Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 11:12:31


Post by: Pacific


Hey folks,

I'm not sure if this has been a poll previously (apologies if so!)

I was listening to a discussion on a podcast recently where the hosts were discussing how to pronounce 'Ynnari', 'Aelves' and that 'Fyreslayers' is spelt with a Y (there was some disagreement!)
I'll be honest that while I think it's fair enough that AoS (as a new game) had it's own branding as large parts of it are essentially a new game universe, some of the changes applied to 40k and existing ranges hasn't sat as well with me.
So for example:
Imperial Guard -> Astra Militarum
Eldar -> Ynnari

I also think even within AoS, as an effort to 'build brand' and copyright some of the names are a lot less relatable; I think Sky Dwarves would have been a better name than Kharadron Overlords for example!

Is this just because I'm a grognard and set in my old ways? I do find it a lot more complicated these days to keep on track with all of the names*. Sea Elves would have meant a lot more to me than Idoneth Deepkin for example!

*(although let's not get started on paint names, where I'm trying to track down a paint and find it has been changed three times since!)

How does everyone else feel about it?
(I don't give a damn, gimme them minis is also a legitimate viewpoint!)






Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 11:19:26


Post by: Crispy78


I much prefer the old names.

Most of the new names are pretty damn wanky. I struggle to think of any that I actually like, or think sound cool. Especially any of them that fall into the 'adjective noun-verber' category.

I'd be entirely happy with, say, 'Bile-piper Of Nurgle'. But I couldn't bring myself to ever ask for a 'Sloppity Bile-piper' in a shop.

Besides which, it's entirely unnecessary. It's not like GW also make a Skankulous Bile-piper and need to distinguish between the two.


Edit:
Actually, Drukhari isn't too bad. But that's the only one I can really think of.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 12:38:12


Post by: Shadow Walker


wh40k-I have no problem with the new names.
AoS-one of the reasons that I cannot get into it are the new names. Cannot stand Orruks, Ogors, Troggoths, Duardin etc. Also, the names for the new factions/units are sometimes simply stupid.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 13:04:26


Post by: Cybtroll


Old names, 100%.

It is a really junevile stance to believe that you Copyright issues may be solved by an "ae" instead of an "e" or a "y" for a "i".

Especially in a globalized world where country without any IP protection can import and export everywhere


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 13:13:36


Post by: lcmiracle


For 40K, I can accept there's are pig latin versions of the names, as long as they can be understood as being in 'high gothic'. Though I wish there's more of a format to the names.

I mean, there are Adeptus Astartes, Adeptus Mechanicus, Adeptus Terra, Adeptus ministorum, Adeptus Administratum, Departmento Monitorum, Ordo Malleus, Ordo Tempestus, Ordo Prefectus, etc., you know, adept/department/order of something. The imperial navy has Navis Imperialis, and Navis Nobilite, etc. Navy something. And there's Astra Militarum -- star military. Why can't it be Militarum Stellarum or Militarum Astrorum, or something.

I dunno, I'd refer to the armies in their filthy plebeian 'low gothic' names most of the time.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 13:28:23


Post by: Crispy78


 Cybtroll wrote:
Old names, 100%.

It is a really junevile stance to believe that you Copyright issues may be solved by an "ae" instead of an "e" or a "y" for a "i".

Especially in a globalized world where country without any IP protection can import and export everywhere


Or any 3rd party manufacturer just advertises, say, 'Space Elf bits, compatible with 28mm war gaming systems'


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 13:49:21


Post by: Nurglitch


I really preferred the anachronism of using dog-latin or whatnot to name things rather than 'made-up' names. It's that kind of made-up name stuff that puts me off most fantasy and sci-fi, whereas using historical names is what made Warhammer more engaging for me.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 13:56:33


Post by: TheGenuineMetz


I feel like there's a lot of emphasis placed on having two words in a name. Idoneth Deepkin feels unnecessary when Deepkin would do, with "Idoneth" being the in-setting name they have for themselves, like Asuryani for high elves.

The Death Guard book is particularly guilty of this. Many distinct names with two parts which all blend into each other.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 13:59:53


Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured


I don't really mind either,

if you already know the old names the new ones are going to be a bit annoying as you have to translate them in your mind,

if you're a new layer the new names will become part of your game world, just as the old names did for us


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 14:02:27


Post by: Fabio Bile


Definitely the old names. They did the job better. More descriptive/evocative and less awkward to use.

But I think the worst thing is that GW adopted "grimdark" as a template for names. They're just mashing words together and the words all have similar sounds and connotations. Warhammer Underworlds: Bleakhaunt comes with four Dreadwrack Cursegrinders and six Blightscorn Wrathmourners!


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 14:02:59


Post by: Reavsie


The old names are evocative and full of meaning.

New names are just dumb and confusing - really puts me off.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 14:15:08


Post by: Dysartes


 Pacific wrote:
...and that 'Fyreslayers' is spelt with a Y (there was some disagreement!)


Someone needs naming and shaming for thinking there is no Y in there - what did they think the word was, Fireslaiers?


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 14:15:55


Post by: jaredb


I don't prefer either. But I certainly don't mind the names now.

Some I do prefer more. Drukhari is way cooler than Dark Eldar, for example. I like wacky names though. Certainly it's better than it was in the Matt Ward era, where all the common weapons were given a whole slew of wacky names. Blood Missiles, Doomfists etc. Certainly has toned down a lot recently in some regards.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 14:25:30


Post by: lord_blackfang


I prefer intelligent old names like tyranid units being named after anciant roman military ranks or british slang for horrid old women.

Nowadays the Lictor would probaby named something like Chamelelurking Stealthscyther.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 14:40:38


Post by: Crispy78


 lord_blackfang wrote:

Nowadays the Lictor would probaby named something like Chamelelurking Stealthscyther.


