my greatness. Many are.

 

A note on the article: in the section about reading your IA aloud, this phrase appears: "swiftly see your writing improving swiftly' (or something to that effect). I thought it was ironic. msn-wink.gif

 

Fixed in Mk V. Which'll likely be up around the end of April. Almost like I'm updating monthly, or something. ;)

 

* * *

Alecto:

Not as bad as Mat Ward in Codex:BA:

 

"Trapped behind their own defences, the rebels are swiftly crushed"

 

Around four paragraphs later:

 

"Trapped behind their own defences, the rebels are crushed swiftly"

 

Don't compare other people's work to Matt Ward's, not even favorably. You'll get fanboy on everything, and that's hell to get out.

[Tacobolter MK lll]

I LOVE the Guide. It really shows what you can do with an IA. All the proof I needed was the Ice Lords. I am actually starting to write down ideas for my own Dark Angels successor. The Chapter name is currently either

 

1. The Vanguard of the Damned(explain in a minute)

or

2. The Reapers of the Damned

 

The chapter's main quirk is a pair of mutations that take place in the Secondary-Heart and the Sus-an Membrane that allows the Astartes to fall into a comatose state after sustaining heavy injury, making them appear to be dead. This has given rise to two tactics, in which the Vanguard/Reapers either fall back, with the enemy giving chase only to be cut down by "The Damned", or the fallen simply marching back into the fray. This has lead to extensive life-support systems being imparted on the Chapter's armor, which keeps the damned alive until they can be serviced by an Apothecary. When the marines injuries are to great to be repaired, they live on in their armor in a dreadnought-like state. These tactics are what inspired the term "Vanguard"

Another gimmick is that they use scythes in place of traditional Astartes melee weapons(similar to the Castigators' use of the bull whip), although they still use ranged weapons as is standard.

 

Yes I have noted similarities to necrons(IE We'll be Back and the Damned). As a matter of fact, their chapter world was being attacked by necrons when they first arrived.

TACOSSSS!

[Marshal Rohr]

Molotov has stated in the past that the Whip is a symbol, and that it is rarely used as a weapon.

[Gree]

I have a question. What is someone wanted to make their own Sister of Battle order? This site covers power armor how would you go at reviewing such an Order in your guide? Especilly since we don't know very much about how Orders are exactly formed. There information is limited compared to the Marines.

[Captain Juan Juarez]

I have a question. What is someone wanted to make their own Sister of Battle order? This site covers power armor how would you go at reviewing such an Order in your guide? Especilly since we don't know very much about how Orders are exactly formed. There information is limited compared to the Marines.

 

Well this relates to Index Astartes articles... SoB are not Astartes.

[Ferrata]

Yet, they have similar articles for Imperial Guard regiments and SoB orders. Technically, traitors do not have IAs but IT (traitoris over Astartes). However, I can only think of handful of such orders that have come through Liber, so whilst it might be a useful expansion it might not be needed. Unless the SoB get re-released, then people might start on them.

[Captain Juan Juarez]

Yet, they have similar articles for Imperial Guard regiments and SoB orders. Technically, traitors do not have IAs but IT (traitoris over Astartes). However, I can only think of handful of such orders that have come through Liber, so whilst it might be a useful expansion it might not be needed. Unless the SoB get re-released, then people might start on them.

 

And just when i thought it safe to come out from under my rock... :)

[Grand Master Tyrak]

I have a question. What is someone wanted to make their own Sister of Battle order?

 

There is already a Liber Ordos Minoris sticky thread in the Ordos Inquisition forum for this purpose.

 

If lots of SoB "IAs" start springing up I imagine that would be merged into the Liber Astartes. For now though, there just doesn't seem to be the demand to justify moving it around. It works where it is.

[Cedric]

This guide should really be sticked (or at least linked to from the DIY guide).

Too informative to be left floating around in the backpages of the forum, imho.