65 replies to this topic

[TrashMan]

Further to that is the simple fact that 40K has no canon.

I disagree.

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.

And yet the cras happened at a specific speed with a very specific amount of damage. You are equating manipulation of a flawed human recollection process (or flawed memory) with there not being a factual truth.

I can, at any point, re-check various lore and fluff. It would be fresh in my memory.

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.

But it is canon.
You know it. This isn't even open to interpretation - you jsut deliberately deny it out of spite/dislike.

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.

But it's not you who decides what is part of the universe or not.
I can dislike Dath Vader as much as I want, but he IS part of Star Wars.

Edited by TrashMan, 17 May 2012 - 11:53 AM.

[King Willy]

This like the whole puritan and radical thing the all seing I has.

One group wants everything written on paper and nothing else to be used.
the other wants everyone to write something on paper and nothing else to be used.

[PorridgeMeister]

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?

Don't get me wrong - I completely understand and support that the Liber's purpose is a place where people share their work and/or need help to improve it.

What I'm saying is that people should say "I've taken into account your advice regarding things like 'female marines', but I still want to do this." If they say this, it's completely fine with me - it would just be good to get some clarification and have the OP tell us he realizes our points are valid; the rage triggered from Wargamer's thread was not because he was doing something that we didn't like, but because he was saying our points about the difficulty of pulling off female marines were incorrect. An example of this in practice is that you don't see me descending on Madwolf Shadowbane's thread in a tumult of nerdrage because he has Space Wolf successors - that's because the execution was good - no offence meant to Wargamer (I think your IA is actually starting to shape up).

Besides, I'm not saying as Aegnor put it "don't do this, it'll never work" - more like "I wouldn't do this if I were you because..."
I don't want to tell people what to do - I want to advise people what to do, and just like Trashman, I happen to be a bit more vocal when doing this.

[Wargamer]

And yet the cras happened at a specific speed with a very specific amount of damage. You are equating manipulation of a flawed human recollection process (or flawed memory) with there not being a factual truth.

I can, at any point, re-check various lore and fluff. It would be fresh in my memory.

You completely miss the point. Yes, there must be specifics involved - in theory, it is possible to know the exact speed and amount of damage. In theory. However, you are not given that information. You are only given the accounts of the witnesses. You can try to decide what the truth is by comparing them, but for all you know the one guy who got it right was the one you dismissed because his version wasn't in sync with everyone else's.

Allow me to give an example: Imagine that I own Games Workshop, and one day I come in and say "Right guys, the Thirteenth Black Crusade never happened. Don't mention it, don't talk about the aftermath of it, it never happened." That's the truth - solid, immutable, inarguable. Nobody ever mentions Abaddon invading, using the Blackstone Fortresses to blow up a planet and, by a consequence, Eldrad is technically alive because the events that killed him never took place.

I don't tell you that. I don't get any of my employees to mention this, either in interviews or in source material. In short, there is no way for you, as a customer, to know that GW has declared the Thirteenth Black Crusade to be non-canon.

So... did the Black Crusade happen? You will say yes. You are wrong, but you assume you are right based on the evidence at hand.

This is why 40K has no canon. GW do not say things outright, they say it indirectly. Conversion Beamers, for example. They were in 1st Edition, but not in 2nd, 3rd or 4th. Were they canon then? When did they stop being canon? I think most people here would, by third Edition, agree that Conversion Beamers were no longer a part of the 40K universe, and thus should not be mentioned.
Come 5th Edition, they're back. Hell, Forgeworld loves the things and is sticking them on every vehicle that'll hold one! They are canon again. Perhaps their useage is not the same (I doubt we'll see them as an option for a 'standard' heavy weapon Marine), but they are most certainly official in the 40K universe... yet they weren't last Edition, or the one before, or the one before.

You need to be careful when you use the word 'canon' in regards to 40K.

[Grey Hunter Ydalir]

In fact, I’ve been here so long I remember when Grey Hunter Ydalir’s claims that he would finish his chapter were believable.

You know what, I would resent that if it weren't true. That said, I haven't given up, I'm just resigned to the fact that for the moment, it isn't on the cards.