You're not wrong. Urgh. *shudder*


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 14:44:49


Post by: Pacific


lord_blackfang wrote:I prefer intelligent old names like tyranid units being named after anciant roman military ranks or british slang for horrid old women.

Nowadays the Lictor would probaby named something like Chamelelurking Stealthscyther.


Brilliant

Agree about the Harridan (and remember the Dominatrix!)

jaredb wrote:I don't prefer either. But I certainly don't mind the names now.

Some I do prefer more. Drukhari is way cooler than Dark Eldar, for example. I like wacky names though. Certainly it's better than it was in the Matt Ward era, where all the common weapons were given a whole slew of wacky names. Blood Missiles, Doomfists etc. Certainly has toned down a lot recently in some regards.


Drukhari is one of the few new ones I actually like! Or is better than Dark Eldar at least.
Although for some reason I don't mind Dark Elves..

Fabio Bile wrote:Definitely the old names. They did the job better. More descriptive/evocative and less awkward to use.

But I think the worst thing is that GW adopted "grimdark" as a template for names. They're just mashing words together and the words all have similar sounds and connotations. Warhammer Underworlds: Bleakhaunt comes with four Dreadwrack Cursegrinders and six Blightscorn Wrathmourners!


I had to look those up to see if you were joking or they were genuine! Wow that really is just crap!


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 15:19:54


Post by: Cronch


As a person for whom english is a foreign language, all the names were dumb from the start. What even is a "Blood Claw", sounds like something my dog would have to get treated at a vet. And of course Some of the old names were nice, but overall all of them are made up garbage cause GW doesn't have and never had a single original bone in their organization.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 15:37:36


Post by: Da Boss


I think Drukhari is a good example - I don't mind new names if they sound cool, at least as cool as the old names or cooler.

Space Sharks to Carchadons is cool, but for some reason we still have Space Wolves and that is also cool? It isn't consistent.

And a lot of the new names are not cooler to my mind, they are cludgey and bad and lack any appeal.

But I think what gets me about the new names is that they are often literally formulaic, they have a formula that they follow to make the names, often smushing words together or slightly changing a word to make a new one. I think it is really samey and makes the units sort of blend together into a sludge.

This is most notable to me with the new Space Marine stuff. The Primaris Marines have names that are kinda meaningless and samey to me, and when I read them I have no clear idea of what they are describing. Assault Marines, Tactical Marines and Scouts were at least clear. Terminators and Devastators, a bit less so, and I have always thought Terminator was a bit of a crappy name - Cataphract is actually a much better one, conjuring up heavy armour in my mind.

Seraphon is another one, it conjures angels, but then instead you have all these Aztec dinosaur people and it just clashes horribly.

So, I prefer the old names because I think overall the were cooler, communicated what things were better, were less formulaic and less confusing.

I have to say the new names really put me off GW games more than they should. I just feel silly reading and saying them!


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 17:17:29


Post by: stroller


Some of the older names were quite frankly, corny.

Many of the new are incomprehensible.

In my head, orcs never left....nor did dwarves....


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 17:26:50


Post by: ph34r


I liked the old names mostly, but I understand why they made the change. For fantasy particularly there were dozens of 3rd party versions of "elf spearmen" or "empire halberdiers" etc.

A new player trying to find these things would not be directed to Games Workshop directly necessarily. The new names are annoying but I think serve a functional purpose.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 17:28:49


Post by: lcmiracle


 ph34r wrote:
I liked the old names mostly, but I understand why they made the change. For fantasy particularly there were dozens of 3rd party versions of "elf spearmen" or "empire halberdiers" etc.

A new player trying to find these things would not be directed to Games Workshop directly necessarily. The new names are annoying but I think serve a functional purpose.


As if they are not smart enough to add "warhammer" to the search terms smh.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 17:55:20


Post by: LunarSol


I like the direction of the new names, but find they're not as catchy as they could be. Gloomspite Gitz, for example, is a catchy non-generic name for Goblins. A lot of the faux-latin lacks gravitas even when pronounced correctly.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 19:43:29


Post by: Da Boss


The fact that they are so scared of third party manufacturers is pretty pathetic. They are the 300lb Gorilla in the room, the vast majority of people searching for "elf spearmen" are going to find something related to their properties. They should have confidence in their excellent mini designers and artists to draw people in.

On the other hand, someone idly searching without knowing the GW naming conventions is not going to find an Aelf, or a Duradin, or whatever, because those are made up terms that are not used in fantasy generally. It is an ass backwards way of looking at it like GW is the centre of all fantasy stuff and people are coming to it through them first - I just don't think that is so! I think most people would come from general fantasy first and then probably see the models somewhere and search for them.

Yeah, there might be some benefits but I think there are also costs to it. I dunno, they probably have better data than me. I have moved to other games that don't try to lock you into an ecosystem now anyway so I doubt I am the target market any more.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 19:53:37


Post by: LunarSol


I think it has VERY little to do with 3rd party manufacturers. The issue with Chapterhouse is that it proved that GW's IP couldn't stand up to a guppy. That gives them essentially nothing to bargain with when trying to licence it out for TV and games and all the other projects we've seen. The sharks would flip things into something like Starcraft again on a dime.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 20:00:08


Post by: Da Boss


I mean someone can already do that pretty much. They still can't really protect any of their IP from people just making similar stuff. They never could.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 20:06:59


Post by: LunarSol


 Da Boss wrote:
I mean someone can already do that pretty much. They still can't really protect any of their IP from people just making similar stuff. They never could.


Sure, but that's the difference. They go to license out the IP and people ask what they're paying for and they say Space Marines and then they have to try to argue that "their" Space Marines are worth more than other Space Marines to people who don't really appreciate the distinction. Now they go in selling "Adeptus Astartes" to people who are like "sounds important, what's that?". You have better luck convincing people your unique name is something special than you do trying to explain your generic name is a superior version.

