An open letter to the regulars of the Liber Astartes

[TrashMan]

TrashMan

You almsot sound like you do not belive in collective wisdom tongue.gif

 

I do not. The collective wisdom has it that Space Marine chapters do not merge. Yet at page 111 of the BRB 3e: "None can be sure of the exact number of Chapters as new ones are founded over time and as old Chapters die or amalgamate."

 

Collective wisdom is dangerous. People forget how to justify their answers with collective wisdom. That way lies laziness and incompetence.

 

So because of a few ramote cases the collective wisdom gets something wrong, you postulate there is no worth/merit to it?

 

Also, are you sure that stance you mentioned is collective wisdom? I dont' recall that one.

 

I for one have nothing agaisnt harsh critics. I don't mind people telling me in my face that what I wrote is the biggest piece of trash in existence. I can take it. I have taken it. All the walking around on egshells just so someones tender sensibilities don't get hurt...bah.

 

Because, of course, I'm notorious for coddling those I criticize with unnecessary reassurances that, really, their idea's just fine. ;)

 

Harshness is fine. People declaring that ideas are wrong because it goes against the received wisdom of the forum? That's not. Justifying your answers thoroughly (thus making them useful) is what makes the harshness OK.

 

Or, y'know. What Ace said.

 

But if several people already explained before you, do you have to explain again?

 

The thing I have felt is a large issue is that certain members try to force a new IA/IT article to fit within THEIR Warhammer 40'000. I think we can all agree that some things just don't happen within established fluff. That doesn't give us the right to say they don't happen.

 

Wut? ;)

 

 

Now if the writer realises this mistake, s/he has two choices: change it to fit within the universe or continue, stating that it is non-cannon fan-fiction. What the rest of us have to do is accept either course, offering advise on how to make a good IA/IT article, fluffy or not.

 

I don't know about other people, but when someoen deliberately departs from the fluff, then all my desire and motivation to help wilts away. It's simply not the universe I love and I'm familiar anymore...so why bother?

[Cpt_Reaper]

The thing I have felt is a large issue is that certain members try to force a new IA/IT article to fit within THEIR Warhammer 40'000. I think we can all agree that some things just don't happen within established fluff. That doesn't give us the right to say they don't happen.

 

Wut? ;)

 

 

Now if the writer realises this mistake, s/he has two choices: change it to fit within the universe or continue, stating that it is non-cannon fan-fiction. What the rest of us have to do is accept either course, offering advise on how to make a good IA/IT article, fluffy or not.

 

I don't know about other people, but when someoen deliberately departs from the fluff, then all my desire and motivation to help wilts away. It's simply not the universe I love and I'm familiar anymore...so why bother?

 

I could have worded it better I admit, so let me try again.

 

We are here to assist each other in the creation of fan-fiction. When an author sets out to write an article that has something that is purposely outside of established fluff we have no right to demand that be removed. What we are to do is help them write a good article. If you disagree with that, ignore it and offer your advice on the parts that do fit within the universe. We are not GW writers, we are fans. Even then, things that are established fluff are wrong. The Black Library is just as fluffy as the codexes, as it's all GW endorsed. What we as fans choose to do is accept certain parts as fluff and certain parts as bad writing. Here in the Liber, everything is allowed. Established fluff is, to quote a certain sea-farer with a very nice hat, "...more like guidelines anyway."

[Dosjetka]

I don't know about other people, but when someoen deliberately departs from the fluff, then all my desire and motivation to help wilts away. It's simply not the universe I love and I'm familiar anymore...so why bother?

Well don't bother then and leave it. Someone else will address the issue and if it stops you from getting annoyed/worked up/generally heated, then that's all the better ;)

 

Ludovic

[Cpt_Reaper]

Also, if we are to flame any IA article that isn't fluffy, should we not disown the Dornian Heresy alternate history? I mean, it is not within established fluff, it is a what-if scenario. Just saying...