But I digress, I'll give you that one.

This topic has been long in coming and I have to admit I have been a guilty party to peer-pressure of a kind simply because a lot of my ideas of the 40k universe have and still do fall mostly within the community defined limits of the fluff.

I'm not saying I don't still at times jump onto a community-driven bandwagon, but now I'm more of the mind that it takes a milder, more measured approach than the more common smack with a 'rules 2 by 4', since more often than not it makes people dig their heels in more and become too defensive and instantly closes the mind, where we should be opening it.

In the topic KHK linked I can see both the good, the bad and the ugly in the Liber, whether it was the fault of OP or the posters, it doesn't really matter at this point. I've seen it before, I've been in the OP's shoes, we all have.

It's the life cycle of the Liber. You come in and you think your idea is top notch, or you're too blinded to what people are trying to say to you, or too enamored with your own views and opinions. It's natural and it usually comes from either viewing the material in a vacuum or within a small group of similarly minded individuals.

It's only when you get onto the Internet and interact with the wider community that you truly come under honest scrutiny and proper criticism. Yes that can often come mixed in with some less than helpful comments and opinions, but it's there nonetheless.

Typically the newcomer will then adapt their views to fit in with the community, whether that entails changing their ideas or the way they present them. Then they begin to push the community views, and this happens more or less with everyone. We all band together on certain things.

What you get after being here for a long time is often a more individual viewpoint. You separate from the community while still being a part of it, and think more independently again, forming divergent and wiser, more measured and compassionate views, even if you're not willing to bend on an issue you're generally more understanding of the person you're up against.


I'm sure Octavulg has seen this all before and from what I've seen recently it's true, I've done a lot of lurking lately myself and I tend to agree. While things vary here and there, I can see the problems the Liber regulars are coming up against. I can see what the problems are but you guys need to take a step back and stop responding emotionally, no matter the provocation.

It's not worth it for you, for the OP or for the Liber. If you find you can't respond with anything other than vitriol or the defensive backing of your own beliefs then you should walk away. It's never worth it.

I hear a lot of justification for it, 'I can't let him get away with it' or 'but all my points are valid!' in the end it doesn't matter. It's ego, either on your part or theirs and neither is a good thing.

Others haven't done this once, and they still stick around because of their love of the community. I'm talking about people like Ace Debonair and Grey Hunter Ydalir, Silver Phoenix, Dark Apostle Thirst, and so many others.

Wow, I've become known for not finishing my IA's. I really need to remedy that.

You know what? I do love this community. I do, it has some fantastic people here, some funny, witty and supportive. But just like any group of individuals, it can have a dark side, which is usually the lesser grounded members of the community jumping on whatever bandwagon is going to gain some sort of kudos with other similar members of said community.


I might be ranting now but it's gotten to the point in writing this that I feel like I need to vent.

I openly dislike terms such as 'canon' being thrown around. Or 'established fluff'. It's absolute rubbish. It's just applying a certain term to your shared opinion that legitimizes it as 'law', which it never is.

If you can explain your viewpoint with logic and why you believe things to be a certain way, that is better than simply slapping a 'canon' or even 'shared universe' label on it.

We should be promoting the sharing and discussing of different viewpoints and ideas rather than sticking to one particular vein of thought. This is the Liber Astartes, not the Legion subforums, creativity should be king.

Just to touch on one last subject before I take my leave from what has devolved into my ranting and raving.

These 'hard-liners' as BroTyler so eloquently put it. This kind of group mentality in terms of enforcing a viewpoint that is common within that particular group is nothing more than ego based pandering to one another. You gain kudos and as other people rally around you you gain this sort of crowd based euphoria, that you're right and a wise and thoughtful member of the community because you're enforcing it's commonly held views.

It's absolutely ridiculous and it only get's really pulled into the limelight when someone like Octavulg decides to make a point of it.

(Please note, I'm not trying to gain Octy's favour either. He's still one of my biggest detractors and I'd like to keep it that way. Having a good critic keeps you honest.)

We all need to take a step back and stop defending ourselves or our positions within the community and work to change it for the better.