Basically the same reason its so important for drug manufacturers to get name recognition before the generics become available. In this case though, the generics already ran free, so GW is trying to rebrand itself as something "new" again.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 20:08:05


Post by: MDSW


I think only the GW lawyers are 100% in the 'new name' corner...


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 20:10:56


Post by: amazingturtles


I mean, the new names are silly. But the old names often had their own silliness.

The new names do give my dad a good laugh whenever i read them to him though, so that's fun.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 20:18:06


Post by: Grimtuff


 Da Boss wrote:


This is most notable to me with the new Space Marine stuff. The Primaris Marines have names that are kinda meaningless and samey to me, and when I read them I have no clear idea of what they are describing. Assault Marines, Tactical Marines and Scouts were at least clear. Terminators and Devastators, a bit less so, and I have always thought Terminator was a bit of a crappy name - Cataphract is actually a much better one, conjuring up heavy armour in my mind.


I have the same feelings with Primaris, with several of the units beginning with the letter I blending into one another.

The sole exception is Intercessors. The name fits, as an Intercessor is someone who intervenes on behalf of someone else, usually via prayer. They are meant to be the proverbial cavalry that came in the Imperium's darkest hour to save them. Fits perfectly with the "knightly" feel that Marines are supposed to evoke.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 20:28:35


Post by: Captain Brown


I just find my old brain is comfortable with the original names.

Is GW still going after 3rd party companies? Or have they stopped doing that once they realized that most folks who purchase from those vendors (customized bits suppliers), buy GW models first as the basis for the customization.

Cheers,

CB


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 20:43:46


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


 Grimtuff wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:


This is most notable to me with the new Space Marine stuff. The Primaris Marines have names that are kinda meaningless and samey to me, and when I read them I have no clear idea of what they are describing. Assault Marines, Tactical Marines and Scouts were at least clear. Terminators and Devastators, a bit less so, and I have always thought Terminator was a bit of a crappy name - Cataphract is actually a much better one, conjuring up heavy armour in my mind.


I have the same feelings with Primaris, with several of the units beginning with the letter I blending into one another.

The sole exception is Intercessors. The name fits, as an Intercessor is someone who intervenes on behalf of someone else, usually via prayer. They are meant to be the proverbial cavalry that came in the Imperium's darkest hour to save them. Fits perfectly with the "knightly" feel that Marines are supposed to evoke.


I can understand this even it I have grokked Primaris unit names. I do think there are a fair number that work just like Intercessors (Infiltrators, Reivers, Suppressors). While the In- prefix is silly and over done, there is almost a type designation going on there. With In-prefixes units mostly being troops, E-prefixes being Heavy Support and potentially Hell ______ being special weapons teams in Tactius armor. Of course, there already a number of exceptions that makes it not work. Looking at you Inceptors.

I personally don't find any worst than Eldar stuff. I suffer from Finecast blindness (as in I skip pass considering getting any them). So when a player brought in their old Eldar stuff to play a game but didn't really remember what it was that was an ordeal. I didn't really realize it at the time since I built my whole army myself, but codices don't always inform the player what everything is all that easily. It didn't help that I believe that Eldar army had Forgeworld in it as well. Even now I couldn't tell you which is which between a Wraithlord, Wraithknight, Wraithseer or if there are more Wraith_____ units. Except they are the ones I would think they would be.

So new or old you get used to the names with familiarity. I know I have played my fair share of 40k players that didn't seem to know thing one about space marines (Firstborn, Primaris, Chaos or whatever). I would have thought that to be like living in a big city and never seeing an airplane. Sure, it could happen but still seem unlikely.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 22:03:26


Post by: Da Boss


Definitely part of it for me is not "growing up" with the new names and therefore finding them a bit sillier. I can see that. Doesn't really change how I feel about the names though!


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/11 23:09:07


Post by: CragHack


New names are slowed. I much prefer the old ones.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/12 00:18:08


Post by: Cronch


 Da Boss wrote:
T It is an ass backwards way of looking at it like GW is the centre of all fantasy stuff and people are coming to it through them first - I just don't think that is so! I think most people would come from general fantasy first and then probably see the models somewhere and search for them.

Given the fact that GW sales probably outweigh literally all of the other fantasy/scifi wargames sales put together, given that they have by far the highest mainstream presence, I'd say it is the most likely way someone would get introduced to it. Even if they just wanter into a model/game store, they'll see two things on the shelves most prominent these days- GW and the (amazing quality, btw!) D&D official models. Anything else will be purely based on luck.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/12 00:59:17


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Old.

The Adjective Nounverb stuff that GW vomits out is awful. Embarrassing, even.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/12 11:40:34


Post by: Da Boss


Cronch wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
T It is an ass backwards way of looking at it like GW is the centre of all fantasy stuff and people are coming to it through them first - I just don't think that is so! I think most people would come from general fantasy first and then probably see the models somewhere and search for them.

Given the fact that GW sales probably outweigh literally all of the other fantasy/scifi wargames sales put together, given that they have by far the highest mainstream presence, I'd say it is the most likely way someone would get introduced to it. Even if they just wanter into a model/game store, they'll see two things on the shelves most prominent these days- GW and the (amazing quality, btw!) D&D official models. Anything else will be purely based on luck.


For sure, it was the same for me. I walked into the local toy shop and saw the 5e Slaan Mage Priest and I was like "WTF is this?!" I thought it was awesome.

But crucially, my introduction to the fantasy genre was not at that moment, it was from fantasy literature. And video games too, to an extent, probably much more of an extent for young people now, that and movies. But in that literature, stuff had the traditional names. So my interest came from that, and I was not particularly interested in the name GW gave it, I understood what a Lizardman was (from Conan cartoons) and that was what drew me to it.