[TrashMan]

Also, if we are to flame any IA article that isn't fluffy, should we not disown the Dornian Heresy alternate history? I mean, it is not within established fluff, it is a what-if scenario. Just saying...

 

 

I do :P

[Aegnor]

Well said Octovulg. I totally agree. I've not cotributed nearly as much to this forum as many others have, and have a great deal of appreciation for those who do regularly contribute. That said, I think some regulars here have at times shown "fatigue" in terms of explaining their objections to an idea - after the twentieth time you respond to a first draft IA about girl marines, for instance, you are likely to be more terse than the first time you did so. It's easy to forget that because you've seen all these arguments before, a new visitor may not have. Often the best compromise I've seen has been when people have made a little effort to help out a new guy and say "a similar idea was discussed at length here a little while ago, and some good ideas that I think would help your thinking were discussed - here's the link: ...". Saves the regulars from having to repeat themselves again, but helps the newbie.

 

The subforum guidelines and FAQs are great in this regard.

 

For myself, when I've critiqued someone's draft, I think I've always remembered to start off with: "there are two ways to think about your IA. First - your models/writing, your ideas, your time, so you can do whatever you like. Second, many people here like aiming to be part of a "shared universe" with some broadly agreed norms. If this second idea is what you're interested in trying, then I'd say X, Y and Z. Even if your thinking about just doing something for your own amusement, I'd still suggest it would be worth thinking about A or B."

 

People willing to make an effort to join our hobby and contribute to our conversation here should always be encouraged in my view.

[Valkyrion]

Isn't the overriding point of the Liber to ask 'why'?

That simple question gets right to the heart of the matter and if it can be answered then the subject is irrelevant, in the scope of known 40k lore.

 

My chapter has female space marines.

Why?

Explain that to me by using established 40k methods and I'll accept it.

 

My chapter uses traitor geneseed.

Why?

 

My chapter is lead by a missing Primarch.

Why?

 

My chapter was created in secret, no one knew about it, but they're so awesome it's fine.

Why?

 

'Why?' is much better than 'No it isn't' or 'You can't', but if someone is operating in their own alternate version of 40k then there is no help to be given and there is little point posting it here, because everything can just be countered by 'well, in my universe it's fine for starfish to drive Land Raiders'.

Writing IA's is difficult, especially considering some established official GW IA's would probably be critiqued to hell and back on here and they're actually FACT, but the 'rules' (i.e, no female space marines, traitor geneseed, missing primarch and so on) are there to help us create an IA that is believable before cool.

You can add the cool later.

[Aegnor]

"Why" is ok, so long as it's not held that the only way to answer that question must be based in established-fluff-as-interpreted-by-the-Liber. "Because I think it's cool" is really the best answer to "why". I think the role of helping each other in the Liber is to help people get from "I have an idea I think is cool, but which has gaps in it, or contains a contradiction/conflict I can't work out myself" to "This is my idea, which I still think is cool, which is well fleshed out".

 

Sometimes there will be no "why" beyond "that's the story I want to develop", and demanding people come up with a reason before they progress can be quite stifling to creativity. Read a lot of IAs here that have been through the "process" here that start off with an unhappy paragraph with answers to all the classic "why" jammed into it, before the author gets to what they wanted to talk about. "(Big breath) In M34, the High Lords of Terra, directed that a new Space Marine chapter be set up in Naff sector in response to the worsening problem of pirates. They were founded from the geneline of the Ultramarines as part of the 5th Founding. After a clash with pirates at the planet Trope, the founding chapter master decided to base his chapter there... (gasps for breath)... And now on with the IA". If someone WANTS to write that, great. If someone ends up feeling compelled to tack that on because they've been told they can't say the date and purpose of the founding of the chapter is unknown because "it's a cliche", or that they can't be descended from Raven Guard because there's no good reason for the HLoT to use that geneseed rather than UM, that's not so great.

 

So "why" is a good question, but it needs to be applied with an aim to what we (individually and collectively) want to achieve by inviting people to share their DIY fiction with us.

