Octavulg

I know I'm a bit late to this discussion, but having actually put an issue together I can offer some insight. As to the specifics: too much content is definitely a problem. If I were eyeballing it, over the timeline described I'd say people can handle 2-3 articles each, tops, and the overall editor and layout guy should do none (depending, of course, on how positions are broken down). Reviewing the imprint, I wrote like five articles and edited like five more. Or more than that, even. That's too much. Checking those dates, the draft table of contents is in May of 2011 (though some notes in the files make me think we started well before then), the issue released in...whenever it released. So at least 13 months, probably more like 18. I remember thinking the time it was taking was ridiculous. There WAS a significant wait between having it done and release, but not that significant. Do something smaller, and definitely aim for showcasing what already exists rather than creating new content. At most one new-to-issue thing per issue. That said, I think one new-to-issue thing per issue could serve a useful purpose. A BIG bottleneck was the difficulty of having to do all the layout, because it's very hard to break that down over multiple people. I would urge either extremely simple layout, or only one person having to do it. I did it in Word, since that's what I had. Surprisingly doable, also surprisingly annoying. I would also note that people need to be using the same software for editing and drafting. I had Word, others had other stuff (I think. It is over a decade ago now), making the articles play nice together was a nightmare, especially since we were doing all the coordination through PM since that was how the board was set up at the time (and things like Discord did not yet exist). That bit would likely be easier today for a bunch of reasons. You'll also need to ponder whether you want content submitted, content you find, or both. And whether you want to showcase already popular stuff, or try for more obscure things. The Librarium was, in theory, supposed to serve much the same purpose as this magazine seems to intend (and I think a magazine may be a better format for it), but if you are selecting stuff it hurts the feelings of those overlooked, and if people are submitting stuff you may become a quality indicator or end goal whether you want to or not. Careful thought is required regarding that aspect. As to the footnotes, I did not 'impose' them (at least I certainly don't recall anyone particularly wanting endnotes), nor were they overkill given the purpose of the articles containing them. Footnotes were used in the fluff articles for two reasons: first, endnotes are the devil and inferior to footnotes unless your note is extremely lengthy (barring internal PDF linkage or hyperlinkage, in which case they're roughly equivalent). Second, hobby discussion at the time had a huge trend of "oh, I read somewhere" and the footnotes put the original source of the information right there, on the page, where even the most stupid of readers can find it. Basically, the idea was to prioritize the actual official material over "some guy wrote it and put it on the Internet." I recall that being one of the explicit goals of the articles (which were written by the sort of people who care about that sort of thing, so minimal human misery was created by requiring actual citations). I used them in the campaign report because stopping the battle report to explain the rules seemed disruptive to those who did know them, while making people check the end of the article for needed explanation seemed unwise. There are many things about the Imprint I'd do differently now. But footnotes were the right choice, and I'll fight the man who says different. :P Good luck, Dos. Hope it's worked out. :)

Neat, if somewhat complicated. "Everything backwards" is always a complicated concept, of course, because of where to draw the line on what is to be reversed. Anyway... I'd have the Primarchs be created by the Emperor from Chaos magic - he seeks to rule Chaos, after all. Then they turn on him because his Warmaster is convinced of the wisdom of Malal. Or atheism. Or an alien coalition, seeking to use the forces of humanity to wipe Chaos from the galaxy. Or all three, even. One can even argue that each Primarch represents a different facet of Chaos. There are several reasons to do this, but most prominently is it keeps them much more unified conceptually and related to each other. If they were really scattered across the galaxy, their armies would all be wildly different and probably not Space Marines (and clones of Primarches =/= Space Marines). If they all start from the single source, it simplifies things, and you still get your Emperor-as-Daemon-Prince and Chaos-as-tool options. Also, if the creation of a Space Marine involves Chaos magic, there is an obvious source for corruption etc, yet also a reason for Chaos to be being approached in a systemic-as-a-tool fashion. I'd lean toward the alien council idea, or possibly having some of the more looks/efficiency/whatever-obsessed Primarchs become disgusted with the Chaos corruption the Emperor is pushing. If the Orks are orderly and regimented, it is hard to explain how incredibly disciplined and intelligent fungus-spore-men don't literally own the galaxy. Also, the Laer should definitely be pro-Emperor somehow.

If you mean "don't have companies that hunt the Fallen in the DA sense" that would be hard (relatively). If you mean "their Fallen-hunting formations aren't set up like those in other DA chapters" that's probably easy - a shortage of Terminator armour can explain a power-armoured First Company. As to the lack of a Ravenwing...it's not like hunting the Fallen across space requires bikes and speeders. They just think the Codex is a little better suited to their situation than having the unique DA formations. Perhaps the Fallen-knowing is more evenly distributed among the companies than is otherwise usual?

I like this (and I almost never like Iron hands successors), but think you need to explain more about the keys at the front end. Exactly what they do, for example. A reminder of who, exactly, The Beast is would be a good idea as well.

You have 3200-odd words in about seven paragraphs. That's...not a good ratio. I'd strongly recommend breaking it up a little more to make it more readable.

The length is OK. But the distribution of that length needs some work. More time to establishing stuff, a bit less to the result.

...On the 29th of January, the Octaguide will be five years old. Considering I remember the heated debates and veiled insults that spawned it, that makes me feel old. And I'm too young to feel old. That said, that means it's time for an update. So, anyone who's willing, rip it to shreds. Or tell me things you feel people currently lack guidance on. And so on.

I like the concept (though I would). And disagree that this is somehow missing the point of using the DA - mucking around with the Fallen is the whole point of using the DA, and that can include pointedly NOT using the Fallen. Looking at it, you're moving through things too fast. There needs to be some more establishment of the chapter as-they-were. Then build things up slowly. You race through to the decision, then dwell on it. Spread things out a bit more. AoA is a good call for this. I'm not sure your portrayal of them rings true, though. They won't accept guilt for the Fallen, but will accept guilt for these guys? Doesn't seem consistent. Me, I'd leave the ultimate reaction of the rest of the Unforgiven unresolved - swords of Damocles are more fun than answers.

baldur27: Possible. But glancing over it quickly, most of the events are Imperium-wide. Even those that aren't are big enough that they'd stil have an Imperium-wide impact. Dosjetka/Olis: You say that as though I haven't all molded you all in my image such that my presence is constant, whether I'm actually here or not. (EDIT: It's nice to be back. :))

Draakur: There's a source for everything in that timeline except a few of the founding dates. And those are pretty clearly marked. Wouldn't be a point to it otherwise, IMO. :) And you all had input, Olis. In the sense that you were all free to provide me with sources for things and I'd add them. :P

Nova Hawks. By miles. Throne Knights, if Nova Hawks doesn't suit.

So long as the geneseed isn't nailed down, no RAW problems at all. If it IS nailed down, you're technically stuck with the Chapter Tactics of whatever Chapter they succeed.

Good plan, though you do run into the possibility that RAW jerks won't let you do it. Of course, who cares if you can't play with RAW jerks? I've actually thought the Black Templar rules might represent the Stone Hearts well. But Ultramarines rules will do, if it ever actually becomes necessary. Also, you could take Crusaders without Neophytes. There's a few options that are close enough to Codex to be interesting, IMO (melee weapons instead of heavy weapons, LRCs as transports).

Tyrel and Stone Hearts are all GW. Tyrion is totally ASoIaF (it was a subtler reference in 2008), but the rest is sheer coincidence.