The community enforces it's own rules, sure, fine. That same community is also duty bound to improve itself as well. That involves change sometimes, not just enforcing the status-quo.


*Edit*

Let me just say, I am not in favour of female marines and quite strongly disagree with a lot of the opinions expressed in the linked topic in KHK's post. I don't agree with the thought processes on display, mostly on the OP's side of the fence but a lot of forceful opinions that are coming up on the criticism side are just not with it either.

Just clarifying.

Edited by Grey Hunter Ydalir, 17 May 2012 - 12:31 PM.

[Aegnor]

My final contribution to this thread will be to say, internet or no, whether you feel you're correct or no, whether you're the one putting forward an idea others don't like or one of the people responding to that idea, I'd simply say this:

"It's nice to be right, but its also right to be nice".

We're a community. We don't have to all like each other, or all be sweetness and light to each other, but the fact is that for all of us who come back here regularly, we do so because it's a wonderful forum to discuss our particular (let's be honest) niche passion. Most of us want to have a chat or a good natured argument about the hobby we love, not get into arguments where the debate becomes personal and people actually get upset and feel offended. We can all do our bit to keep this forum being a nice place while still being forthright in your opinions and speaking your mind.

[Dremen]

I'm not the most frequent poster, nor the most helpful when I do post, however, there is something that I feel needs to be touched on (or touched again if I've overtly missed it earlier). The 40k hobby, and by extension the B&C, is about enjoying ones self. The B&C has been an invaluable resource for list building, fine tuning my writing (both IA and otherwise), and for a great social enviroment focused on my hobby.

I tend to stick to the "cannon" if such a thing truely exists. However, thanks to my sister I have made a significant divergance from the cannon. Nothing need be said about the love between siblings, and she recently picked up the hobby to spend time with me since we see each other so little. She asked me to make a Chapter for her around the EXACT topic this debate was sparked from. Female Marines. Its been months in the making with more than one re-write. Is it part of the "official" story, no. Is it a story that helps with the enjoyment of the hobby, Yes, most definetly yes. I had'nt shared it here until I have a more working copy of the IA. (Don't worry I expect and can handle the backlash) Now why would I share it knowing full well what is to come? Simple. To get a better grasp of the story I'm writing to make sure that, despite the fact it does'nt fit the official story, it is at least plausible in the 40k framework.

It would allow my sister to take her army to a big tournament with a good story and a unique army. Giving her more enjoyment from the hobby and, by proxy, me as well. Really isn't fun what the hobby is all about? The Liber is here to help mould stories and make the fluff part of the hobby more enjoyable. To me its a giant board of editors and critics there to improve the writing but at the same time be respectful of the work of others. Would I like to see an army of, lets say, Sisters of battle who ride to war on pink ponies and shoot rsinbows from thier bolters? Not really. WIll I help another writer make the it plausible inside the framework of 40k? Yes. Regardless of wether I respect someones view or end goal with thier army I WILL show respect to the writer. Both for the courage to post something of themselves out here and for the respect for the hobby to ask for help making it better.

Noone, not the greatest writer or the best painter, has the right to tell someone "its not possible" simply because they don't agree with it. Simply put, if you don't like it, walk away. If you do like it or feel that, as part of a community, you must post either criticism or support then do so with respect to another person regardless of wether you agree with them or not. Things in the 40k universe are rarely black and white, right or wrong. Its all shades of grey, mutible and changing as the hobby evolves.

And I realise I've been rambling. Simply put, this forum exists as a place for Hobby enthusiasts to come together and share the hobby. Just because Your version of the hobby differs from another is no reason to be overly detracting of the person who is sharing thier version. Cannon or no we all enjoy this hobby in our own way. No way is better. No way is worse.

[Wargamer]

It's "canon", not "cannon." The former is doctrine, the second is what you shoot people with.

I realise the difference may often be obscure, but please try to use the right word, lest we start getting topics about spaced mariner chapters.

[Dark Apostle Thirst]

Don't get me wrong - I completely understand and support that the Liber's purpose is a place where people share their work and/or need help to improve it.

