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

[Captain Juan Juarez]

I have an opinion, I just don't know what it is.

 

Some good ideas though.

[Octavulg]

You can't discount the images because they factor into the total package.

 

They do, but I can. :P

 

Most authors don't have the resources to create those images, and if Forge World isn't notorious for deluging their books with excess artwork, they ought to be. I'm not saying someone couldn't include all those images, but interpreting them as integral to the article both ignores Forge World's tendencies and places an implicit burden on DIYers to produce all that (and somewhat defeats the point of the simplified format).

 

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.

 

Judging by the Red Scorpions IA, they're no good at writing them/not interested in the aspects of IAs which they left out of their articles. I think that may have a lot more to do with it. :P

 

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.

 

Except the problem is that at the moment we have one big overarching format - that of the IA. For better or worse, it's become the norm. Hell, more than the norm.

 

'Recognizing' another format inherently implies there might be more. If people have a choice, it encourages the community to recognize that perhaps other choices exist, and demonstrates to people the diversity of opportunities available. If there were three or four 'categorized' formats, that both serves the needs of the community better and encourages people. Right now IAs are a monolith, dominating the Liber. Another format we can direct people toward would help that to no end. A third one would be even better, but there aren't any big examples of that right now.

 

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.

 

It might. On the other hand, fancy's a lot more fun. :)

 

Plus, the more we talk about it, the more people are aware of the format...

[NightrawenII]

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).

 

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.

 

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.

Ok. I'm going to throw the bone, because it has to be done (sooner or later :) ).

 

As you said here:

What these articles (=in the Imperium Armour 9) 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.

First off, some of us here believe that the tabletop and backstory should be kept separate.

In this regards, the IA9 follows the exactly opposite philosophy. It's focusing on the playing the Chapters in the Badab War. With this in mind, you are quite right, the pics are supporting this aim.

However, we are running in the problems here. DIYers aren't writing codex*, 99,99999999999999999999999999999% of the readers is not going to play your Chapter, for the rules, paint-schemes and stories we have the specialised forums, and DIY is usually long-run report rather than focus on one particular conflict.

Thus, the purpose of the Liber Astartes, at least in my mind, is development of the backstory of the DIY Chapters. Of course, you could include all other elements of DIY, but these should be keep at minimum. In this regard, the Imperial-Armour-Format might not be the fortunate choice for Liber, because it's about all eggs in one basket, so to speak.

 

*Or something for others, to use.

 

Edit: Damn these Ninja's.

[Brother Tyler]

I wasn't implying that members should necessarily develop rules - only that they indicate which rules are to be used to play the Chapter. In most cases this will involve specifying which codex (or in the case of Codex: Space Marines, whether the Chapter used Combat Tactics or has one of the official Chapter Tactics). Some members might decide to develop their own rules, in which case the appropriate place is the Homegrown Rules forum, but that discussion would still be integrally tied to the Liber Astartes discussion on the Chapter.

 

But remember, the point of the forum is encapsulated in the forum description:

 

":DIY Chapter Creation (Loyalists and Renegades):"

 

While the focus is the background/character/nature, rules are certainly a part of Chapter creation.

 

While the Index Astartes format is the most commonly used (and for very good reason), we need to be sure that we promote it as a useful guide. Other formats are useful.

 

Going back to my indecisiveness, I fall back on the position that we don't need to name the IA9 format articles. If we do, though, some more suggestions:

• Codicium Astartes (derives from the Codicium Imperialis articles that have appeared in White Dwarf, substituting "Imperialis" for whichever force is being covered in the DIY article)
  
• Liber Honorus (again deriving from the Codicium Imperialis articles, though this one doesn't follow the ~ Astartes pattern I advocated earlier)
  
• Honorus Astartes (taking the idea above and applying the ~ Astartes pattern)
  
• Liber Victorum (another derivation from the Codicium Imperialis articles in White Dwarf, though again one that doesn't follow the ~ Astartes pattern)
  
• Victorum Astartes (taking the idea above and applying the ~ Astartes pattern)
  

At some point the good idea fairy is going to have to stop (and I'm the biggest offender there right now, I know) and we're going to have to determine (a) whether or not we really need to make up a name for these articles, and (:) pick a name if we decide that we need to make one up. We can probably take all of the suggestions provided and narrow it down to a dozen or so, then vote. I'll talk to the other admins and see how we want to do this.

