For what it's worth, that's how I'd have played it too. 100 responses might be a good milestone. At that stage, the margin of error on results would typically be about +/-10% of any reported score.
Weren't the "Traitor" simply called "Tactical" at the earlier stages of the game, before the first name change poll? Not that it really matters anymore, since I do not believe GW would appreciate bE simply going back to that, especially since they took the time to change it.
So, in the words of Martin Luther King Jr: "Where do we go from here: Chaos or Community?" Ironically, the title of a book about hope and the merits of nonviolent protests as a means of effecting change...let's hope he knew what he was talking about, eh? So, with thanks to TheDokta, we now have a poll of over 100 people where 92% of people have indicated their support in favour of the shift to Chaos Space Marine. That number has actually been remarkably consistent as the poll has grown, and while not wanting to invite the wrath of Sod's Law, I think it's unlikely to reverse in the foreseeable future. Those in favour Teasons given for voting in favour of Chaos Space Marine by people who weren't part of the group here who responded to Whitefox's call to "Sign your name and lets do this" gave reasons which echoed our own thoughts, outlined in the post for the poll itself. Those in doubt We also had some people near the 'neutral' mark, whose arguments can be boiled down to: I'm fine with that, but Behaviour won't agree to change it I'm fine with that, but GW won't agree to change it They may ultimately be proved right, but we're not going to give up before we've started. Those against Of the even fewer arguments raised against a change to Chaos Space Marine in the thread, these boiled down to: Actually, I quite like it. There's a certain delicious irony to us adopting our enemy's insult But you are traitors to the Emprah Neither was a surprise. The first one is entirely justifiable, but apparently not a widely shared opinion. The second is an entirely reasonable reaction from an LSM player (indeed, an LSM raised it), but I'm comfortable we've handled this in our explanation: "Traitor is a title the enemy uses, Chaos should use a title that they themselves would use. Not to mention that Chaos Marines still make more Chaos Marines, a child taken from a warp planet and inducted into a legion that rebelled long ago can't betray something they were never a part of." A thought for what to do next Right now, I think it makes sense to keep collecting numbers in the poll while we're still seeing them grow on a daily basis. The more we have when we actually put something forward, the stronger a case it'll have. 200 would be good (IMO). In the meantime, I wanted to suggest we put the case to Behaviour as an open letter via the forums, addressed and tagged to Nathan* with a bit of an explanation about what we're proposing, our reasoning, our evidence of support, etc. All in a pleasant and supportive tone, no passive aggression and free from any real or implied criticism of Loyalists, Behaviour, Games Workshop or Spandex and all in a very public place on the forum so there can be no accusation that this has been attempted behind closed doors. This will also make it a little different in style and approach to the more common "Why u no add Imperial Guard???" suggestions. Plus, based on our experience with the poll this route is likely to keep it in people's view for a while. No bad thing. We'd sign it collectively by a list of the people who signed up to Whitefox's call here (plus the inevitable list of +1s that will follow in the responses because, y'know, public thread). I'm happy to draft something and send it round in a shared private conversation tomorrow** so that people can tweak it / tear it apart / add important things I've completely missed / say "This is a terrible idea, Kanthric. We should say it with flamethrowers...", etc. *As per my previous posts, I'd also be inclined to give Katie a bit of notice before it lands out of courtesy, as we're not trying to spring this on Behaviour out of the blue. This conversation and the poll may not have gone totally unnoticed (grab your tinfoil hats!) but as we don't know for sure, we'll play it straight. **If you all think this is a terrible idea, I'd be eternally grateful if you could say so here before I spend any time sketching something up.