[Brother Tyler]

No, the purpose of the Liber Astartes forum is not to ask "why?" The purpose of the forum is to allow members to discuss and develop their DIYs.

 

Asking "why?" is a valuable tool in helping members to provide rational explanations for their DIYs. However, there are several issues at stake.

 

First and foremost is the author's intent. Ultimately, the author is the only one that stands to gain/lose from the end result of a DIY.

 

The default assumption made is that every author is trying to fit their DIY in with the established lore of the game universe. The problem here is that the lore is mutable and in many places it is open to interpretation. While conventional wisdom has led to a number of areas in which there is general agreement, there have been multiple occasions in which the conventional wisdom has been proven wrong, or where the conventional wisdom is nothing more than one of multiple valid interpretations. The lore, after all, often contradictory or incomplete; and as we've seen with the Horus Heresy novels, codices, and other official publications, the lore is and continues to be revised and refined by Games Workshop. Examples of this include the previously "defined" 2nd Founding as consisting of forty or so (and I'm estimating) Chapters, now revealed to be much larger than that; and the appearance of the Necrons having been shifted from the "modern" era to some Necrons being functional during the Great Crusade; and there are numerous others.

 

As far as interpretation goes, no one is required to subscribe to any particular interpretation of the lore. While many might agree that interpretation X seems most likely, interpretations Y and Z might be used by authors if those interpretations support what they would like to use for their DIYs. There tend to be prevailing schools of interpretation, and these carry validity, but they are not prescriptive in nature and carry no authority.

 

And then we also have the freedom players have to deliberately deviate from the commonly accepted perceptions of the game lore, doing different things such as crossing genres (Halo Space Marines, Clone Troopers Space Marines) and/or incorporating significant deviations from the conventional wisdom (female Space Marines, Space Wolves Successors). Games Workshop has even showcased armies where players have stepped outside of the grimdark and done things that were different (e.g., the Mars Attacks Space Marine army, the Hello Kitty Marines, the Santa Marines). The Dornian Heresy is a perfect example of this in execution on an informal level.

 

So there are times when the default assumption isn't the case, and it's not anyone's place to attempt to force others to follow that practice if that is not what they want to do.

 

Ultimately, our goal here is to help each other, not to bend everyone to the same autocratic will. Too often, unfortunately, members want to limit players' creativity and attempt to force them to subscribe to the "official" lore.

 

So when authors present ideas that run contrary to the conventional wisdom, it's okay to inform them of the general consensus (and this should really be backed up by citing sources rather than relying upon anecdotal statements about the interpretations). However, authors are absolutely free to press on with what they want to do. Other members should respect that freedom, and the authors should respect the feedback.

 

Looking at recent events, a DIY currently undergoing discussion includes female Space Marines. This led to a firestorm of resistance from hard-liners and was a repeat of every other occasion in which a DIY included female Space Marines. Personally, I'm in the camp that disagrees with the notion of female Space Marines based on my interpretation of the official material. However, I'm not hurt one bit by another member's decision to include female Space Marines in their DIY. Seeing all of the arguments posted against their inclusion in the DIY and the author's counterarguments, it's clear to see that the author wants to include them. So it's not up to me to continue to press the issue because that is counterproductive and disruptive. And since I'm not affected one bit by it, it falls into the category of things I don't worry about. A similar thing happened with Doc Thunder's Black Widows Chapter. I saw that army in person at Games Day Los Angeles and, despite my misgivings about female Space Marines, I would have no problem facing that army on the tabletop.

 

If nothing else, a defensive mechanism players might incorporate into their thinking is that every DIY creates a shadow universe of the "real" game universe. This is like parallel dimensions and such, where at some point in the game history, the author's DIY universe branches off of the established game universe. This allows them to create subtle (and not so subtle) differences. Some DIY universes might be closer to the "real" game universe, while others might diverge greatly. Regardless, it's their game universe. The level of deviation is up to them. We can help them to consider alternatives and ways to improve upon their work, but the outcome is up to them and really only affects them. As fellow hobbyists, we owe it to them to let them enjoy the game and the game universe in their own way, and if we can't bring ourselves to reconcile the differences, courtesy demands that we leave them alone rather than pester them.