So in that sense I would say most people come to GW from generic fantasy or sci fi, and a much smaller minority are coming to fantasy and sci fi from GW. If you are in the market for this sort of game you almost definitely have some sort of primer to pique your interest. For me it was fantasy novels and 2000AD comics, for kids nowadays it is probably video games and movies moreso, but the point I think still holds.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/12 19:49:32


Post by: Blastaar


Classic, by a mile. The new copywrite names are just.... so.... LAAAAAAAAAAAME. It's self-parody.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/12 20:16:12


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


 LunarSol wrote:
I like the direction of the new names, but find they're not as catchy as they could be. Gloomspite Gitz, for example, is a catchy non-generic name for Goblins. A lot of the faux-latin lacks gravitas even when pronounced correctly.


I’m on the complete opposite side on this issue. “Gloomspite” is just two words shoved together that pass right out of my mind, whereas a distinct name that hints at meaning stays with me longer.

For example, the sword Excalibur sounds cooler than Master Sword, Guandao is more interesting than Green Crescent Dragon Blade, and even The Six Finger Sword sounds more mysterious and important than Farslayer even though it shouldn’t.

It’s like energy blasts in DBZ sound better in Japanese than translated, Makankosappo vs Special Beam Cannon.

TLDR: Gloomspite sounds like a flavorless translation of a cooler name.

As for the faux Latin, it depends on how well it hints at something larger rather. I don’t mind “Astra Militarum” as much as “Tempestous Scions” because the former sounds like an old institution across a large span and the latter sounds like it was a polite way of saying “spoiled brats”.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/12 20:46:57


Post by: Big Mac


Old; I have no idea what it’s being referred to when they talk of judicators, is that the storm cast with spears? Or the ones with bows. I understand they did it to have brand rights, but to us normal folk, it’s too nerdy.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/12 21:32:20


Post by: Coenus Scaldingus


TheGenuineMetz wrote:I feel like there's a lot of emphasis placed on having two words in a name. Idoneth Deepkin feels unnecessary when Deepkin would do, with "Idoneth" being the in-setting name they have for themselves, like Asuryani for high elves.
That's it for me. The new double names just make no sense either in-universe or as a description outside of it.
Dwarfs were called Dwarfs because that's what they were. People in-universe could plausibly have called them that, or a similar name in their own language, and it made sense as a name for a product towards the customers. They called themselves Dawi, but rebranding the products as such would have been less descriptive. Rebranding them as Dawi Dwarfs would only make sense if to differentiate them from some other kind of Dwarf, and in this instance is strange because they are synonyms. The new AoS names don't make sense in-universe, they don't make for catchy or practical product names, and they don't really have any good reason to exist. They just don't work on any level.

The more unique names for fantasy races are equally pointless. Aelves I can live with (and happily live without), but Orruks and Ogors or whatnot just feel like misspelled names more than anything. They clearly aim for some level of recognition without actually wanting to be the thing people know, because uniqueness.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/12 22:45:41


Post by: Absolutionis


There has been three eras of 'naming' it seems.

Era of the Common Naming Originally, things were just named Dreadnought, Scorpion, Terminator, Warrior, etc. Occasionally, we'd get unique names such as Nob, Carnifex, Incubi, etc. Flavorwise, it seemed like an Imperial Officer graduated from the academy and was asked to name things.

Era of a Five-Year-Old Naming: Then came the era when GW went all in on Space Marines. We got Thunder Wolffire Missiles with Wolfy Wolfy Wolfmarines riding Thunderwolf Yiff Yiffies. We had Bloody Bloody Sanguinary Bloodmarines with bloody whatever the hell they wanted. Everything was devoid of creativity. Xenos had it terrible with Pyrovores, Toxithropes, and Wraithblades. It was all derivative and awful. It was like some five year old named everything.

Era of Bloat: At least now, we've gone back to the fantasyish names. Sure we have Aeeaetldarri and such that changed their names purely for copyright reasons. The names are not awful. We have Intercessors, Reivers, Aberrants and Triarchs. This rather fits in nicely next to things such as Dreadnoughts, Incubi, and Zoanthropes. It was like an Imperial Researcher graduated in some highly specialized field of study and decided to name things in some overly complex manner in an effort to impress someone. Some things may also be derivative, but a "Contemptor Dreadnought" or other verber nourns and adjective nouns is more of a symptom of unit bloat in Marinehammer.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/12 22:45:58


Post by: Pacific


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

As for the faux Latin, it depends on how well it hints at something larger rather. I don’t mind “Astra Militarum” as much as “Tempestous Scions” because the former sounds like an old institution across a large span and the latter sounds like it was a polite way of saying “spoiled brats”.


That really did make me LOL


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/12 23:35:39


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Not really fussed either way.

I do prefer Astra Militarum, but use both. I really like Drukhari. But it’s Orcs, Ogres, Trolls and Gobbos.



Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/13 00:11:14


Post by: H.B.M.C.


The issue is that so many names would be fine if they just dumped one of the words. Nurgle, by far, got hit the worst here, both in 40k and AoS, and removing a single word often fixes it instantly:

Foetid Bloat-drone
Biologus Putrifier
Foul Blightspawn
Feculent Gnarlmaw
Myphitic Blight-hauler
Pusgoyle Blightlords
Putrid Blightkings (and I still think they should've been called Blight Knights, but that's my own hang-up...)
Sloppity Bilepiper

And it's expanding further. As far as we know, there is a single type of Slaangor in the upcoming AoS Slaanesh release. If there were more, the new Warcry book would have included them (this is a 95% certainty though, so we could be wrong here). But they're not called Slaangors, they're called Slaangor Fiendbloods. This implies that there are other types, yet they're not included. It's just another two words mashed together for no reason.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I do prefer Astra Militarum...