[Octavulg]

Going back to my indecisiveness, I fall back on the position that we don't need to name the IA9 format articles.

 

I'll admit that we don't need to. But they're pretty clearly not IAs, which means they're something else. If they have a name, it's a lot easier to talk about them.

 

At some point the good idea fairy is going to have to stop (and I'm the biggest offender there right now, I know) and we're going to have to determine (a) whether or not we really need to make up a name for these articles, and (cool.gif pick a name if we decide that we need to make one up. We can probably take all of the suggestions provided and narrow it down to a dozen or so, then vote. I'll talk to the other admins and see how we want to do this.

 

Honestly, I wasn't expecting anything that formal. I was just waiting for something to leap out at everyone and say "LOOK AT ME I SHOULD BE PICKED!" :P

 

This sort of thing works better evolving naturally anyway. I was just hoping to hurry it along. :D

 

* * *

 

More suggestions:

 

Torquex Astartes

Editio Astartes

[Heru]

At some point the good idea fairy is going to have to stop (and I'm the biggest offender there right now, I know) and we're going to have to determine (a) whether or not we really need to make up a name for these articles, and (:D pick a name if we decide that we need to make one up. We can probably take all of the suggestions provided and narrow it down to a dozen or so, then vote. I'll talk to the other admins and see how we want to do this.

Aw man not again, you continually butchered the flow of the B+C Campaign thread with talk like that.

 

Besides the discussion on the name should just end here, obviously my suggestion of Fabrica Astartes is the most well suited ( :P ). It is an article style created by Forge World, so the name should reflect that. We don't need some extra fancy name that really has nothing to do with anything other than making it "not an IA".

[Brother Tyler]

Nice try.

[Allerka]

I'm...actually going to have to vote for Fabrica Astartes as well. It's just...simple. Straightforward.

[Brother Tyler]

The poll will remain open for either 24 hours or the next time I log in, whichever comes last.

 

If we have a 2:1 or more majority for naming the articles, we'll vote on a name. The Admins are narrowing the field down (I'm not involved in that because it wouldn't be fair since I suggested more than a few of the names).

 

If we have less than a 2:1 majority for naming the articles (which includes "No" votes), we'll hold off for awhile and see if IA10 gives us anything to go on, or if over time we eventually start to call them something.

[Lysimachus]

'Fabrica Astartes' seems about the best of the suggestions so far, although personally I'd use:

 

Codicium Astartes: for the massive tome Heru (I think) mentioned with all the extras

Index Astartes: as normal

Libellus Astartes: the shorter version

[Ecritter]

Why not just call them Bob!

[Ace Debonair]

Why not just call them Bob!

Because "I'm writing a Bob for my DIY chapter" sounds extremely strange. :P

[Ecritter]

Why not just call them Bob!

Because "I'm writing a Bob for my DIY chapter" sounds extremely strange. :tu:

 

Would BOB be better?

 

I'll stick with my first suggestion, Arto Astartes. So you can write an AA for your Chapter :P

 

EDIT: And even though it has nothing to do with Art going by the translation ... it does sound very arty. :P

[Octavulg]

I'd like to mention my suggestion of Editio Astartes one more time, since it's the one I made I actually like. :P

 

Lysimachus' breakdown looks pretty good, too. :whistling:

[Ecritter]

How about Oratorius Astartes?

[Ferrata]

Sorry but why do we actually need to name them? I would say they can come under the name IA quite easily - I'm not one to suggest there needs to be a set format to giving a chapter history. IA covers any type of style that isn't a story, otherwise it is a fable. So can I ask the question, why do we need to name them? What advantage is there to doing so?

[Octavulg]

Naming things makes them easier to talk about. Honestly, that alone should be enough.

 

With twenty-three (IIRC) official examples, IAs are definitely more defined than just "anything that isn't a story". IAs have distinct expectations regarding content and formatting, based on GW examples.

 

It is not an IA, but it is a distinct other format with several clear examples (and more examples presumably coming). IAs include things it does not, and it includes things IA do not.

 

Thus, it makes sense to give it its own name since it is a clearly definable thing, distinct from an IA.

 

Since Latiny names are more fun, it makes sense to give it an arcane Latiny name, preferably with in-jokes.

[Ferrata]

With twenty-three (IIRC) official examples, IAs are definitely more defined than just "anything that isn't a story". IAs have distinct expectations regarding content and formatting, based on GW examples.