[TrashMan]

Sometimes there will be no "why" beyond "that's the story I want to develop", and demanding people come up with a reason before they progress can be quite stifling to creativity.

 

Frankly, if a chapter is in it's own universe and doesn't even try to be part of the official canon, then one has to ask onself why even post it here, in the place where fluff and canon are so highly regarded?

Why not make your own universe? Isn't that even bigger creativity?

 

To be brutally honest, I have little love for things that do not want to be part of the greater whole and give canon the finger. They say everything is a matter of perspective. In mine it doens't make the 40K cummunity richer. My own personal bias as it is, but most often I see such things as defilment, even if I do recognize and relize that the author has the cretive freedom...but given that he's excercising within someone elses universe....

 

:angry: :P ;)

[SnakeoilSage]

So I guess this argument is basically about whether canon fan-fiction is "better" than non-canon fan-fiction, while the creators of the canon itself look down on all of us.

[Aqui]

I've been hesitant to add anything (pertinent or otherwise). If I see an IA/IT that I have nothing positive to suggest, I don't post anything. It's not because I feel that their effort is rubbish, far from it, whom am I to say that Fem Marines have no place? I don't often post on others IA/IT's because more often than not, others have already said what I would have, or I can't see anything that could help the writer. I feel guilty about that, but I really am not the sort that can give harsh criiticism. It's not me.

 

I suppose what I'm trying to say is, help if you can, but ultimately a writer will write what they want. More often than not, a person will not be 100% accommodating to criticism (myself included - I've had some that has been quite harsh, and I once didn't log onto the site for nearly a week because of it, I fumed so much.... But, after cooling my head for a while, I understood what they were saying.) If the writer does not want to take on board your thoughts, there is no point in being nasty about it, withdraw from the topic and just leave well alone.

[Brother Tyler]

Frankly, if a chapter is in it's own universe and doesn't even try to be part of the official canon, then one has to ask onself why even post it here...

Because others can help the author to refine the work; and also because the author's creativity might inspire others.

 

...in the place where fluff and canon are so highly regarded?

Because regardless of individuals' regard for the "canon," there is no requirement to adhere to it absolutely (especially since the conflicts, changes, and gaps in the canon allow for creativity).

 

To be brutally honest, I have little love for things that do not want to be part of the greater whole and give canon the finger. They say everything is a matter of perspective. In mine it doens't make the 40K cummunity richer. My own personal bias as it is, but most often I see such things as defilment, even if I do recognize and relize that the author has the cretive freedom...but given that he's excercising within someone elses universe....

Well, the solution here is simple: when a member desires to create something that doesn't correspond with your view of the canon, you should just avoid the discussion.

[War Angel]

Can we still, in a friendly way, guide them to fretta's how to, and if they still decide to do it help them to make it so it's good and not just because?

[Razblood]

I have one point to state regarding "canon" which will probably be picked apart or ignored but meh, he who dares :lol:

 

IMO "canon" in 40K is a mutable thing which changes with every edition of the game, sometimes slightly and as with 5th quite acutely.

 

Therefore stating outright that something is against "canon" is a baseless statement.

 

An example is "Super-Draigo". According to the established "canon" Primarchs were as far beyond Astartes as the Emperor was beyond Primarchs. This however is changed by the "canon" that Draigo carved his name into Mortarions heart.

 

An Astartes (yes a more psychically powerful variant, but still just an Astartes) was able to bring down not just a Primarch but a Daemonically enhanced Primarch and casually "tag" his heart!?!

 

My point is that established canon is subjective an subject to change, there are very few pieces of fluff that have stood immutable since the beginning of 40k or even since 2 editions ago.

 

Now I go to coat myself in flame retardant gel :P

[Dark Apostle Thirst]

Hello. My name is Octavulg. You may remember me from such chapters as the Ice Lords and the Stone Hearts. I’ve been here a while now. In fact, I’ve been here so long I remember when Grey Hunter Ydalir’s claims that he would finish his chapter were believable.

