Was rejected by GW in the actual poll Bhvr held, along with Legionary. So no, it's not going to happen, sorry.
They're going to say what they've been saying, which is what they've always saying, and the reason tthese treads are annoying. no, because GW said you're going to be Traitor Marines. Hey guess what I would've loved to see Sisters of Battle as the main Imperial faction. You don't see me constantly remaking threads and trying to get Dev-Senpai to notice me.
its like if your parents told you that you'd get to choose your name if you give them a few options in order of how much you like em. then they name you stankus wipesbane. false options are insulting. either let us choose or don't.
I appreciate you have some strong views on the subject, and have generated some robust responses in return. This poll, and the campaign behind it, isn't an attempt to rewrite history, or describe Chaos as "the good guys", if such a concept even really exists in 40k. No-one is denying that the Imperium has an entirely valid and justified reason to refer to the Chaos Space Marines as traitors. However, that name only makes genuine sense from the Imperial perspective. The Eldar would consider the key difference between the LSM and CSM is that the Chaos Space Marines have openly chosen to align their cause with Chaos - the name traitor isn't one they would use. The Orks distinguish them as Da Spiky Humies compared to Da Ovver Humies; again, they're not especially interested in what happened ten thousand years in the past. Meanwhile, Chaos themselves don't typically refer themselves as traitors - for the most part, the veterans of the long war they believe that the Emperor betrayed them, and that they had good reason for seeking to overthrow him. The decision to leave the Imperium is an important one for the VotLW and many other converters to Chaos or to the non-Chaos renegade groups (also called traitors by the Imperium), but often they wouldn't consider it the single action which defines them as individuals - that's only true in the Imperium's eyes. As a result, what the Imperium thinks isn't a great place to start when naming one of Chaos' classes - indeed, that wasn't the reason the name was chosen. Traitor "won" the original poll to choose the name, with just under 8% of the popular vote. The top three names, covering 66% of votes, were all rejected by GW. Traitor was approved for use. Rightly or wrongly, people voting didn't anticipate this outcome. As we've known since the announcement, and is evidenced in this poll as well, a sizeable chunk of the Chaos faction has never been happy with the use of Traitor Marine as one of our class names. I hesitate to say the majority, because the forum isn't automatically representative of all Chaos players, but this is the second sizeable poll to show 80%+ support in favour of replacing the name Traitor Marine. Some people seem to have interpreted what Katie said in the past as meaning that GW actively chose Traitor Marine, as if they have direct creative oversight over EC. I can't prove they don't, but that would be a pretty weird arrangement. It's much more likely that they're acting as approvers for use of the IP, which means the more popular names put forward were not approved for use by GW, but they considered Traitor Marine to be acceptable and consistent with existing lore. Which, of course, it is - being a term used for a Chaos Space Marine by the Imperium. I don't believe it's the case that Behaviour and/or GW are unable to make a change, and have set out my reasoning around this in previous posts. However, we're not actively engaging with Behaviour yet - we're letting the poll run until either there is, or there isn't, a statistically valid concensus one way or the other on this proposal. At that point we'll raise it with Behaviour and see what they are, or are not, willing to consider. We recognise there is a level of hassle involved for them in terms of seeking GW approval, and that someone has to edit the displayed name of the class, but this is not on the scale of requesting something that would require substantial development effort, such as introducing the Sisters of Battle. It's disingenuous to suggest that it is. I understand that it may annoy you that this discussion has been rolling on in one form or another without actually leading to a proposal to Behaviour. Many of the creators of previous threads had been discussing this and voicing their dissatisfaction individually - the majority of them have now come together into a reasonably-sized group of players actively rallying behind a specific proposal for change; this only happened over the last couple of weeks. It turns out this proposal was not only anecdotally backed by a fairly broad cross-section of chaos and other factions' players, but is also attracting over 90% support from the 100+ people who have voted in this thread so far. I'm confident that we're doing the right thing in collecting evidence to make the case for change to Behaviour, even if doing so comes at the cost of annoying you personally. I'm sorry that you feel driven away from Chaos as a result of this campaign. I must admit, I had thought you'd always been a SM rather than CSM player, but I presume I must be recalling that wrong. Either way, thank you for your input into the discussion, and for explaning why you would prefer that we keep the name Traitor Marine for the Chaos version of the Space Marine Tactical class.
I'm sure that Legionnaire would outvote this suggestion and the current combined(though most anything would probably outvote the current), however this has been tried and rejected without explanation the first time, and I'm running the poll under the assumption that it would be rejected again despite its popularity. If we can't have the best option, I believe we should at least try for something better. Not on any prior occasion, except a noncommittal statement that GW has final say on names when I asked in a Q&A, but this is a formal proposal and now that there is enough respondents to indicate a trend we can see after the weekend if we can get them to take notice.
Digganob don't see da problem dem ova 'umies 'ave wiv ya. Whyz you boyz called tray-tahs? We'z orkz foight eachova all da time! Iz dat not 'ow you 'umies chooz ya boss? You'z roight too a boss dat don't foight ain't a propah boss 'e's not! Iz don't undastand 'ow ya eva fought fer a umie anywayz. Ya spikey gitz shuld just get n' ork fer a boss. Orkz iz da best. Also, dat don't seem long ago it don't. Datz juzt one n' four nots. It ain't even lotz yet. Lotz comez afta five.
I've always been a SM player (and a little Orkish aswell!) and i totally feel the same way as you describe here. "Traitor" is just the emperor (and Space marines) perspective,I suppose the rest of the races see both kind of marines as fanatics to their respective causes, thats why a Caos Marine will never call himself a traitor unless he suddenly join forces with the space marines. On the other hand, i wouldn't call the basic troop "Caos Space Marine" since thats the name of the army itself (is like calling Tacticals "Space marines", every unit is a Space Marine!) and legionnaire sounds like a basic unit from the Ultramarines (I don't feel that is Chaotic enough!)... Maybe something like Chaos Stems since they are the army's spine (i don't know...i'm not very good at putting names )
Eerily enough, Games Workshop themselves call the 'tactical' unit Chaos Space Marines in the codex and the army list, even though that's also the name of the army as a whole: It's their lack of inspiration, rather than ours, which led to us choosing this name. For very practical reasons, we wanted to see if people would rally behind something which we already knew would receive GW approval. The answer is clearly "yes". The difficulty with putting forward a name we come up with ourselves is that we did that first time round, and 3 names which pretty much everyone was uniting around and which were lore-compliant if not actively used in 40k lore were all rejected by GW. We may be lunatic followers of the dark gods, but even we can take a hint.
