Those-IA-Equivalent-Things-in-Imperial-Armor

[Erasmus of Baal]

I like Brother Tyler's "Honorum Astartes."

[Ace Debonair]

Honorum Astartes.

That works for me. :P

 

Mostly because I'm not so clever with the Latin, admittedly. :P

[Ioldanach]

EDIT: Spearius Slayerus

:D Hey, that's ME! ;)

 

On a more serious note, why do we need to name this format of article? Games Workshop gave us the "Index Astartes" name way back in the Rogue Trader days, with that name being more closely associated with the 3rd edition. However, there are a variety of Index Astartes articles out there and they don't all follow the same format. Examples include those for certain officers (Librarians, Chaplains, and Techmarines), vehicles (Predators and Land Raiders), and events (Armageddon).

 

Forge World didn't give us a name for the format used to present the Chapters that participated in the Badab War, so I don't really see a need to make up our own name.

 

Now if it comes down to a vote and I just have to vote for one, I have a favorite, but my first vote would be for no name.

[Ecritter]

Arto Astartes and Arto Traitoris

 

I means abridged. So it is written, so shall it be done.

[Octavulg]

Forge World didn't give us a name for the format used to present the Chapters that participated in the Badab War, so I don't real need to make up our own name.

 

Without a name, this: "the format used to present the Chapters that participated in the Badab War"

 

is about the best we can do.

 

And that's really a pain in the ass to talk about.

[Ace Debonair]

Forge World didn't give us a name for the format used to present the Chapters that participated in the Badab War, so I don't real need to make up our own name.

 

Without a name, this: "the format used to present the Chapters that participated in the Badab War"

 

is about the best we can do.

 

And that's really a pain in the ass to talk about.

 

THUTPTCTPITBW Articles for short. :lol:

[Octavulg]

Thut-put-cut-pit-bow, eh?

 

Wasn't that one of those lost Pharoahs?

[Ace Debonair]

Thut-put-cut-pit-bow, eh?

 

Wasn't that one of those lost Pharoahs?

I figured he was one of the missing Primarchs, myself. :lol:

 

EDIT: Which makes even more sense in the context of naming something after him.

[Espada Azul]

(escapes looming and important manuscript)

 

Curriculum Astartes and Brevis Astartes roll off the tongue just right.

 

(goes back to schoolwork)

[Octavulg]

A summation of the criteria-meeting suggestions so far:

 

Aliquantulus Astartes

Arto Astartes

Brevis Astartes

Compendium Astartes

Curriculum Armorum

Curriculum Astartes

Deniquex Astartes

Honorum Astartes

Index Brevis

Libellus Quintessent

Liber Quintessence

Liber Quintessent

Minimex Astartes

Parvulus Astartes

Parvus Astartes

Recordatio Astartes

Volumex Astartes

 

We've got some support for different ones, but no real consensus yet...

[Heru]

Fabrica Astartes

 

Or you can just go non latin and call it FWA...

[Octavulg]

Ooooh. Clever.

[Brother Tyler]

I did a little research tonight and will post my thoughts in the morning (had to take a test - no time to compose one of my wall-o-text replies :D and it's time to put the munchkin to bed).

[Octavulg]

I will now take bets on whether he found an interview with the author(s) or whether he's just been looking up a lot of Latin.

 

Alternate possibilities also welcomed. Place your money, take your chances!

[Lexington]

Perhaps its unorthodox, but I'd actually like to see this format presented as an alternative but entirely equal format for Index Astartes articles; it condenses or outright eliminates a lot of sections that are problematic for many of IAs, while leaving plenty of room to appropriately define a Chapter's character and essence. Really, I'd go so far as to say that it's the superior format for your average DIY Chapter.

 

That's probably a no-go, but just a thought. :cuss

 

Otherwise, I'm down with Honorum Astartes or Apocrypha Astartes. Most of the others strike me as needing a bit more Latin knowledge than one can reasonably assume a reader to have.

[Octavulg]

Perhaps its unorthodox, but I'd actually like to see this format presented as an alternative but entirely equal format for Index Astartes articles; it condenses or outright eliminates a lot of sections that are problematic for many of IAs, while leaving plenty of room to appropriately define a Chapter's character and essence. Really, I'd go so far as to say that it's the superior format for your average DIY Chapter.

 

It's not really the same, though. The focus is different (a bit more superficial, and with a lot more focus on history than character), and the format is also quite different. IAs are pretty distinct from these, at least in my view.