 

[pause for applause]

 

But today, I’m here to talk about something important. Specifically: what the :lol: is wrong with you people?

 

Let's explain what I mean:

This is the nature of the Liber Astartes. The strong survive, the weak die off, and those who go against the Law of the Liber are quickly and fiercely set upon.

 

this is one of our very few untouchables, meaning as a whole we don't consider it.

 

I see what's wrong with that. I bet most of you don't. So now I'm going to explain it.

 

1) This is not a club. If it was, I would have kicked most of you out about a dozen times over for not citing your sources.

 

1) Sorry for not responding to this sooner, I didn't see it. I feel slightly compelled to, given that I was the one you quoted.

 

2) Actually, this is a club. There's one problem though - it's not an exclusive club. Anyone can join, all it requires is being willing to speak up for whichever 'side' of the discussion you support. In the Liber that's intensified because of the whole 'my idea, my preciouusssss' that we're all suseptible to, and the opposing borderline OCD need to have everything correct. These two parties that we are so inclined to join refresh themselves with every new chapter, and the Liber is a busy sub-forum. Both sides have their flaws and merits - I know you know these just as well as I do, if not more so. The club feeling is simply much more obvious here is all that it is.

 

But at the same time, surely you've noticed that there is those that comment regularily and rotate around the forum? Those who are are there on a regular basis? Though these members eventually go as well, they form their own crowd of people who recognize each other as equals. Some are artists - such as 1000Heathens - some are just fluffists - Khestra is an excellent example, especially as he seems to be on the leaving side, sadly enough - and some are just present all around, not unlike yourself, though you are a more permenant member.

 

The point is we are part of a club. We didn't even intend this - it's part of the whole social forum that the BnC has become. It's only elitist if it's perceived as such - and I can say for myself that I never saw it as such.

 

We are all equal in social standing - I can freely say being a mod doesn't automatically earn respect :P The only thing that makes any member superiour or inferiour is if you feel the member is so. Even then they are only so to you, and you alone.

 

2) Even if it were a club, "that isn't the way we do it here" is not a reason. Why? Because this subforum does not exist to determine who gets to join a club.

 

Generally I'd agree with you. In the vast majority of cases, even. But there's always an exception. Always.

 

Why should that be accepted? Because some ideas simply aren't worth pursuing. You know this as well as I do - and the fact that I can say that and you understand is reason enough.

 

Not everyone will agree with that, and I know I can't force that belief on anyone. Maybe I can't even convince you. I just now that if this was practiced, Wargamer's thread wouldn't have been closed twice.

 

3) Even if this subforum did exist in order to determine who gets to join a club, that still wouldn't be good enough. Why? Because nobody wants to join a club of rude people who do nothing other than berate those who don't conform to their unjustified rules.

Completely agree. The Liber exists to help raise the quality of any Index, and having the same ideas over and over again would be counter-productive to raising quality. Some ideas just don't work though, such as having super man as your chapter master and all the marines are recruited from Kryptone. Does the not sound reasonable?

[Aegnor]

DAT - agree with a lot of what you say, but don't think we can ever tell someone - "that's just a bad idea that won't work" in the expectation that this will get them to stop with the idea or stop others enjoying it or wanting to help them try to make the idea work.

 

Think the most we can say is "in my opinion this idea always gets stuck on X and Y. I personally don't like it, so if you're set on including it, I'm going to wish you good luck and leave the conversation to others to carry on with you."

[TrashMan]

I have one point to state regarding "canon" which will probably be picked apart or ignored but meh, he who dares :P

 

IMO "canon" in 40K is a mutable thing which changes with every edition of the game, sometimes slightly and as with 5th quite acutely.

Therefore stating outright that something is against "canon" is a baseless statement.

 

No, it's not.

What is canon changes over time, but at any one point there is only one canon.