What I'm saying is that people should say "I've taken into account your advice regarding things like 'female marines', but I still want to do this." If they say this, it's completely fine with me - it would just be good to get some clarification and have the OP tell us he realizes our points are valid; the rage triggered from Wargamer's thread was not because he was doing something that we didn't like, but because he was saying our points about the difficulty of pulling off female marines were incorrect. An example of this in practice is that you don't see me descending on Madwolf Shadowbane's thread in a tumult of nerdrage because he has Space Wolf successors - that's because the execution was good - no offence meant to Wargamer (I think your IA is actually starting to shape up).

Besides, I'm not saying as Aegnor put it "don't do this, it'll never work" - more like "I wouldn't do this if I were you because..."
I don't want to tell people what to do - I want to advise people what to do, and just like Trashman, I happen to be a bit more vocal when doing this.

Completely understand, actually. I'm still not entirely supportive of female marines, but as I have my own sister I'm much more inclined to let it by at the very least. It also helps that she's not trying to get the Liber to accept it

[Octavulg]

Delayed action responses are the best kind of response. Fact.

Responses to Rafen_2, War Angel, 11th Company Dark Master, Trashman, Aegnor, and Valkyrion.

Rafen_2

I'm on Octavulg's side for this one.

Of course you are, you handsome and intelligent fellow, you.

I then moved on and decided to return back to it later (with a much different point of view tongue.gif). I met some people who were real good about it (Olisredan being one of them I remember) and others who I won't name who were just there to be negative. I remember said person actually summed up one of my whole sections by saying, "This is one big fail lol." Yet again I saw the same situation as I did my first time. When I asked him why and pointed out how rude it was he simply said that he already mentioned he would be harsh. There is a difference between being harsh and being a complete censored.gif.

Indeed. Harsh still implies a certain productivity.

Anyway at the end of the day it has come to a point where I feel almost terrified whenever I even think about making an article about my guys. I noticed that the members of this "club" seem to treat each other with open minds enjoying each others' ideas but when someone who isn't part of it says something different it won't work.

Ydalir told me "no", once, back when I was new. I kicked his ass.* Stand up for yourself. Politely, but firmly. It works (and hauling out the report button won't necessarily hurt).

As to the tendency you mention...there is some assumption of competence amongst people who know each other, I think. Whether this is fair is a more difficult question, but I don't think it's because people are dicks (well, probably not, anyway).

If you're that worried about it, post in a few weeks when I have actual time to read it and remind me that I promised to lambaste anyone who was unreasonable to you.

*Blatant exaggeration at best, flat-out lie at worst. His words were wise, and forced rethinking.

Plus there are some things that just shouldn't be corrected such as Chapter name or colors. If they like that name and scheme it isn't a problem for you to correct (unless there is a case where the name is in official fluff and same with color scheme).

Vile calumny. All aspects of a chapter are open to criticism. Chapter names can be unsuitable (a Blood Angels successor named the Ultra Wolves). Color schemes can give the wrong impression (a stealthy, violent chapter called the Dark Shadows who wear hot pink armor and whose emblem is a daisy). People who think that creating a chapter just involves writing are incorrect - a chapter is a cohesive whole. Yes, the writing is important, and often the larger part, but color schemes and names matter - maybe more, because people will see them first in many cases.

* * *
War Angel

I agree with octavulg. There's plenty of examples where people are spending more time jabbing at things the writer refuses to move on, then trying to assist those who are actualy wanting help.

Not my point, actually. While I don't generally think pestering people is a good idea, I'm a lot more tolerant of it when it's done through the medium of well-reasoned objection. This bout of complaining is anti-not-explaining-things.

Btw, there is a way to do successor space wolves. I think I've see. It some where, where the chapter thinks a company to be gone forever, and replaces them only to find that the company had been lost in the warp. Might have been renegades though, I don't remember

Sure you're not thinking of Space Wolf Lost Companies?