That is just shoe-horning people into a set format if they wish their chapter to have an IA. Yes, the main things that are discussed are in there but that is going to be true for most format styles of this ilk. Bar the table at the top of the IA, there isn't that much difference between the two types of IA. I personally think that by coming with a name for these articles is another example of shoe-horning that is currently been happening.

[Octavulg]

That is just shoe-horning people into a set format if they wish their chapter to have an IA.

 

Your statement is predicated on the assumption that IA refers to any article about a Chapter. It doesn't. Nor should it. If it does, then people will inherently look to official examples and many of the more famous community examples - which use the format defined by GW.

 

If you make IA refer to something particular and acknowledge other formats, you encourage people to work outside the boundaries of the established. If you don't, then people get repeatedly (and rightly, IMO) told that an IA isn't just anything you want, but there are expectations for content, format and style surrounding it.

 

Because there are. Because we have twenty-plus official examples of what IAs are, and they all look pretty similar.

 

Bar the table at the top of the IA, there isn't that much difference between the two types of IA.

 

Yes there is. Length is radically different (the longest one is perhaps two or three pages of text), focus is different, and the Forge World examples include lengthy sections on noted engagements of the Chapter.

 

I personally think that by coming with a name for these articles is another example of shoe-horning that is currently been happening.

 

The 'shoe-horning' you complain about stems at least partly from the insistence that all DIY articles are IAs. They aren't, and encouraging people to apply a specific term to a general category encourages them to apply the specific dictates of that term to that category. If you tell people all DIY articles are IAs, then many will interpret that to mean that all DIY articles should be like official IAs (because this is, after all, an exercise in working with the official to create something else). What you have here is a perfect opportunity to provide an official example of another way to do a DIY article. If you name it something else, you create the perception that there is more than one way to talk about a Chapter - look, GW did it. If you call it just another kind of IA, you retain the dominance of the original IA format and inherently make this new format secondary.

 

If you offer people a choice of multiple official formats at the outset, I would say they are far more likely to think about the different possibilities IA writing offers than if you do not do so. This will encourage the diversity many continually complain is lacking, and perhaps move the Liber away from its focus on one particular format.

 

When opportunities to solve existing problems without having to continually correct people appear, it is best to seize them.

[Ace Debonair]

If you offer people a choice of multiple official formats at the outset, I would say they are far more likely to think about the different possibilities IA writing offers than if you do not do so. This will encourage the diversity many continually complain is lacking, and perhaps move the Liber away from its focus on one particular format.

 

To your point: Everything I know about 40k I learned here in the Liber (and other parts of the B&C, but most of it came from here. :sick: )

And until Brule posted an article in the alternate format, I didn't know such a thing existed.*

 

I'm firmly backing the idea of naming these things, so when new folks appear in the forums, I don't have to keep typing. 'you can also make an article like the ones from that Imperial Armour book'. :D

 

 

* This probably makes me quite guilty of 'shoehorning' folks into doing things the IA way, for which I can only apologize, and hope I don't have to do another penitent crusade. :)

[Ferrata]

Your statement is predicated on the assumption that IA refers to any article about a Chapter. It doesn't. Nor should it. If it does, then people will inherently look to official examples and many of the more famous community examples - which use the format defined by GW.

It shouldn't in your opinion and your opinion isn't law around here. An IA, in my opinion, is a factual discussion about a chapter that covers the key cornerstones of the chapter. Whilst there has been a precedent for a stylised version, this is merely the easiest method of presenting the data in an IA. It is the one that is suggested by most Liberites for that reason.

 

If you make IA refer to something particular and acknowledge other formats, you encourage people to work outside the boundaries of the established. If you don't, then people get repeatedly (and rightly, IMO) told that an IA isn't just anything you want, but there are expectations for content, format and style surrounding it.

I would disagree that by drawing the box, you encourage people to work outside of it. In my experience on Liber, that is not the case. By drawing the box, you give people a tool in which to berate people with.

 

Yes there is. Length is radically different (the longest one is perhaps two or three pages of text), focus is different, and the Forge World examples include lengthy sections on noted engagements of the Chapter.

But then there is much difference between many of the articles in the Librarium right now. There are a handful which are over 6000 words and others which are under 3000 - that is a radical difference in length. The focus is also different in these articles - whilst the Castigators focuses little on the origins and the history of the chapter, the Wings of Death article will focus heavily on the origins of the chapter and the history.