It genuinely makes me cringe when I hear people say that out loud.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/13 00:21:58


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


I think it could have worked reversed, as someone mentioned earlier.

Militarum Astra
Militarum Tempestus
Militarum Prefectus
Militarum CRASSUS


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/13 01:12:20


Post by: Kall3m0n


 Pacific wrote:
Hey folks,

I'm not sure if this has been a poll previously (apologies if so!)

I was listening to a discussion on a podcast recently where the hosts were discussing how to pronounce 'Ynnari', 'Aelves' and that 'Fyreslayers' is spelt with a Y (there was some disagreement!)
I'll be honest that while I think it's fair enough that AoS (as a new game) had it's own branding as large parts of it are essentially a new game universe, some of the changes applied to 40k and existing ranges hasn't sat as well with me.
So for example:
Imperial Guard -> Astra Militarum
Eldar -> Ynnari

I also think even within AoS, as an effort to 'build brand' and copyright some of the names are a lot less relatable; I think Sky Dwarves would have been a better name than Kharadron Overlords for example!

Is this just because I'm a grognard and set in my old ways? I do find it a lot more complicated these days to keep on track with all of the names*. Sea Elves would have meant a lot more to me than Idoneth Deepkin for example!

*(although let's not get started on paint names, where I'm trying to track down a paint and find it has been changed three times since!)

How does everyone else feel about it?
(I don't give a damn, gimme them minis is also a legitimate viewpoint!)



"Sea Elves" and "Sky Dwarves" are desciptions, not names.
In your logic, Asians would be called "yellow-ish humans", Africans would be "Brown people" and caucasians would be "pale peach people".

However, when people casually talk about Warhammer, they use the nicknames, or the old names. It's only people new to the hobby that uses the official names. ^^ At least when it comes to 40k.
You ARE a grognard and set in your old ways, but so am I. However, there's still a huge difference between a desciption and a name. "Texans" is a name for people coming from Texas. "Biggest state yee-haws" would be a description.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Absolutionis wrote:
There has been three eras of 'naming' it seems.
Some things may also be derivative, but a "Contemptor Dreadnought" or other verber nourns and adjective nouns is more of a symptom of unit bloat in Marinehammer.


So what would that different type of Dreadnought be called? Dreadnought V2? Dreadnought B? If there are different types of a certain unit type -like Dreadnoughts- there need to be a name difference.
"-I shoot at your dreadnought."
"-What Dreadnought?"
"-Uhm... The Dreadnought."
"-Yeah, but what Dreadnought?"
-"The one on the right of the other Dreadnought."
-"Oh, you mean my Dreadnought. Got it!"

If there are different types of a certain unit type -like Dreadnoughts- there need to be a name difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kall3m0n wrote:
 Pacific wrote:
Hey folks,

I'm not sure if this has been a poll previously (apologies if so!)

I was listening to a discussion on a podcast recently where the hosts were discussing how to pronounce 'Ynnari', 'Aelves' and that 'Fyreslayers' is spelt with a Y (there was some disagreement!)
I'll be honest that while I think it's fair enough that AoS (as a new game) had it's own branding as large parts of it are essentially a new game universe, some of the changes applied to 40k and existing ranges hasn't sat as well with me.
So for example:
Imperial Guard -> Astra Militarum
Eldar -> Ynnari

I also think even within AoS, as an effort to 'build brand' and copyright some of the names are a lot less relatable; I think Sky Dwarves would have been a better name than Kharadron Overlords for example!

Is this just because I'm a grognard and set in my old ways? I do find it a lot more complicated these days to keep on track with all of the names*. Sea Elves would have meant a lot more to me than Idoneth Deepkin for example!

*(although let's not get started on paint names, where I'm trying to track down a paint and find it has been changed three times since!)

How does everyone else feel about it?
(I don't give a damn, gimme them minis is also a legitimate viewpoint!)



"Sea Elves" and "Sky Dwarves" are desciptions, not names.
In your logic, Asians would be called "yellow-ish humans", Africans would be "Brown people" and caucasians would be "pale peach people".

However, when people casually talk about Warhammer, they use the nicknames, or the old names. It's only people new to the hobby that uses the official names. ^^ At least when it comes to 40k.
You ARE a grognard and set in your old ways, but so am I. However, there's still a huge difference between a desciption and a name. "Texans" is a name for people coming from Texas. "Biggest state yee-haws" would be a description.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Absolutionis wrote:
There has been three eras of 'naming' it seems.
Some things may also be derivative, but a "Contemptor Dreadnought" or other verber nourns and adjective nouns is more of a symptom of unit bloat in Marinehammer.


So what would that different type of Dreadnought be called? Dreadnought V2? Dreadnought B? If there are different types of a certain unit type -like Dreadnoughts- there need to be a name difference.
"-I shoot at your dreadnought."
"-What Dreadnought?"
"-Uhm... The Dreadnought."
"-Yeah, but what Dreadnought?"
-"The one on the right of the other Dreadnought."
-"Oh, you mean my Dreadnought. Got it!"

If there are different types of a certain unit type -like Dreadnoughts- there need to be a name difference.

I do agree that there's somewhat of a unitbloat in most armies and SM escpecially, but it would be damn boring with one dread, one tank, one infantry, one airplane and so on.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/13 04:25:48


Post by: Argive


The poll suggest people are not fans of dumb nonsense names like Facemeltorz or Megadestructors ???? Ohhhwww naaawww...

Who could have guessed


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/13 05:33:33


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Primaris still need a unit called "Iterators" just sayin.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/13 06:16:41


Post by: chromedog


I much prefer their old names.

No, not "space marines", "Imperial guard", etc.

"Space marines", "Space elfs", "Space orks", "Space Dwarfs".