 

 

An example is "Super-Draigo". According to the established "canon" Primarchs were as far beyond Astartes as the Emperor was beyond Primarchs. This however is changed by the "canon" that Draigo carved his name into Mortarions heart.

 

An Astartes (yes a more psychically powerful variant, but still just an Astartes) was able to bring down not just a Primarch but a Daemonically enhanced Primarch and casually "tag" his heart!?!

 

 

a) Draigo is a special case. And ordinary people have been known to accomplish amazing things if the Emperor is with them. Ever heard of Living Saints? If the Emperor helped Draigo, then it all makes sense. Yes, normally an Astatest should loose that fight. But he didn't. So SOMETHING was up.

:) I don't think there was anything casual about it. Also, I don't think the name carving was ment literally (as in, his full name and adress)

 

 

My point is that established canon is subjective an subject to change, there are very few pieces of fluff that have stood immutable since the beginning of 40k or even since 2 editions ago.

 

 

Everything doesn't haeve to be immutable from the begining op time.

Canon isn't nearly as subjective as some claim.

[TrashMan]

To be brutally honest, I have little love for things that do not want to be part of the greater whole and give canon the finger. They say everything is a matter of perspective. In mine it doens't make the 40K cummunity richer. My own personal bias as it is, but most often I see such things as defilment, even if I do recognize and relize that the author has the cretive freedom...but given that he's excercising within someone elses universe....

Well, the solution here is simple: when a member desires to create something that doesn't correspond with your view of the canon, you should just avoid the discussion.

 

 

I read that as - if you can't support and say nice things to the IA maker, don't say anything and keep your oppinion to yourself.

I never liked that approach. Stinks of dishonesty.

 

Why shouldn't one express ones oppinion (even if it from someone elses perspective it might be extreemely negative)?

So as to not aggrivate the newcomer? What about aggrivating me (or Bob, or Bill)?

 

Jack will be aggrivated if poeple don't like his IA or are harsh and dismissve.

But Bob might be aggrivated by Jacks IA.

 

Why should Bob just walk away? Why doesn't Jack just walk away?

 

I don't think there IS a right side here. Whatever happens someone loses and is gonna be dissapointed.

[Lysimachus]

I read that as - if you can't support and say nice things to the IA maker, don't say anything and keep your oppinion to yourself.

I never liked that approach. Stinks of dishonesty.

 

Why shouldn't one express ones oppinion (even if it from someone elses perspective it might be extreemely negative)?

So as to not aggrivate the newcomer? What about aggrivating me (or Bob, or Bill)?

 

Jack will be aggrivated if poeple don't like his IA or are harsh and dismissve.

But Bob might be aggrivated by Jacks IA.

 

Why should Bob just walk away? Why doesn't Jack just walk away?

 

I don't think there IS a right side here. Whatever happens someone loses and is gonna be dissapointed.

 

 

But you can speak up. That's the point, you are free to express your opinion, even if it is negative. But it should still be constructive, i.e. giving reasons why something wont work, preferably with sources, and then offering ways to help/replace the bad idea.

 

However, if the person then replies and says "well, I've heard what you've said but I absolutely want to do this and I'm going to ignore all of that other stuff you've mentioned" and you don't feel able to work within those parameters that they, as the author, have the right to set, maybe then is the time to bow out of the thread. If it annoys you, just don't look at it.

[Ace Debonair]

Jack will be aggrivated if poeple don't like his IA or are harsh and dismissve.

But Bob might be aggrivated by Jacks IA.

 

Why should Bob just walk away? Why doesn't Jack just walk away?

 

I don't think there IS a right side here. Whatever happens someone loses and is gonna be dissapointed.

 

Jack's going to be in trouble if I want to post on his IA and think there's room for improvement, then. :)

 

However, if someone wants to stick with an idea I don't like, I either ignore that section of their IA* and concentrate on other sections or bow out of the IA discussion altogether.

 

No-one's actually saying 'don't post on other people's stuff'. Or if anyone is saying that, they're being silly.