[Heru]

Sorry but why do we actually need to name them? I would say they can come under the name IA quite easily - I'm not one to suggest there needs to be a set format to giving a chapter history. IA covers any type of style that isn't a story, otherwise it is a fable. So can I ask the question, why do we need to name them? What advantage is there to doing so?

I'd say that giving this form of article a distinct name of it's own would make it easier to integrate into the Librarium system. It also gives people a clear option, and example to draw from.

 

Unfortunately as it is, the Liber has a socially accepted IA format that comes with allot of expectations (length, format, style, content etc). If you want to do anything else you have a very hard time getting it accepted by the shared Universe community (and if you don't care about the shared Universe why post?). In addition you have an extra hard time getting it Librarium accepted, which I assume functions heavily on the socially accepted Liber IA rules (unconsciously, if not set in stone).

 

Yeah I wrote this in my blog awhile back:

I get so freaking pissed off with the whole notion that for your Chapter to be yours or mean anything to anyone "YOU MUST HAVE AN IA", most of GWs Chapters don't even have a freaking IA. Then there is the social notion that an IA must be only a certain length, and it must adhere to whatever rules the veteran IA critics have decided upon. I hate IAs, writing does not come naturally to me, I like compiling my information in a way that suits me; which is what I have been doing with this blog. Sure I have allot of Chapters, but I go where the inspiration takes me. If I try to focus too hard on a single Chapter I run out of ideas and my interest in the whole damn hobby just flounders like a beached fish.

[Ace Debonair]

I would disagree that by drawing the box, you encourage people to work outside of it. In my experience on Liber, that is not the case. By drawing the box, you give people a tool in which to berate people with.

Hmm, I'm probably guilty of that too. :huh:

 

So, in essence, the biggest differences are the layout and the inclusion of notable battles in the Imperial-Armour-Document that are absent in the Index Astartes.

 

I still think it's worth naming these articles.

Either way, we now have another viable format for people to use in place of the traditionally advocated one, which I'm perfectly happy to guide people towards using, and it would be nice to know what to call the darn things from one post to the next. :P

[Octavulg]

An IA, in my opinion, is a factual discussion about a chapter that covers the key cornerstones of the chapter. Whilst there has been a precedent for a stylised version, this is merely the easiest method of presenting the data in an IA. It is the one that is suggested by most Liberites for that reason.

 

Except all the examples produced by GW do follow a particular format, and by insisting on the use of that title for DIY articles generally, you are inherently associating DIY articles with that format.

 

You have no right to complain about people forcing people toward certain methodologies when you’ve basically told them to do so. That may not have been what you intended, but they got that out of what you said, and I think it’s pretty obvious how they did.

 

IA = DIY Article will also seem to mean that DIY Article = IA. Which is better - to insist that people are wrong for misunderstanding, or to attempt to remove the possibility for misunderstanding?

 

Offering people other formats to work with (and ceasing to insist that IA refers to something it generally does not) opens up doors, it doesn’t close them.

 

I would disagree that by drawing the box, you encourage people to work outside of it. In my experience on Liber, that is not the case. By drawing the box, you give people a tool in which to berate people with.

 

"Pick a box or make your own box" is much more meaningful when there's more than one kind of box to choose from and you're not in the Type #1 Box Storage Warehouse.

 

But then there is much difference between many of the articles in the Librarium right now. There are a handful which are over 6000 words and others which are under 3000 - that is a radical difference in length. The focus is also different in these articles - whilst the Castigators focuses little on the origins and the history of the chapter, the Wings of Death article will focus heavily on the origins of the chapter and the history.

 

All these things are true. Yet the variations between them, and the variations between all the FWIAs, are still far smaller than the variations between the two types on average.

 

You can clearly distinguish between the two types of article just by glancing. They’re not the same thing. They have somewhat similar goals, but their execution is quite different and even their goals are not strictly identical.

 

Tell people they can do anything, and they don’t know what to do. Present them with options, and they have both choice and things which can spark ideas. The more official formats we point to, the easier it becomes for a DIYer to either choose a methodology they like or create something else that serves their needs better.

[Ferrata]

Octavulg we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I disagree with your theory and the requirement to name this type of article. I have voted no in the poll and will not promote the name if one is chosen. That is my decision. You have made yours.