 

IAs are also a lot longer, usually.

[Heru]

I've actually been toying with the idea of proposing a new type of article as well. Something larger than an IA with allot more of the stuff that gets trimmed out of regular IAs (like extensive detail on different types of creatures/landscapes/weather patterns on the Chapter's homeworld, full battle history, all rank colourschemes etc etc etc).

 

Sort of like what you do after an IA (like with the Castigators failed website, except as a monster article)...

[Octavulg]

Well, what's another term for "big article/overview" that isn't Index, I guess?

 

Also, write one, then name it. Saves effort. :cuss

[Lexington]

It's not really the same, though. The focus is different (a bit more superficial, and with a lot more focus on history than character), and the format is also quite different. IAs are pretty distinct from these, at least in my view.

Fair enough; the IAs are much more comprehensive, and there's several examples of each and every section therein being used to a satisfying effect. I'd say it's arguable, though, that the regimented format can cause a compartmentalization of the article's content that, IMHO, makes said Chapters feel inauthentic and/or structurally repetitive. A looser format might encourage authors to engage with their Chapter as a larger whole, focusing on the ideas that make their creations unique, rather than a list of boxes that need to be checked off.

 

That might well just be chalked up to the simple fact of how damn hard it is to write a good IA. It's also definitely filtered through the lens of my own processes, so I could simply be making an error in mistaking my own creative preferences for a universally helpful method. Your mileage may vary. :cuss

[Octavulg]

Fair enough; the IAs are much more comprehensive, and there's several examples of each and every section therein being used to a satisfying effect. I'd say it's arguable, though, that the regimented format can cause a compartmentalization of the article's content that, IMHO, makes said Chapters feel inauthentic and/or structurally repetitive. A looser format might encourage authors to engage with their Chapter as a larger whole, focusing on the ideas that make their creations unique, rather than a list of boxes that need to be checked off.

 

Structure can be just as helpful as it is problematic, though. Having a relatively standard format (which is fairly flexible, surprisingly) gives you guidance on what's expected and where it might be good to put it. So long as you remember to introduce things as needed, and structure the format to match, I'd say it's a net positive.

 

If anything, I'd hope that the structure encourages people to focus on making creative ideas, rather than trying to hide behind fancy writing.

 

Plus, people can always just opt to write one of these instead of an IA. Indeed, having them separate might make that easier - people can pick what they want to do, and people can help them do that, rather than it being all nebulous and with enough possibilities it's hard to figure out what's what.

[Hrvat]

I still don't know how to call these small thingies but ones larger than Index Astartes are known as Codicum Imperialis.

[NightrawenII]

Perhaps its unorthodox, but I'd actually like to see this format presented as an alternative but entirely equal format for Index Astartes articles; it condenses or outright eliminates a lot of sections that are problematic for many of IAs, while leaving plenty of room to appropriately define a Chapter's character and essence. Really, I'd go so far as to say that it's the superior format for your average DIY Chapter.

Well, I haven't read the IA9 yet, although I have the copy. :) But what I gather from quick review, the Compedium focus more on history and actions of Chapter, rather than character.

 

*shrug*

 

I wouldn't call it superior, just easier for average DIYer to write. It avoids the sections, which reguires skill in the Wordcraft and some deep-thinking(it hurts, I know :P ).

The problem I foresee is the Battle Honors section. People are going to write fancy-stories, how their Chapter kick-ass, which is fine and dandy, except it doesn't tell us much about Chapter nature.

[Brother Tyler]

As I said earlier, I did a little research. What we have is an alternate format of article that tells us about a Chapter. The Index Astartes articles (and I'm just looking at those for the loyalist Legions/Chapters here) were of variable size:

• 8 pages (Blood Angels, Iron Hands, Salamanders version 2, Space Wolves, Ultramarines)
  
• 7 pages (Black Templars, Imperial Fists, Salamanders version 1, White Scars)
  
• 6 pages (Crimson Fists, Dark Angels, Flesh Tearers, Raven Guard, Blood Ravens)
  
• 4 pages (Deathwatch/Grey Knights, Relictors, Space Wolves 13th Company)
  
• 2 pages (Red Scorpions in the Anphelion Project)
  

It should be noted that in most, at least one or two pages were taken up with full page pictures, rules, etc.