What's being said is: 'be harsh if you have to, but don't say "We The Liber disapprove" as an explanation and don't beat people over the head with continued "DO NOT WANT" posts if they're sticking to an idea, 'cause it wastes everyone's time.

 

 

 

*I know we're not always meant to make IA's, it's just that's what I comment on most of the time.

[PorridgeMeister]

I don't think that I'd consider myself a regular of the Liber if I didn't feel obliged to read this thread and leave a comment. It seems quite clear to me that this started on account of Wargamer's controversial IA, which featured partially female, Russ-succeeding, geneseed-stealing Marines.

 

Octavulg

 

@1: In my view, the Liber is a club, but is an open one where anyone can join at any time and give their say on what they want. Despite this, I say it is a club because whenever someone posts a thread, there is always a certain group of people who will respond with their view. Regarding sources, we can hardly be expected to include sources in our argument if said sources have already been cited - what matters is that you have shown that you think something should be changed in order to improve the IA, then you say what it is, even if it has already been said. As someone who started off by posting a rather bad IA in this forum, I was helped when members who thought something was wrong were supported by others saying the same thing, as it reassured me that I needed to change something.

 

@2: If a member posts a thread which is completely contrary to what has been enumerated many times as a bad idea, and expects us to help them, then they should be ready to take a certain amount of flakk when members point this out to them and the OP tries to defend it. This is because if I say my marines are ponymen from Jupiter and were born out of Abaddon's left eyeball, how can you not comment on that - that is unless I outright state "I don't want people to comment on this", which I think people should do in the future so we avoid all this heated debate on something that is not going to change.

 

@3: Agreed, even though I have been guilty of being over-zealous sometimes and not quoting my sources in absolutely every post I make. Yet I have never taken to a thread and posted something just for the sake of criticism, acting always with the intention of helping the user in question - as have most members of the Liber.

 

@Recent discussion on the nature of canon: I'm wavering between agreeing with different users, yet I think it is very important to note that our perception of the canon does not change with every edition - if that were true, then we'd be inclined to state in our IAs that all of our Chapters are jealous of the Ultramarines and want to be them, if they were not (and I quote fully) "dying aberrants". This is certainly not the case, as most of us can testify.

 

Summary of my opinion:

- I think that users should in future tell us immediately if there is something that they won't change no matter what, and what perceptions of the canon they should have.

- If there is nothing mentioned in the OP about something immutable in their view, and they include such a thing, then it is fair enough for responding users to comment on this negatively and point out good reasons supported with recognized fluff, so long as they act with the intention of helping the OP.

- If a user has already made a point with a reputable source quote, successive users should not be criticized for saying "what User#1 said".

- If there is something responding users don't like in a post/thread/IA, then they should completely ignore it as SCL has already said.

- Responding users should always refer to the excellent DIY Help stickies in their first post so that we don't end up regurgitating what has already been said.

- That said, new authors should probably read said articles before posting and state they have done so.

 

I think if this is done, then we can avoid maximum confusion and work as efficiently as possible to address the issues that the OP has brought to our attention or those we bring up of own accord, in order to help the OP improve their article or help resolve whatever issue they bring up - as Octavulg pointed out, this is the whole point of the Liber. Any thoughts on this?

[TrashMan]

@2: If a member posts a thread which is completely contrary to what has been enumerated many times as a bad idea, and expects us to help them, then they should be ready to take a certain amount of flakk when members point this out to them and the OP tries to defend it. This is because if I say my marines are ponymen from Jupiter and were born out of Abaddon's left eyeball, how can you not comment on that - that is unless I outright state "I don't want people to comment on this", which I think people should do in the future so we avoid all this heated debate on something that is not going to change.

 

This. A milion times this. You put it better than I did.

[Wargamer]

I'd just like to point something out that seems a bit... farcical to me.

 

Perhaps it's how it's been worded, but some people are making it sound as though "canon" is something that anyone can create.

 

This is not true - "canon", used in the context of a fictional setting like Star Wars, Star Trek or (in our case) 40K, is "whatever the creators deem official."