* * *
11th Company Dark Master

More often than not we are told what is wrong, and not how to fix it. If you are at the stage of writing an IA article then you should understand the basics of why it is wrong, what the rest of us should learn to do is offer advice on how to fix that. For example, in my own IA I have worked long and hard to correct things that are considered boring, unfluffy and simply poor writing and I have had to do a lot of it by my self. Yes, some people are kinder than others (some are very blunt...one in particular but I like his bluntness), but what I noticed is when something is pointed out as wrong, unfluffy very few people offer a option B. I know some people would say that to do so makes the IA no longer the authors, but a good critic will read the IA and get a feel for it allowing them to make a good suggestion, which the author can use to make his article better.

I have commented on this in the past, and will do so again because I love repeating myself. Sort of.

The difficulty here is (as you anticipated me saying), you end up writing the IA for the author. But there is an additional (and far more petty problem): it's not worth it.

1) I have a limited number of good ideas at any one time. If I have to come up with one every time I find a problem, I'm either going to start repeating myself or I'm going to run out. Probably both.
2) When I DO do the above, 9 times out of 10 the author does whatever the hell they want anyway.
3) #2 is absolutely infuriating to me. I'm awesome, dammit, and people should seize on all of my ideas as if they were precious jewels, only more valuable. Plus, if I have an idea I really like and nobody uses it, I feel obligated to. And if I write any more chapters I'll have some kind of mental problem.

On the other hand, if the author just asks for help with a problem when he needs it and otherwise solves it himself, I get to save up ideas (unless I've got one so good I feel compelled to share), I don't get annoyed, and the author gets to use the ideas he'll probably like best anyway - his own.

Petty? Maybe. Effective? Oh yes.

* * *
TrashMan

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

Because of why it gets those things wrong, I know there is no worth to it.

Collective wisdom gets things wrong because it doesn't rely on evidence or logic. It relies on what everyone says. It doesn't correct people with evidence or reasoning - it corrects them with peer pressure.

Collective knowledge is excellent. Collective experience is great. Collective wisdom is dangerous and should be burned with fire. Question everything.

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

I've certainly seen a variety of people claim it in the past. It doesn't come up often, mind you.

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

Depends. If you have something new to add, it should be added. If you don't, a polite "I agree with the reasons of X" is much more useful than "no, you shouldn't do that". The one has reasoning behind it. The other is arbitrary and will be treated as such.

Yes, this is often wasted effort. If you didn't want to feel like you were a little Dutch boy with a badly-constructed dike you shouldn't have gotten into criticism in the first place.

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?

So don't bother.

* * *
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.

And you have stumbled onto why I wrote a guide. Which I need to update with an Appendix on why Female Marines are Bad and You Should Feel Bad.

OK, the other reason I wrote a guide, besides making gratuitous pop culture references in the titles of all the subsections.

Also, the DIY Guide is supposed to serve this purpose, but doesn't (IMO) go into enough detail to really serve that purpose.

* * *
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.

Yes. Why. Always why. Always.

You could replace the entire Liber Astartes with a particularly inquisitive three year old and do more good, simply because "why" is the best question we can ask.

Admittedly, the larger vocabulary helps.

'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'.

Edited by Octavulg, 18 May 2012 - 06:40 AM.

[Octavulg]

MASSIVE FOLLOWUP POST 2: THE RECKONING

Responses to Aegnor, Brother Tyler, SnakeoilSage, Razblood, TrashMan, PorridgeMeister, Grey Hunter Ydalir, and Dremen

Aegnor

[Response to Valkyrion]

Also true.

* * *
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.

And asking "why" is the most critical, most useful, and probably most effective element of doing that. Both in the sense of asking for in-universe explanations of the things happening in the IA and asking for out-of-universe explanations of the author's decisions.

* * *
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.

Actually, the beauty of the whole "there is no canon" angle is that we're just as valid as they are. Just with a slightly different publishing deal.

And better editing.

* * *
Razblood

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.

Ah, but there are two approaches to canon - is canon the weight of material, or the recency.

Personally, I go more with the weight - the line that has been espoused the most is the most accurate. Thus, that whole Draigo thing NEVER HAPPENED BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

And so I sleep well at night.

* * *
Dark Apostle Thirst

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.

Actually, I was one of two people. Technically, I quoted you and a fictionalized version of myself.

I must remember to collect some royalties.

2) Actually, this is a club. There's one problem though - it's not an exclusive club.

