I do agree, was just trying to offer any sort of legitimate opposing argument (being the fair-minded individual I am). It's equivalent to every Space Marine being a 'Mon-Keigh [whatever]'. Which I'm all for, obviously, but I would imagine the tin cans would object.
Make sure to contact me if there is a step 2 ... I will try to get as many people as i can .... LETS get THIS DOne for ONCE and FOR all
Hey, RuntKikka - I didn't realise until now you'd posted this here as well, so I'll respond here too for those reading. If it were an open choice as to what name was preferred, the community would likely select Legionnaire/Legionary, the runaway winner of the original poll to select a name. However, we know from (bitter) experience that this isn't an open choice; GW have to give the final name approval, and though we didn't get feedback on the reasons why, they rejected the names with support from the community and approved Traitor Marine - which while valid in the lore, is a name the majority of the Chaos community is unhappy with. Since the outcome of the original poll, as well as Traitor a variety of Imperial-viewpoint names have been suggested, including Heretic and Renegade. Whilst I agree these would be better than Traitor, they continue the underlying theme that Chaos is defined primarily or purely by its shared history with the Imperium and through its opposition to them. Neither is a name that Chaos uses to refer to itself on any kind of widespread basis, nor are the Ork or Eldar classes named along similar lines. Speaking personally, as a point of principle it makes sense that the factions classes are named after the faction's own lore unless there is a specific reason not to (e.g. the class doesn't exist in the lore). This applies to all of the current Space Marine, Ork and Eldar classes, and to the three non-Traitor Chaos classes. Renegade also has an additional problem from the perspective of getting approval from GW, which is that it specifically refers to Imperial forces which have seceded from the Imperium but not aligned themselves with Chaos. On a number of levels, this makes it a difficult name to use for Chaos classes which are part of five of the original legions from the Horus Heresy, but the most important one in the context of getting the name Traitor changed is that we believe GW would be unlikely to approve it. As we probably only have one shot at getting a change agreed (I expect Behaviour can't justify the time and effort attached to getting caught in the middle of a back-and-forth conversation between the players and GW), we decided prior to this poll that we needed to test community opinion on a name which we already knew would have a high likelihood of approval by GW. That narrowed down the choices remarkably, and opinion unified pretty quickly around the class name used in the lore, which is Chaos Space Marine. Again, in an ideal world, this wouldn't be our preferred choice for exactly the reasons you state, and it's surprising that GW chose it for themselves. But we are where we are. What this poll shows in the context of all of the polls on the name of the Chaos classes is that although Chaos Space Marine is not the name we would prefer given an open choice, we don't have an open choice. That there is overwhelming support for it in a closed choice between Chaos Space Marine and Traitor is what we needed to know before engaging with Behaviour to (hopefully) consign Traitor to the dustbin of history and move forward with a name the Chaos community can more readily get behind. Even if that name isn't perfect.
There will be a step 2. We didn't come all this way to go "Ahh, sod it" just before the final hurdle.
The main issue is just the complete lack of any sort of classification for a "grunt" in the CSM ranks. Pretty strange that GW has gone all these years keeping them as "Chaos Marines" instead of giving them a twisted version of a Tactical. I mean why not just call Havocs "Chaos Devastator" or Raptors "Chaos Jump Pack Assault"? I think we know why; because that sounds terrible! There's got to be a good name in there somewhere that keeps with the perverted Loyalist designations. Been racking my brain trying to come up with something but Renegade was the best so far. Shame that there are Loyalists that can called that since I feel a CSM would be proud to be called one. Makes you sound badass.
Seriously though, with the current name when some guy is teamkilling half our team, driving our Vindicators off the cliff, blocking critical entry points, and generally undermining our side, what are we supposed to call him? Because he's already been named a Traitor, are we just supposed to accept that he's "role playing"?
