"We didn't betray the Emperor! The Emperor betrayed us!" If you despise the Emperor, you'd wear the word Traitor like it was an honorable thing to hold... Honestly, you're Traitors because you betrayes The Emperor's authority. Deal with it. If you don't like being called a Traitor then you shouldn't be a part of Chaos.
Games workshop, the owners and inventors do not agree with you. https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Traitors-of-Chaos
Hey, the Emperor betrayed the Word Bearers first! But anyway, that the Imperium calls them traitors is ok, but it looks dumb when it appears as if they call themselves that too. As has been mentioned, the Rebel Alliance in Star Wars didn't refer to themselves as 'terrorists', even through any government would refer to them as exactly that. In a SW game I would not want to play as a 'Jedi Terrorist' or a 'Terrorist Pilot', and when playing the rebels (Chaos) in this game it's the same story. It ruins immersion. @Lerdoc It makes perfect sense for Imperials to refer to the CSM as traitors, but in this game we are playing as these dudes. It looks odd to see them refer to themselves by Imperial slander terms. When selling products on the other hand, you have a eye-of-god approach on the setting, and we all know it was the CSM that were in fact traitors, so selling them as such makes sense.
You must've not done very well in textual interpretation on school, i've never said they're not traitors, i said Traitor is not a suitable word to describe a warrior class. It would be the same thing as calling the Tactical Space Marine a Loyalist Space Marine instead of Tactical Space Marine, it in no way describes his class, if all Chaos Space Marines were instead labelled as Traitor Space Marines of Chaos and each class had it's own unique descriptive name i'd be ok with it, instead they're called Chaos Space Marines and Traitor is an specific class that is supposed to be specialized in treason? I have no trouble at all in labeling Chaos Marines as traitors, what i have a problem with is how the name Traitor is in no way descriptive of the class it's supposed to represent.
I know what you've said and interpreted it very well. Its you who seem to not get the idea that when GW says something, its law now.
But GW is merelly stating that Chaos Marines are traitors, what should be common knowledge, not giving Tactical Chaos Marines the name of Traitors (At least not in this link you posted but someone mentioned GW forced bE to call Chaos Tacticals Traitors so maybe they did i don't know.) what leads me to believe there's no specific name for them even for GW itself which is totally fine, really, i'd even be ok with it if the were called Traitor Tacticals or something like that because that way it would at least describe the class as a tactical marine that happens to be a traitor, as pointless as it sounds, what does being a traitor changes in your skills as a tactical soldier?
Like, follow my thought process for a sec: Space Marines Classes: Loyalists Traitors Assault Raptor Devastator Havoc Tactical Traitor(?) All the names above describe the marine's role in the battlefield in a way or another except for one, which one is it? Unless of course the Traitor's intended role is to commit treason in the battlefield, if that's the case then i'm sorry for all that ranting.
You get bothered by a class name? While i agree that the naming convention does not make sense it should be the equivalent of Tactical for chaos. While we are on the subject of getting shot in the back, i find that as melee i get shot in the back ALLOT by friendly Traitors.... so much so that i think they need togo work for the emperor again
The traitor title for CSM Tactical is dumb and most everyone hates it, but GW thinks it great, so it must be great... right?