A club is an organization.* We are not an organization. There is no list of members, there is no leadership, there are no meetings. We might be a community, but we are not a club. We do not control who enters, and (perhaps most importantly) we do not get to determine what beliefs are acceptable amongst the membership and what are not, and justify those determinations with 'it's the Law of the Liber'. And we don't get to do that last because of all those other things.

It might be fair to call us a community. But the regulars of the Liber Astartes are not a club.

*Did you really miss that club was being used in the sense of "exclusive organization with barriers to membership"?

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.

So you're not wrong for telling him he should not pursue his idea without offering a logical reason why not, he's wrong for having an idea that you know to be wrong.

If an idea is not worth pursuing, demonstrate that it is not worth pursuing. It being against the community's preference is not a reason in and of itself, and it should not be used as one, for three reasons.

First, its utility as a tool of persuasion is basically nil. You are relying on the author respecting the opinion of the faceless guy on the internet telling him his ideas are bad and so he should stop having them because you say so. Why is he going to listen to you, again? I didn't, back when I was young. I listened to the people who explained their criticisms.

Second, it is pathetically easy to defeat: "a lot of people here don't like this idea as a rule" -> "I don't care". And all is lost for you within seconds. You have two choices: give up, or begin using reason. And if you choose the second, he is now disinclined to listen to you because you showed up and began pushing him around without explaining yourself. Well done.

Third, as I've mentioned before, it makes people lazy and unquestioning, which is bad in a critic. You end up believing things that are wrong and passing those beliefs on. This is dangerous and bad.

And besides, as you admit yourself, you can't force this belief on anyone. You can't force any belief on anyone. You've just admitted that what you're doing won't work! So why are you doing it?

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?

Except reasons why that chapter is a bad idea are easy to produce.

1) Superman is an alien. The Emperor would have purged him.
2) Superman is an alien. He can't be a Space Marine due to genetic incompatibility.
3) Superman's lifespan is not 30,000 years plus.
4) Superman derives his powers from the radiation of Earth's yellow sun. He is thus ill-suited to life as an interstellar warrior.
5) Krypton blew up.
6) If Superman got possessed, he would be incredibly dangerous. The Imperium would have wiped him out long ago (and Superman might even have cooperated).
7) People who read this idea will find it jarringly out-of-keeping with the 40K universe - it's a blatant reference to another fictional character whose tone is very inconsistent with that of 40K.
8) Superman would likely hate the Imperium. They're evil, after all. So evil.
9) Superman would be insane, having witnessed the deaths of hundreds, thousands, or even millions of friends and loved ones over the years.

If reasons are easy to produce, they should be produced, because it is easy - it will gain you much at little cost. If reasons are hard to produce, should you be criticizing the idea in the first place?

In short: explaining yourself will be more effective, no more difficult, more friendly, and more morally consistent with the open and free nature of the Liber Astartes. Doing things your way doesn't work, as you've admitted yourself. And it provides a reliable check on critical impulses by forcing the critic to think about his own criticisms. And if you think about it, there is no reason for there to be exceptions to this for ideas you particularly dislike.

* * *
TrashMan

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.

No. If you express your opinion to the IA maker, and he rejects it, and rejects the counter-argument, leave it alone. You are wasting your time, and his.

But Bob might be aggrivated by Jacks IA.

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

First, because Bob doesn't have to read Jack's IA if he doesn't want to.

Second, because even if Bob drives Jack away from the forum, the IA will still be out there.

And third, because the goddamn forum exists to help Jack create his chapter, not for Bob to complain about things he doesn't like!

* * *
PorridgeMeister

@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.

Much like in all communities, there are some people who are more visible and more vocal than others. But there are no barriers to membership whatsoever. I think clubs with that feature are few and far between.

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.

Then say "I agree with the reasons of X".

@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.

People don't read old threads, FAQs and guides. The ones who do are aberrations. Indeed, the whole community of regulars here are aberrations simply because they are regulars.

In any case, I am not saying don't disagree with people. I'm saying explain yourself when you do it. If you can't explain why marines being ponymen from Jupiter is wrong, you aren't fit to criticize anything. Hell, I'm not sure you'd be fit to dress yourself.

