1 out of 10 players think traitor is a good name .... Thats very low number ..... 9 out of 10 players want it fking changed .... that is a high number
gw think that traitor is the correct name: this is the problem no matter how many player think differently, this is how is started the issue.
Seems to be the problem with too much fan service to one faction in a multi-faction setting, some people not only start believing in their own propaganda, but also have an expectation that fan service for their faction of choice should bleed into other peoples'. All they have to do is rubber stamp it, it's bE we need to convince and this is supposed to be open development. If something this arbitrary can't be changed with overwhelming support, then what can? Regardless, try and it might, give up and there's no chance. A small chance at improvement is better than none.
Agreed: Change. You're not traitors according to yourselves. You're not traitors according to Eldar. You're not traitors according to Orks. You are only traitors according to the Imperium. Doesn't therefore surprise me that's the name they went with, but that doesn't make it any less guff a name.
They believe it's a lore-acceptable name that EC is fine to use. We have no evidence that they believe it's the correct name, which an entirely different concept. Incidentally, GW's own lore doesn't use Traitor Marine as the class name either - I just think their approvals team had no issue with EC calling it that, presuming that since it ultimately came from a fan poll (admittedly, from the arse end of the names suggested) that neither did the chaos faction, so no issue, right? Whoops. As far as I can tell, the way we ended up in this position was a well-intentioned cock-up that wasn't predicted in advance. We're just exploring whether there's widespread community support behind a specific proposal to fix the well-intentioned cock-up so that we can engage with Behaviour and, by extension, GW as constructively as possible. Actually, even that's a bit too impartial. We knew full well that there was widespread cross-faction support for ditching Traitor, and we were pretty confident of there being support for Chaos Space Marine, we just couldn't prove it until this poll. And I think it's fair to say that a 90%+ level of support is even higher than we had expected.
there seems to be the assumption that bE put forward a single name to GW who then rubber stamped it, when its far more likely bE put forward a few different names and GW chose the one they wanted
Just to be clear, that's not my motivation. We've got people supporting this campaign with a wide variety of views about what Chaos does or doesn't represent, including loyalists who will happily kill us on the battlefield but, in the spirit of empathy, recognise that we as players at least deserve to be killed under the names Chaos gives to its own classes. As for whether you agree with our decision to come together and look to make the case for change, you're welcome to disagree with us. Your opinion that this is a lost cause, a waste of time, an undesirable change and on a par with requesting adding a whole new (problematic) faction into the game is entirely justifiable. You are not the only one to share it. Similarly, my decision to listen to your opinion, nod, disagree with you and carry on building the case for change is my own. I am not alone in that view either. Both sides have set out their views and reasoning, which are very far apart, and I think it's unlikely we'll find a great deal of agreement here today. However, though I can't speak for any others, I would have preferred that both sides had been less antagonistic and less quick to make assumptions on individuals' motivations. I did aim to engage with your views as seriously and neutrally as I have with everyone else, but I admit a little frustration crept in to my post as well. Tempers can run high from time to time. We have people very passionately in favour of making this change, people passionately in favour of keeping traitor and, in places, people passionately rejecting the concept of suggesting any kind of change at all. Clashes are pretty inevitable when those types of views meet. All we can do is try to treat each other with as much decorum as we can, and try not to let our factions' rivalries accidentally spill over into creating enemies between us as players. We won't always get this right, but as the Warmaster himself is so fond of saying, revelation is a process.
An even more likely assumption is that the list of names were presented to GW from the fan poll in order of popular support, and GW went down the list starting with the most popular and considering if it could be approved for use. The top three were rejected and the fourth, Traitor, was approved as it was in use in the 40k lore (the top 3 names were not). Names further down the list were not considered by GW at all because why make extra work for themselves? Chaos Space Marine was slightly further down the list. By two votes. To be honest, that's what I see as the rational explanation for why Traitor came back despite GW's own class name being on the list. There is no logical reason why they would have actively chosen Traitor, and the suggestion that someone responsible for IP approval made a personal decision in preference of any particular name is at odds with all of my previous experience with IP licensing teams. Equally, the idea that GW strategically decided that Traitor Marine was the "right" name for EC despite never having used it in that context anywhere else is quite a stretch. If you're right, this campaign is likely a doomed exercise. If I'm right, Chaos Space Marine has a cast iron chance of success with GW approval, we just need to persuade Behaviour that requesting approval for a change is worthwhile. I guess we'll find out in due course.
wasnt trying to correct the exercise ... but I was highlighting the likely process by which we arrived at the current name wether the "list" was presented in order of popular support or not, wether they chose the one they wanted or chose the first one down the list they wanted ... there probably would of been a list
