I can't believe I forgot that thread, I even voted in it

Anyhow, I guess that crosses of the first step on this.

EDIT: Please notice that I have a very fitting title for this (until the Devs fixes that bug).

i want to bring up the new social media opening of GW, https://m.facebook.com/Warhammer-40000-1575682476085719/ if someone want to contact directly GW is possible to do it via that, they can redirect the questions to the people working on the ip approval.

Good spot, Grig. However, just so that we don't tread on anyone's toes, I'd suggest we do this through Behaviour rather than contact GW directly.

Ultimately the contract for use of the IP is with Behaviour, and there's no real reason for GW's IP/branding team to discuss what might or might not theoretically be permissable for them to use in Eternal Crusade with random strangers from teh interwebs.

Even if whoever responded at GW did indicate that any suggestion or suggestions would be approved if asked, at the point we used that to influence Behaviour I think they'd legitimately feel uncomfortable at the idea that we'd gone behind their backs and bothered their main partner about changes which they hadn't even indicated they'd be willing to consider. And they'd still have to go back to GW and discuss it themselves in any case - they wouldn't just be able to just take our word for it.


Of course, if we use Chaos Space Marine, it would be a ludicrously straightforward rubber-stamp approval from GW. We'd really be out in Twilight Zone territory if they rejected the name they use themselves! Indeed, the whole thing would simply hinge on persuading Behaviour that the Chaos community genuinely and overwhelmingly wants the change to be made.

Well I was mostly serious, think the only biased response is the one and I would argue that it's a legitimate viewpoint to contend with. At least in the manner that there really are Imperial fans that like the class name because it reminds us that we chose the wrong side(from their point of view). I've argued with people with this view in this very thread. I would suppose that a "I don't care" would essentially be a vote not to change, even though I intended it more as an "I abstain and just want to see the results" type of answer, so I suppose it wouldn't be necessary. However, I do think that a mere "Yes" type answer does have statistical merit because it indicates that they support a change, but may not have their preference available, or simply dislike the current name and aren't overly concerned to specifically what it changes to.

But yeah, it just highlights the necessity that there can't be too many options presented as if the votes against the name are too divided amongst themselves, as that was what put it in 4th to begin with. Stacked against any of the other submissions alone then I believe it would have been destroyed in the vote, but people wanted to brainstorm unique names or liked Legionnaire the best, once again I lament there was no process of elimination. I would suppose that it can be explained in text that Chaos Space Marine is the only submission we know they must accept due to it being official.

Yeah, somehow I think going over bE's head would hurt more than help.

A "Yes" isn't a problem statistically, it's a problem practically. A "Yes" vote suggests a mandate for change, but doesn't actually endorse any particular suggestion for what the change should be. It also doesn't distinguish between "Yes, any of the options are fine" and "Yes, but not any of those options, please".

We're actually already in that position since Djemo's poll, which gave an overwhelming 'yes' but didn't (at the time) bring us any closer to having a solution to suggest to Behaviour.

Ultimately, I think at this point we need to vote on specific changes, not change in principle. If we want to run different potential names off against each other, we should do that as a preliminary step before putting the preferred name against Traitor, so that the 'main' poll is a binary choice between keeping traitor or replacing it with (x).

If (x) secures a majority of votes from a large chunk of people, we have something straightforward to take to Behaviour along with the evidence that this specific change is what was wanted.

Yeah I suppose so. I haven't been able to find any other GW official names, so it's not like we have anything to run against it with a realistic possibility of being accepted. However, I still think we should run it as a combined suggestion, so
Yes, change to Chaos Space Marine/Chaos Marine/Marine
No, keep as is

It's all just a variation on the same lore approved name, I think a shortening would be better but they can just reject the shorthand version. Personally it's not my favorite, but it is better and I'd accept it without complaint.

I think it is well past the time to be picky, but perhaps we can just also leave an open ended question in the thread to ask people what they'd want it to be, and maybe someone with an old Rogue Trader or Codex might be able to source a different possibility. That way if a dev ever actually takes notice we can discuss alternatives, but still have a polled suggestion ready to keep things simple.

That would still leave us needing an additional poll to confirm whether it's CSM/CM/M which actually gets chosen, assuming the combined trio beat Traitor in a poll and all three are approved by GW. This route carries a chunk of uncertainty for Behaviour, because after the poll they wouldn't be going to GW to request approval for a specific change, but to request approval for options for players to vote on changing to. We've seen them actively avoid engaging us in this type of discussion ever since Traitor was announced.

It's essentially Scenario 1 from my post last week, but with an inconclusive poll prior to engaging with Behaviour.

Including an open option brings us back to Scenario 2 (albeit with some potential benefits by deleting votes for names which don't have accompanying evience on use in the lore). There's nothing wrong with the Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 routes in principle. They're unequivocably the most democratic and also leave the most potential options open; but I don't know if that's as desirable as it usually would be.

My primary thinking is that Behaviour are not interested in making a change - as a result, options and uncertainty are bad things to engage them with. I believe we have to make the proposition as straightforward and well evidenced in terms of community support and existing 40k usage of the name for the class as we can, so that literally all they need to do is listen to us, agree we've made a reasonable case, and go to GW and confirm whether the new name can be approved or not, and implement it if they get the green light.


I recognise we have different thoughts on the best way to do this. To lay out some options, this is how I see things going forward either way:

Stage 1: A free-for-all suggestion of names, with the requirement that names must have lore evidence, not just popularity or preference. This has already happened over the last few pages of this thread as a starting point.

Surviving names so far are Chaos Space Marine and Chaos Tactical - no other suggestions (including Chaos Marine and Marine) have lore evidence.

The discussion isn't technically closed on whether lore evidence is required, but at this point I think we'd need a very good reason to allow some names which aren't evidenced directly whilst excluding others which aren't either (e.g. Legionnaire).