You knew what was wot, in those days.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/13 06:37:07


Post by: Just Tony


Does anyone SERIOUSLY think the lore was improved by making the Elves the Aeaeaeaeaeaeaeaelves?


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/13 06:52:31


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


 Just Tony wrote:
Does anyone SERIOUSLY think the lore was improved by making the Elves the Aeaeaeaeaeaeaeaelves?


No. Didn’t they already call themselves the Asuri or something like that? Why wouldn’t GW use a name hat sounds alien and already exists in the lore instead of dredging up the lame 90’s marketing fad of misspelling known words?


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/13 08:12:33


Post by: lord_blackfang


 Absolutionis wrote:

Era of a Five-Year-Old Naming: Then came the era when GW went all in on Space Marines. We got Thunder Wolffire Missiles with Wolfy Wolfy Wolfmarines riding Thunderwolf Yiff Yiffies. We had Bloody Bloody Sanguinary Bloodmarines with bloody whatever the hell they wanted. Everything was devoid of creativity. Xenos had it terrible with Pyrovores, Toxithropes, and Wraithblades. It was all derivative and awful. It was like some five year old named everything.


I believe the five-year-old was Matt Ward


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Pacific wrote:
lord_blackfang wrote:I prefer intelligent old names like tyranid units being named after anciant roman military ranks or british slang for horrid old women.

Nowadays the Lictor would probaby named something like Chamelelurking Stealthscyther.


Brilliant

Agree about the Harridan (and remember the Dominatrix!)


Termagant also means a horrid old woman! Mad props to whomever went against the grain in the 5-year-old era and named the Harpy and Crone.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/13 10:07:59


Post by: Mangod


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
Does anyone SERIOUSLY think the lore was improved by making the Elves the Aeaeaeaeaeaeaeaelves?


No. Didn’t they already call themselves the Asuri or something like that? Why wouldn’t GW use a name hat sounds alien and already exists in the lore instead of dredging up the lame 90’s marketing fad of misspelling known words?


Asur, Druchii and Asrai - High Elves, Dark Elves and Wood Elves, respectively.

 Pacific wrote:
I also think even within AoS, as an effort to 'build brand' and copyright some of the names are a lot less relatable; I think Sky Dwarves would have been a better name than Kharadron Overlords for example!

Is this just because I'm a grognard and set in my old ways? I do find it a lot more complicated these days to keep on track with all of the names*. Sea Elves would have meant a lot more to me than Idoneth Deepkin for example!


I think Sky Dwarfs is a terrible name as well, it's so on the nose - Kharadron works just fine, just... drop the "Overlords"-part. Kharadron Overlord sounds like it should be to an Admiral what a Warboss would be to a Big Boss.

Honestly, I think it's part grognard, part the new names just being needlessly long or overly descriptive. Idoneth Deepkin could have easily been just Idoneth and it would still work.

I agree with H.B.M.C. - a lot of the names sound like they should be for subfactions, not just individual units. Putrid Blightkings I kind of like, but... shouldn't there be more kinds of Blightkings? Foul Blightkings, Feetid Blightkings, Dyspeptic Blightkings; if there's only a single kind of Blightking unit, then the Putrid-part is just superflous.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/13 10:18:51


Post by: Dysartes


 lord_blackfang wrote:
Termagant also means a horrid old woman! Mad props to whomever went against the grain in the 5-year-old era and named the Harpy and Crone.


While the Crone was a new unit, I'm pretty sure the Harpy existed in Epic back in t'day, in the same way the Trygon, Exocrine and Haruspex did, so this would likely just be them using the appropriate existing name for the unit. I guess the Crone came around as they looked for a synonym for Harpy, tbh.

*EDIT* - Huh, that was the Harridan, not the Harpy, but I can see how they got from A to B there. Was FW making an actual Harridan at the time?


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/13 15:45:13


Post by: Pointed Stick


"Master-Crafted Instigator Bolt Carbine"

"Twin Icarus Ironhail Heavy Stubber"

"Wyvern Quad Stormshard Mortar"


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/13 16:11:52


Post by: lcmiracle


Pointed Stick wrote:

"Master-Crafted Instigator Bolt Carbine"

"Twin Icarus Ironhail Heavy Stubber"

"Wyvern Quad Stormshard Mortar"


I feel this would save a lot more of my time both in sayin' the names as well as in processing the written words...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
Does anyone SERIOUSLY think the lore was improved by making the Elves the Aeaeaeaeaeaeaeaelves?


No. Didn’t they already call themselves the Asuri or something like that? Why wouldn’t GW use a name hat sounds alien and already exists in the lore instead of dredg


Because Asuri is a much less known word, and GW wanted people to know their new brand from a word they already know.

...

So they used a mispelling of the word that already exists and widely known by the general public in such a way that nobody knows how it's supposed to be spelled in order to look it up...


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/13 16:44:17


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


H.B.M.C. wrote:The issue is that so many names would be fine if they just dumped one of the words. Nurgle, by far, got hit the worst here, both in 40k and AoS, and removing a single word often fixes it instantly:


I look at this way, how often do you hear people calling units Tactical Dreadnought Armor? Lots of older units have longer names that few, if anyone, uses fully. So what if some things have longer names now? More often than not most will reduce it to shorten version. Sure, it's unnecessary most of the time, but it isn't really hurting anything either. So I am not really phased by it.

It is certainly preferred to the number of things called Warriors in GW games. I mean I can think of three things of the top of my head with name. Granted, that's a little unfair given all Warriors also have their faction as part of their name. Though even Chaos Knight is two different units dependent on the game being talked about. Yeah, a lot of times there isn't likely to be a category of say Bilepipers, but just in case there is the naming convention is ready for it.

Just Tony wrote:Does anyone SERIOUSLY think the lore was improved by making the Elves the Aeaeaeaeaeaeaeaelves?