* * *
Grey Hunter Ydalir

(Please note, I'm not trying to gain Octy's favour either. He's still one of my biggest detractors and I'd like to keep it that way. Having a good critic keeps you honest.)

Have you considered making an outline?

* * *
Dremen

I tend to stick to the "cannon" if such a thing truely exists. However, thanks to my sister I have made a significant divergance from the cannon. Nothing need be said about the love between siblings, and she recently picked up the hobby to spend time with me since we see each other so little. She asked me to make a Chapter for her around the EXACT topic this debate was sparked from. Female Marines. Its been months in the making with more than one re-write. Is it part of the "official" story, no. Is it a story that helps with the enjoyment of the hobby, Yes, most definetly yes. I had'nt shared it here until I have a more working copy of the IA. (Don't worry I expect and can handle the backlash) Now why would I share it knowing full well what is to come? Simple. To get a better grasp of the story I'm writing to make sure that, despite the fact it does'nt fit the official story, it is at least plausible in the 40k framework.

Nothing is incompatible with the official story if you explain it properly. Note that some things are practically impossible to explain properly, but that's a hazard one must live with.

Though, oddly, women making female marines bothers me not at all. I wonder why.

[TrashMan]

Allow me to give an example: Imagine that I own Games Workshop, and one day I come in and say "Right guys, the Thirteenth Black Crusade never happened. Don't mention it, don't talk about the aftermath of it, it never happened." That's the truth - solid, immutable, inarguable. Nobody ever mentions Abaddon invading, using the Blackstone Fortresses to blow up a planet and, by a consequence, Eldrad is technically alive because the events that killed him never took place.

I don't tell you that. I don't get any of my employees to mention this, either in interviews or in source material. In short, there is no way for you, as a customer, to know that GW has declared the Thirteenth Black Crusade to be non-canon.

So... did the Black Crusade happen? You will say yes. You are wrong, but you assume you are right based on the evidence at hand.

That is a silly example. If GW wants the Black Crusade to never happen, they will retcon it. They won't just not say anything. You do not create canon by silence.

This is why 40K has no canon. GW do not say things outright, they say it indirectly. Conversion Beamers, for example. They were in 1st Edition, but not in 2nd, 3rd or 4th. Were they canon then? When did they stop being canon? I think most people here would, by third Edition, agree that Conversion Beamers were no longer a part of the 40K universe, and thus should not be mentioned.
Come 5th Edition, they're back. Hell, Forgeworld loves the things and is sticking them on every vehicle that'll hold one! They are canon again. Perhaps their useage is not the same (I doubt we'll see them as an option for a 'standard' heavy weapon Marine), but they are most certainly official in the 40K universe... yet they weren't last Edition, or the one before, or the one before.

What are you talkign about? Conversion beamers are in the 5th edition. Tehy are canon. Period. IF the 6th edition rolls out and they are removed, if GW sez tehy dont' exist anymore, then they woudl stop being canon.

Canon may change but there is always canon at one point in time.

40K has canon. You just want to use flimsy excuses to do whatever the hell you want and re-shape the universe as you see fit, and then claim validity.

[Aegnor]

But GW almost never says something is "no longer canon". Take the conversion beam example. They were always "canon" (as far as such a thing exists in 40K, which isn't far). They disappeared from the codex, but nowhere did GW ever say "conversion beamers don't exist, please ignore all references to them". They always existed, there just werent rules for them in the currenabsentees ration of that army. No codex or rulebook has ever purported to represent every kind of vehicle or weapon available to a faction. The codex rules are simply an abstraction of a fictional army - just cos something isn't in there doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And GW has a demonstrated history of regularly doing away with items, units, weapons etc in one version only to bring them back in a subsequent version. Mole-mortars may be back when 6th Ed Codex: Space Marines arrives. If it's ever been mentioned and not explicitly stated to have been retconned (ie not just absent from subsequent books, which are only representative abstracts), it exists. And GW almost never says "that NEVER existed". Hell, Squats having existed is still canon - they were just all eaten by the Tyranids.