really dont understand why you guys are so ancy about the word traitor. i wouldnt think that chaos marines would call themselves traitor but lots of space marines still fapping over the emperor do so its still canon by those standards. chaos marines i think wouldnt be calling themselves by the class they are anyway because that would be conforming to set rules given by by someone else if they admitted to it (exception being factions) and arnt they supposed to be rebellious? it makes sense that a person who does not conform would instead be labeled by someone else and that someone else would be the people that hate them
Well its been explained, but here we go. I think one of the most obvious is how moronic you'd sound actually using it for tactics. Something as simple as "Traitor watch my back." sounds laughable. Alternatively, by your own metric of allowing a class to be defined by the enemy that hates them, loyalists should have the Bootlick and Scum classes added immediately. As for your other statement, well it's just plain not correct. While the lines are blurred, and this may be more true among random warbands, these are all still Legion armies, their structure has changed, not disappeared. The Word Bearers are now organized into Hosts(which are much lime a Chapter) led by a Dark Apostle, with squads broken down into Coteries with defined roles. Black Legion is a Legion reborn, Iron Warriors and Alpha Legion has their companies more autonomous now, but they're still Legions, and while Night Lords are a broken Legion they maintain the structure, Talos' Warband for example was still led by a Captain and had specific squads. So no, while they are no longer as rigid they remain a cohesive military force with military organization, not some rabble. While it takes strong leadership of a Warlord to maintain cohesion, said Warlord would not tolerate blatant acts of treachery, and certainly wouldn't normalize treason to the point of designating an entire class of his warriors Traitors. He wants them loyal, to him. Even if that loyalty is only maintained through fear and respect for his competence as a leader.
"Traitors cover me!" Seems like something Abaddon would command during a battle... As Dokta has said several times nobody who rebels calls themselves a traitor unless they see themselves as unjust and since Word Bearers for example see themselves as "Enlightened" rather than traitorous scum who betrayed the Emperor I doubt they'd call each other Traitors. There is only one group that'd call themselves Traitors and that'd only be to fuck off some Loyalists and they'd be the Emperor's Children who'll be laughing as they say "For the Emperor!" as well. Chaos Marines call Loyalist Space Marines Lapdogs so calling all Loyalist Tacticals is now canon. Good job. I bet all the Xenos call themselves filth as well since Space Marines call Xenos filth at some point. So Autarch Filthy fucking Xeno Asurmen gathered his sick disgusting Xeno Pheonix Lords once more to battle with the Traitorous Scum. I'm looking forward to the next Eldar Filth book with Xeno Asurmen when he has join with a sick group of horrifically horrendous group of Xeno Filth to do battle with the glorious honourable Space Marines who'd just massacred a bunch of a Craftworld or some shit because in the Grimdarkness of the 41st millennium there is only one good team and that is the Space Marines.
Well I think his point was that Chaos is Chaotic, so it doesn't have well defined class roles and it's thus appropriate to let someone else name them. While this is of course erroneous, Orks make for a clearer example of why even if we were to accept that Chaos has forgone formal classes it still wouldn't make a lot of sense to name them hy their enemies terms. Orks as you know are a Horde faction, their main organization is a simple matter of "Who's the boss here?!" and outside TT there's not really a whole lot of defined classes, besides notable exceptions like Stormboys. However, Orks still show preferences on weapon types and how they like to kill, leading to informal classes, (Heavy Weapons are Lootas, Riflemen are Shootas, and Melee are Sluggas) which are named via Orkish conventions, not Imperial which would undoubtedly feature the Xeno Filth type names. This is regardless of the fact that these Orks are in most cases going to forget about any sort of squad cohesion or defined rolls and are just going to mob up and try to stomp some gits.
Just to add to previous answers, that the Space Marines still fap over the Emperor is no reason to name one of Chaos' classes using one of the Imperium's canon names for Chaos Space Marines. Particularly not when Chaos has its own name for the class. I see the point you're aiming for with the non-conformity angle of "Chaos should reject all names and therefore only their opponents labels would stand", but you might notice that it's not backed up in lore, or in the other classes; Raptors, Havocs and Aspiring Sorcerors are all CSM terms for those classes. Drawing your argument to its inevitable conclusion, should we propose replacing them with; Traitor with jetpack, Traitor with heavy weapon and Traitor Psyker? Why not call us Spiky Boyz, as that's how the Orks refer to Chaos? Aren't their views equally important.