When I seriously don't think it was impaired by the change. I could also argue that elf is a pretty loaded name that brings a lot of baggage with it. While aelf isn't that far removed, and obviously done for legal reasons, it also allows the audience to understand these creatures aren't necessarily the same as Santa's, Tolkien, Celtic or more modern incarnations of elves. Though they probably share many, many similarities. If asked, "Why bother then?" I would counter with, "Why would it bother someone then? If it isn't really that big of a deal."

***

I do actually prefer the modern naming conventions. You want to know why? In the case of Age of Sigmar, it freshens up a very tired and well-worn genre for me. It brings me back to the early days of Dungeons and Dragons when the DM would describe a monster or something, and because I didn't have any frame of reference (Greek mythological monsters not withstanding) it ignited my imagination. I get a little bit of that when I hear something like mindstealer sphiranx. The name is a little mystery to solve. Mindstealer means it might have some psychic or magic abilities to read minds or maybe even take control of them. While sphiranx seems like a messy version of sphinx, so I can expect a have half-humaniod half-cat like monster. That's the kind of thing I used to live for playing D&D. Imagine getting a job to hunt a monster plaguing a town. The legend calls it a Mindstealer Sphiranx but little else is known about it. The name gives some clues, but doesn't give away the whole thing. And when your character finally encounters it all the details and assumptions you made come into focus and you get to see just how close your imagination came to what the monster really was.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/13 16:48:33


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


H.B.M.C. wrote:The issue is that so many names would be fine if they just dumped one of the words. Nurgle, by far, got hit the worst here, both in 40k and AoS, and removing a single word often fixes it instantly:

Foetid Bloat-drone
Biologus Putrifier
Foul Blightspawn
Feculent Gnarlmaw
Myphitic Blight-hauler
Pusgoyle Blightlords
Putrid Blightkings (and I still think they should've been called Blight Knights, but that's my own hang-up...)
Sloppity Bilepiper
Agreed, but because it's a pretty simple change for me to do myself, I quite like the new names.

I think it's certainly a case of "if you grew up on it, you're used to it".
Biggest example being tanks, Tau battlesuits, or Eldar aspects, and some of the more familiar looking Space Marine chapters (seriously, Emperor's Children are traitor, but Blood Drinkers are loyal? That's a definite subversion).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
I do actually prefer the modern naming conventions. You want to know why? In the case of Age of Sigmar, it freshens up a very tired and well-worn genre for me. It brings me back to the early days of Dungeons and Dragons when the DM would describe a monster or something, and because I didn't have any frame of reference (Greek mythological monsters not withstanding) it ignited my imagination. I get a little bit of that when I hear something like mindstealer sphiranx. The name is a little mystery to solve. Mindstealer means it might have some psychic or magic abilities to read minds or maybe even take control of them. While sphiranx seems like a messy version of sphinx, so I can expect a have half-humaniod half-cat like monster. That's the kind of thing I used to live for playing D&D. Imagine getting a job to hunt a monster plaguing a town. The legend calls it a Mindstealer Sphiranx but little else is known about it. The name gives some clues, but doesn't give away the whole thing. And when your character finally encounters it all the details and assumptions you made come into focus and you get to see just how close your imagination came to what the monster really was.
Agreed. And I'd also like to tie in on the "freshening up the genre" in how they've done the Lumineth and Kharadron - associating elves and cows/bulls is definitely off the beaten track, and getting dwarves out of the ground and into the skies is a nice way to take them.

If we went for the "Sky Dwarves" or "Sea Elves" kinds of description, we'd be referring to Skaven as "Rat Men" or Mechanicus as "Robot Men".


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/13 17:30:16


Post by: Blastaar


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The issue is that so many names would be fine if they just dumped one of the words. Nurgle, by far, got hit the worst here, both in 40k and AoS, and removing a single word often fixes it instantly:

Foetid Bloat-drone
Biologus Putrifier
Foul Blightspawn
Feculent Gnarlmaw
Myphitic Blight-hauler
Pusgoyle Blightlords
Putrid Blightkings (and I still think they should've been called Blight Knights, but that's my own hang-up...)
Sloppity Bilepiper

And it's expanding further. As far as we know, there is a single type of Slaangor in the upcoming AoS Slaanesh release. If there were more, the new Warcry book would have included them (this is a 95% certainty though, so we could be wrong here). But they're not called Slaangors, they're called Slaangor Fiendbloods. This implies that there are other types, yet they're not included. It's just another two words mashed together for no reason.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I do prefer Astra Militarum...



It genuinely makes me cringe when I hear people say that out loud.


This!

Are all bloat drones foetid? Are there other bloat drones that aren't foetid? Who cares!?

Are all ghoul kings abhorrent? (checks interwebz) Yup. Why bother telling us?

No such thing as a regent above regents, either.

Some banshees are Myrmourn, some Tomb? What the feth?

Stormcast units I can't keep straight. TempestORs, ConucssORs, JudicatORs (this one would be fine were it not for the others) ProsecutORs..........

Monsters in LOTR make BRUTAL Power Attacks. Haven't finished reading the current rulebook yet, but are there other power attacks that aren't brutal? HOW DOES THIS HELP US UNDERSTAND THE RULES OR ENJOY THE GAME?!?!?!?!


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/14 06:14:17


Post by: Stormonu


GW can take its new names and get stuffed.