Stage 2
As we already know that we have more than one viable option, we need to agree whether we want to:

Option 1
Run the viable options against each other in a preliminary poll, and
i) Allow other options if lore-evidenced
ii) Not allow other options

Then run the winning option against Traitor in a separate binary poll. Use the results of this poll to engage with Behaviour about making a change.

i) is a nice nod to the fact that we might have missed something, and we could collectively moderate it to discourage throwing in names with no evidence. That moderating would also help lay the ground for the later vote against Traitor under this route. ii) would be clearer, but if we take this route I'd suggest i).

However, i) only works if we all agree that lore evidence is a requirement for potential names. If not, this vote will swiftly lead to a clusterfu-.

Option 2
Run the viable options against each other and Traitor in a multi-option poll, and
i) Allow other options if lore-evidenced
ii) Not allow other options

Use the results of this poll to engage with Behaviour about making a change.

i) is a nice nod to the fact that we might have missed something. But this poll is also trying to skip straight to evidencing replacing Traitor directly as well. This has clusterfu- written all over it if we end up having to 'edit' a lot of people's votes to remove votes for names which were not lore evidenced, and submit the edited results to Behaviour. Especially if the edits remove the most popular name, such as if some genius suggests Legionnaire in the first post...

If we want to skip the preliminary stage in Option 1, I think we have to bite the bullet and accept route ii) here. It's a trade-off.

This would be quicker and easier to organise than Option 1, but does bring with it the downsides attached to multi-option polling discussed earlier - primarily that votes for change are split across multiple alternatives (and the alternatives may tie with each other, particularly if lots of options are available)

Option 3
As the people signed up to helping make this change happen, decide between ourselves which viable option to put forward to the wider community to vote on (and why).

Run the winning option against Traitor in a binary poll.
Use the results of this poll to engage with Behaviour about making a change.

This skips the first part of Option 1, and goes straight to the binary poll against Traitor.

This would be quicker and easier to organise than Option 1, and avoids the isues attached to multi-option polling. On the downside, it may potentially be perceived as a little tyrannical by not allowing people to have their special snowflake moment and get their own proposals considered, even if only for a second, so it would need some supportive handling in the poll by the collective of oppressors members of this informal group.


The Dokta is suggesting Option 2i (and that we might need to discuss the lore-approval only point). I've been arguing the merits of Option 3. So we're pretty much on opposite ends of the scale!

Incidentally, I think Option 1i has a lot of merits - although it's more hassle and aggro. It's probably the most logical compromise point between our views. @The_Dokta Do you agree?

I don't see why people would think Option 3 is "tyrannical" because they can't give their own suggestions, since GW has already proven that they won't accepts such things and we would therefore be back to square one, but with a wasted chance and likely no 3rd try.
But then again, people are people after all...

I personally believe everyone have had their chance to share their suggestions in this thread, since it have been running for more than two months now, so I see no reason to accept any new suggestion AFTER the poll have been made.
Just wait a week or so before you start the poll and send out a deadline for new suggestions (with lore evidence).

Can't we "just" put out a poll with the three option; Chaos Space Marine, Chaos Tactical (with reason/evidence for their lore accuracy for both) and Traitor, while making a big note that when voting for either Chaos Space Marine or Chaos Tactical you also agree to support other one (should it win), so that the winner of the two would essentially have all the votes for both.
I don't know if the Devs would support this though :/

Caveats like that aren't a good thing, it's a kind of forced assumption that even if done with the best of intentions, still hints at electoral bias. What if someone likes Chaos Tactical, and then Traitor, but never wants Chaos Space Marine? It's a forced vote, and could backfire.

I wouldn't assume Bhvr is de facto uninterested in changing the name, but that there is a clause in the initial agreement between them and GW that prohibits detailing to outside parties the particulars of anything between them. There are competitive reasons why GW would have such clauses, and honestly I think those are fair reasons and not just "Geedubs hatez itz playerz" issues. From what we've seen of the Bhvr developers they are open with their community, and they do care. If that is the case (and this is a hypothetical, I don't have personal experience with GW and their corporate agreements) that they have a non-dsiclosure clause, then when we approach Bhvr we need to do so with full communitjy backing (otherwise they'll be unable to act on it).

I'm personally in favour of option 3. I think @Noromiz is right in that there have been opportunities for everyone to be involved in this discussion, and at this point our goal isn't to find the favourite community name but to get rid of a name people actively hate.

I don't agree on several counts. For one, it doesn't seem at all necessary to run Chaos Space Marine, Chaos Marine, and Marine against eachother, they're all just variations of the same name, it's not as though its something like "Yes, Chaos Space Marine/Legionnaire" which would be drastically different. This is a definable course of action, it's "I would like to change it to a variation of Chaos Space Marine." and is perfectly applicable. I'm aware of the statistical fallacy of "Or" questions, but in this case these are interrelated concepts and don't forward contradicting answers. It would be illogical for someone to say "I'm okay with Marine, but not Chaos Space Marine," one's just the shorthand version of the same name. It's like Mr or Mister.

Now as for the open ended thread question, bE has indeed shown no willingness to actually discuss this, so there's no harm in some brainstorming. The benefit I see is it allows for a discussion, which will be necessary for keeping the thread on the first page. It's basically a matter of, let's submit what we know GW should accept, but what are your ideas anyways. And maybe, just maybe, the Devs will allow an official vote after it gets noticed, but if they don't we just take the poll and tell them bluntly, this is what we'd rather have, please change. Basically, I'm saying Option 3, but to encourage discussion.

Or, perhaps the preliminary Tactical vs CSM variations with open discussion, then vs Traitor. But I'm not really into this idea because it's more a time too commit to an idea.