[Aegnor]

Everything that has ever been written about 40K by GW, BL or FFG is "real". It's just that in some cases the "narrator" has got things muddled up, or is lying to you, or is ignorant of contradictory information. It follow that it's all "real" or indeed that in some cases none of the material that's out there is "accurate", all the sources are mistaken and the truth remains to be discovered.

So we're all free to speculate however we want and no-one, including Rick Priestly, Alan Merrett or Jervis, can tell us definitively that we're wrong.

[Wargamer]

The point with the Conversion Beamer, TrashMan, is that for four Editions they vanished. Not just 'they weren't in the Codex', they weren't mentioned anywhere. I can still recall in 3rd Edition there was a passing mention of a Mole Mortar once, but again that too seemed to all but fade into obscurity.

If something is not mentioned for decades at a time, in any fashion within officially published materials, how can you be sure it's still valid? Retconning doesn't always happen in a blunt, out-of-universe "this isn't true" fashion; sometimes a retcon is subtle. Imagine if Marneus Calgar has an amazing hat, one so amazing every author who wrote about him from 1st to 3rd Edition felt the need to mention it every single time.

Then imagine, since 4th Edition, the hat has never been mentioned again. Descriptions of Calgar's office have always missed the legendary hat stand gifted to him by the Emperor himself, and mere mortals have described Calgar's face (an impossibility, as "no mortal can look at his face due to the sheer awesomeness of his hat"). That suggests a retcon, doesn't it?

I can remember having discussions with people about whether some of the old weirdness was 'official' or not. I can remember Ork players (and fans of Ork fluff in general) stating that they didn't think the Shokk Attakk Gunz were canon anymore, since they were pretty much non-existent by that point in time. Yes, they were proven wrong in due course... but by that very same logic, for all we know 6th Edition will give us a Female Space Marine special character who has been a part of the Ultramarines since the days of Hive Fleet Behemoth. After all, they seem to be bringing everything else back from Rogue Trader in some form or another... even Zoats got a mention in one of the Tyranid codices!

[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.

And asking "why" is the most critical, most useful, and probably most effective element of doing that. Both in the sense of asking for in-universe explanations of the things happening in the IA and asking for out-of-universe explanations of the author's decisions.

Yes, and your quote of me completely ignored the sentence that came next:

Asking "why?" is a valuable tool in helping members to provide rational explanations for their DIYs.

Again, though, the statement about the question "why?" doesn't devalue the question. It refers to the purpose of the board. Asking "why?" is something that we often do here in Liber Astartes, but it is not the purpose of this forum.

2) Actually, this is a club. There's one problem though - it's not an exclusive club.

A club is an organization.* We are not an organization. There is no list of members, there is no leadership, there are no meetings. We might be a community, but we are not a club. We do not control who enters, and (perhaps most importantly) we do not get to determine what beliefs are acceptable amongst the membership and what are not, and justify those determinations with 'it's the Law of the Liber'. And we don't get to do that last because of all those other things.

It might be fair to call us a community. But the regulars of the Liber Astartes are not a club.

Actually, there is a list of members. And there are meetings (really, it's one continuous long term meeting). We just happen to be a club (and a community) whose members are dispersed across the globe. This is little different from many fan clubs. The mechanics of things are different, but the end result is the same.

And GW considers us a club.

* * * * *

But things are getting circular.

Addressing the original point, participation in this forum (just like every forum of the B&C) should be constructive. We all have different reasons for being here. We don't all agree on things. While many of us would like DIY authors to conform to certain standards (whether in terms of writing/formatting quality or adherence to our interpretation of the lore), that's an unrealistic expectation and is not a requirement of the B&C. Members are free to subscribe to their own interpretations, and to deviate from the official lore (such as it is). We don't have to like the things that others produce, but that's not an excuse to be rude or disruptive. If someone insists on doing something that you disagree with, your options are to ignore those portions and focus on others or you can ignore the work entirely. You may not continue to disrupt their efforts.

I'm closing this discussion now because we're going down rabbit holes and chasing our tails, and we've been down this road before (see one of my previous replies in this topic for links to previous incarnations of this discussion).