 

The typical Index Astartes article included the following sections:

• Origins
  
• Home World
  
• Combat Doctrine
  
• Organization
  
• Beliefs
  
• Gene-Seed
  
• Battle-Cry
  

Some had additional sections covering peculiar issues that were significant to the Chapter/Legion.

 

If we look at the articles that appear in IA9, we have a slightly different format. Pretty much everything that an Index Astartes article has is included, but this is typically more brief in its treatment. Some of it is given as boiler-plate information. Other information varies in the level of detail that is provided based on how "different" it is. For example, the Astral Claws are the main "bad guys" and they get a rather in-depth treatment on their history, including information on successors (the Tiger Claws). Most of the Chapter articles in this book give only the most basic information on their home world (if they have one) - the Fire Hawks article mentions their home worlds because they are notable for having gained and lost two different home worlds; the Astral Claws' home world is mentioned because it is central to the campaign, both in the events leading up to it and the eventual prosecution of the campaign. None of the Chapters have a battle-cry listed, though (unless I missed them somewhere). The Chapter articles range in size:

• 12 pages (Astral Claws - only 6 pages are text, 2 of which give details on a dreadnought)
  
• 8 pages (Fire Angels, Fire Hawks, Howling Griffons, Marines Errant, Novamarines, Raptors - only 3 pages are text; Lamenters, Red Scorpions - only 4 pages are text)
  

And we also have to include an additional page of text for each, giving us the special character and, if applicable, Chapter Tactics of the Chapter. We can see that the majority of these articles were 4 pages of text and 5 pages of images. Those Chapters that have some significant beliefs that differ from the norm have those differences explained, whereas Chapters whose beliefs are generally in line with the "standard" Adeptus Astartes beliefs are really glossed over in this area, likewise with combat doctrine. What these articles really give us is information focused on playing the Chapters - what they typically do, special expertise, how they look, what rules to use. The information that has less of an effect on the tabletop is given in more brief fashion.

 

The big difference is that the IA9 articles add the selected battle honours and Badab War disposition, as well as lots of images of units that participated in the campaign (the first two pages will include more generic images of the Chapter, displaying basic color scheme and Chapter badge).

 

So the Index Astartes articles and the IA9 articles are of comparable length when it comes to pages, and most elements that they include are common. The IA article will have a battle-cry whereas the IA9 article will have information on battles the Chapter has taken part in and a basic overview of the Chapter's participation in the Badab War. About half of each of the IA9 articles is pictures of units/vehicles that participated in the campaign. That last part is the real defining element of the IA9 articles, so I think that that should be the driving factor behind whatever name we come up with (though the argument that no name is needed has some validity). I'm assuming here that DIY authors will follow this pattern, or at the very least include 2 or more selected battle honours to really flesh out their Chapter.

 

Before I go into other name ideas, I think that the article name should include "Astartes" in it for the sake of ready identification, but that it should be flexible enough to substitute "Astartes" with "Sororitas" and "Traitoris" in order to allow authors of similar articles on the Sisters of Battle and Chaos Space Marines to play along.

 

So going back to the selected battle honours and Badab War Disposition, it's pretty safe to say that we're not going to see DIYs with the latter. So the DIY author has two basic choices (and there are plenty of others, but I'm going to cover the main two). First, the Badab War Disposition might be substituted with something else - perhaps some major campaign that the Chapter took part in, perhaps something else entirely. Alternately, the DIY author might craft this section around his own army and the background behind it, including the notable characters, etc. The fluid nature of this section makes it unsuitable as an element in the naming convention, though, so we're really left with the selected battle honours.

 

What the selected battle honours give us is a depiction of the Chapter based on notable battles that it has taken part in. These might be examples of ass-kickery, but could just as easily be turning points in the Chapter's history, perhaps major disasters that befell the Chapter, etc.

 

So I don't think that the taxonomy should be based around these articles being "shorter" or "more brief" than the IA articles (they're not). Rather, we should focus around the central element that sets these articles apart from the IAs - the battle honours.

 

So following the ~ Astartes precedent of the Index Astartes, Liber Astartes, Codex Astartes, Adeptus Astartes pattern, here are a number of words that might describe the selected battle honours aspect. Each would read as "[word] Astartes", "[word] Sororitas", or "[word] Traitoris" (or whatever else):

• Actions - Factum
  
• Army (in battle array) - Acies
  
• Battle - Pugna, Proelium
  
• Deeds - Facinus
  
• Honours - Dignitas
  
• Valour - Virtus
  

Most of those would probably sound fairly weak. I'll also lean back on the B.S. Latin we throw around here at the B&C and include my previous suggestion of "Honorum" (tying into the "Liber Honorum" articles that have been included in White Dwarf and the notion of battle honours).