 

We are not creators. We are not even close. We are fans, and nothing we create is canon. At best, it seeks to imitate canon, or sound as though it could be canon or (far, far more likely) it supports and reinforces the bits of canon we like.

 

Further to that is the simple fact that 40K has no canon. This has been said by official GW sources many times; everything is true, for a given value of true. People will bias their recollections based on their own beliefs; information may be mistranslated, or misplaced, or misunderstood. We know from real life that you can alter how people recall an event just by what language you use to prompt them. An example of this is the 'contact / crash' test. Show someone a video of a motor collision and ask them about it using the words 'made contact'. Then ask another group who saw the same video, but use the word 'crashed'. People who are asked to describe vehicles making contact judge them to have gone slower, and recall less damage, debris, etc. than those who are describing a crash... yet the source material is identical for both groups.

 

I have always said 40K fluff should be judged as a collective whole; we pool all the pieces, we hold them up next to one another, and we look for what fits and what doesn't. Then, having found things that don't seem to agree, we go with whichever one has the most support from the rest of our source material. This is why nobody argues that Fenris isn't the Space Wolf homeworld, even though some sources say it isn't.

However, even this is far from perfect. One of the biggest holes in this methodology is, once again, personal bias.

Is there anything in fluff to defy the existence of the Storm Raven? No, but I still won't recognise it as canon. I consider it a cheap entry into the setting, shoehorned in with a vague notion of "it's a Thunderhawk for when Thunderhawks can't be Thunderhawks due to being too big and Thunderhawky," and then the obligatory, "relic from the Age of Strife" bollocks was tagged on for good measure. It exists purely to try and up GW's revenue because nobody could possibly have one prior to the Blood Angels Codex, and that for me is not a good enough reason to be accepted as part of the universe.

Yet despite my refusal to recognise the canon of the Storm Raven, I do accept the Storm Eagle. You might find that strange, but consider how Forgeworld described it; a second-line support craft. Virtually everything we see in 40K is front-line, meaning it is plausible that Storm Eagles have always been there, in the same way that the Guard have always had supply vehicles and bulk carriers and so on. The Storm Raven fails because it tries to be something we already have - a Thunderhawk. The Storm Eagle is intended to complement what we already have, and so gets a pass.

 

I feel like I'm wandering off from my original point, so allow me to produce the tl:dr version:

 

• Nothing fans make is canon.
  
• The very existence of 'canon' in 40K is debatable.
  
• Everyone perceives what is and is not 'canon' differently.
  

 

Just thought I'd throw that in for people to keep in mind.

[Dark Apostle Thirst]

DAT - agree with a lot of what you say, but don't think we can ever tell someone - "that's just a bad idea that won't work" in the expectation that this will get them to stop with the idea or stop others enjoying it or wanting to help them try to make the idea work.

 

Think the most we can say is "in my opinion this idea always gets stuck on X and Y. I personally don't like it, so if you're set on including it, I'm going to wish you good luck and leave the conversation to others to carry on with you."

 

@2: If a member posts a thread which is completely contrary to what has been enumerated many times as a bad idea, and expects us to help them, then they should be ready to take a certain amount of flakk when members point this out to them and the OP tries to defend it. This is because if I say my marines are ponymen from Jupiter and were born out of Abaddon's left eyeball, how can you not comment on that - that is unless I outright state "I don't want people to comment on this", which I think people should do in the future so we avoid all this heated debate on something that is not going to change.

 

This. A milion times this. You put it better than I did.

 

This thought process bothers me to no end.

 

If you came to the Liber, it's so that you can take the advice of the people here. First and foremost, that is what the Liber is for. Quality control. If you don't want to hear us then abide by your own 'if it doesn't make someone happy don't say it' and simply not post your Index at all.

 

I know there are people who just want to share with their fellow hobbyists. The people of the Liber speak most often to make sure what you have can be accepted within the rest of the community here on the BnC. If you want to post it on the BnC, then why don't you want to make it so that most everybody here is at least willing to think it's legitamite?