 

We should really steer away from any notion that these articles provide "less". Instead, they provide a "different" focus.

[Octavulg]

Tyler

 

Personally, I'd say it would be best to ignore the images, or at least not treat them as an integral part of the article. On the one part, it's difficult for many DIYers to produce a comparable quantity and quality of images to those in IA9. Hell, it's difficult for many to produce a comparable quantity and quality to those in normal IAs! On another, Forge World shoves ridiculous numbers of pictures in at the slightest provocation - there's like five examples of Tarantula color schemes in the book where they introduced it, for example. It's how they drive the cost-per-page down. :P On yet another, if viewed just as the text, the IA9 format seems to be less intimidating for many people. Adding the images back in arguably makes it more intimidating.

 

If you don't count the images, the articles are shorter, and that brevity seems to be the primary draw for a lot of people. This is not to say that we shouldn't try to have the name focus on the different subject, rather than the different length, but if we get a snappy name that happens to mean shorter I don't think it would be a bad thing. Their two defining features are the shorter amounts of text and the focus on battles, and a name which mentions either of those would be suitable to me. :)

 

In regards to the Badab War Disposition section: I'd say the first reaction should be to eliminate it. The Badab War Disposition section exists because of the context in which the article is being presented - IIRC, some of the IAs had Armageddon sections when they were published, for similar reasons. Other IAs didn't have them, because they were published at other times.

 

The ultimate in neutral non-judgemental names would seem to be the previously-mentioned-by-Heru-Talon Fabrica Astartes. Denotes where they came from, maintains the flexibility in the name, and rolls off the tongue decently.

[Brother Tyler]

You can't discount the images because they factor into the total package. Forge World could very easily have just created Index Astartes articles for each of the Chapters in question. Why they did not is anyone's guess. Here's mine.

 

Forge World wanted to focus the reader on each Chapter's involvement in the Badab War, giving basic information in a brief fashion, expanding on the character of each Chapter by describing some of the battles in which they fought, and then giving details about what the Chapter did during the Badab War. The majority of the pictures support that objective, depicting color schemes and markings used during that war (and expanding upon the basic color schemes shown at the front of the article).

 

As for the Badab War Disposition section, what any prospective DIY author decides to do is really up to them. They might choose to strip it out, or they might choose to replace it with something appropriate to their Chapter. Whatever decision we make here shouldn't even attempt to dictate anything to players in this regard.

 

When you get right down to it, all anyone really needs to develop for a DIY Chapter is their appearance (color scheme, Chapter badge, markings, thematic appearance) and their rules. With that basic information, anyone else can determine whether or not they want to use the Chapter and then have the freedom to perform their own personalization/development. Index Astartes articles give us a lot of information that is really nice, but it isn't truly necessary. With the format used in IA9, the unnecessary information has been stripped out and/or minimized and the authors focused on historical elements relative to the campaign. Again, this isn't really "necessary", but it serves to enhance each article and its purpose in the campaign book.

 

More and more I'm seeing traction for the suggestion that maybe these articles don't need a name.

 

Keep in mind that the purpose of the Liber Astartes forum isn't to help people develop their Index Astartes article. The goal is to help players develop their Chapter (Order, Legion, Warband, whatever). The Index Astartes article is a proven format that covers the basic information, but there are a number of alternatives. The format used in IA9 is one of those, but players might choose to use any of a number of alternatives. I recall one Chapter developed as a graphic novel, others have been developed via narrative story. We would spend a long time coming up with specific titles for each of the different formats that might be used, and I would then worry about the potential for this becoming overly restrictive. Already there is this perception in the Liber Astartes forum that players "should" use the IA format. I was the first one to advocate using the IA format here, suggesting it in one of the earliest articles about DIY Chapter development here at the B&C. Still, I would never tell anyone that they "should" use any particular format if they wanted to use something else. Categorizing different formats doesn't necessarily do that, but some people won't know any better and will either confine their choices to one of the types/categories we name or assert to others that they need to pick one of the chosen types/categories.

 

If GW/Forge World didn't give us a "name" for this type of article, do we really need to come up with something fancy? Perhaps something simple like the "Badab War Template" or something similar will do.

 

(As you can see, I continue to ponder on this and consider the ramifications, which basically shows what looks like indecision ;) ).