Still call 'em Imperial Guard, for one.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/14 10:31:47


Post by: bbb


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The issue is that so many names would be fine if they just dumped one of the words. Nurgle, by far, got hit the worst here, both in 40k and AoS, and removing a single word often fixes it instantly:

Foetid Bloat-drone
Biologus Putrifier
Foul Blightspawn
Feculent Gnarlmaw
Myphitic Blight-hauler
Pusgoyle Blightlords
Putrid Blightkings (and I still think they should've been called Blight Knights, but that's my own hang-up...)
Sloppity Bilepiper

And it's expanding further. As far as we know, there is a single type of Slaangor in the upcoming AoS Slaanesh release. If there were more, the new Warcry book would have included them (this is a 95% certainty though, so we could be wrong here). But they're not called Slaangors, they're called Slaangor Fiendbloods. This implies that there are other types, yet they're not included. It's just another two words mashed together for no reason.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I do prefer Astra Militarum...


It genuinely makes me cringe when I hear people say that out loud.


Having started in the mid-90s, I have decades of learning to unlearn/relearn in order to keep up with the new names and I just don't have the motivation to do it. So instead of a unit of Exalted Champions of Nurgle, we have Putrid Blightkings. Okay... Most of the time when I look at the new names they're kind of like a wall of text that I just don't care about reading and learning.

so, essentially, get off my lawn.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/14 10:44:54


Post by: Pacific


 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:The issue is that so many names would be fine if they just dumped one of the words. Nurgle, by far, got hit the worst here, both in 40k and AoS, and removing a single word often fixes it instantly:

Foetid Bloat-drone
Biologus Putrifier
Foul Blightspawn
Feculent Gnarlmaw
Myphitic Blight-hauler
Pusgoyle Blightlords
Putrid Blightkings (and I still think they should've been called Blight Knights, but that's my own hang-up...)
Sloppity Bilepiper
Agreed, but because it's a pretty simple change for me to do myself, I quite like the new names.

I think it's certainly a case of "if you grew up on it, you're used to it".
Biggest example being tanks, Tau battlesuits, or Eldar aspects, and some of the more familiar looking Space Marine chapters (seriously, Emperor's Children are traitor, but Blood Drinkers are loyal? That's a definite subversion).


It would definitely be interesting to see how the demographics line up. It's almost 10 -> 1 ratio on preferring the older names to the new convention.
Hopefully it isn't that ratio of grognard -> new/younger users on this forum!

I agree that a lot of the classic names are ridiculous, and that time has lent them an authenticity denied to the latest releases. I do think though that it's kind of cool how those old Marine chapter names have developed over time. You can tell that some of them were almost certainly scribbled down on the back of a coaster in a pub (The 'Dark Angels' being lead by Lion El'Johnson and harbouring a 'terrible secret' was probably a pretty funny idea after a 3rd pint of Guinness!) - and then just got shoe-horned into 'goodies' and 'baddies' for the Space Marine 1st edition release. Then all of this ridiculously in-depth lore and background, which people take just so seriously (and which has grown into a multi-million pound business) has grown up from those quite humble beginnings.

But, I think there is a valid point about some of the latest names being 'turned up to 11' and being OTT. The list HBMC posted includes many of those. So, to off Aspect Warrior names, Fire Dragons, Striking Scorpions etc would have some other adjective or made-up word added in front of them.

Definitely agree that shortening the names helps them somewhat.

Although I will be cold and dead in the earth before I use the term Astra Militarum rather than Imperial Guard


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/14 11:26:05


Post by: Da Boss


Astra Militarum is definitely one of the worst new names.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/14 14:58:29


Post by: Eilif


IP,etc asside I think GW may be shooting itself in the foot in terms of communicating with potential fans. GW's old terms were -in many cases quite descriptive. Dark Eldar, Imperial Guard, Space Marines, etc all describe or at least provide good hints as to what they are. Further, they'd had 30 years to ingrain those terms (even ones less obvious) in the minds of gamers.

The new terms are in many cases more vague, insular and 40k specific, and they don't have the weight of decades of use. In the end I don't think it will make much difference either way but I still think it's a silly solution in search of a non-existent problem.

As J. Peterman remarked:
"You may know it as "Astra Millitarum,
But it will always be Imperial Guard to me."


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/15 00:32:54


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Eilif wrote:
The new terms are in many cases more vague, insular and 40k specific, and they don't have the weight of decades of use.
They did something similar when the current paint range was released.

It's certainly not as bad now, but back when it first came out paints like XV-88, Necron Compound and The Fang were utterly meaningless. What colours do these describe at all?

Yes, some knowledge is required to know the difference between two different blues (Altdorf vs Macragge, for instance), but these colours didn't even have colours in the name. All for the mighty ™.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/15 01:36:22


Post by: Grot 6


The main reason, for me comes down to Lazy thought process.

It's like these "Designers" just pulled names out of the air while waiting in line for lunch, and weren't thinking about what they were naming.

Kindergarteners could come up with better ones, such as "Green Angry Guy Mean Face", or "Blue Armour Marine Guy with Big Gun".

Of course, this is coming from an old player who's had no issues with the names for over 30 years, and then out of the blue they decide to change all of the names to ridiculous pseudo-synonyms.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/15 02:39:26


Post by: Argive


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Eilif wrote:
The new terms are in many cases more vague, insular and 40k specific, and they don't have the weight of decades of use.
They did something similar when the current paint range was released.

It's certainly not as bad now, but back when it first came out paints like XV-88, Necron Compound and The Fang were utterly meaningless. What colours do these describe at all?

Yes, some knowledge is required to know the difference between two different blues (Altdorf vs Macragge, for instance), but these colours didn't even have colours in the name. All for the mighty ™.


The fact the GW staffers still use the name conversion chart for their paints after all these years kinds tells how nobody gets it lol....


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/15 03:13:47


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Come to think of it, the endless desire to make their units more and more copywritable/trademarkable has already shown the logical end to this naming madness:

Captain with Master Crafted Heavy Bolt Rifle

That is literally the name of the unit, and not a description. It's Codex entry says that (it may say Gravis Captain or Primaris Captain - don't have the 'Dex in front of me at the moment).





Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/15 03:16:56


Post by: E3DD


I know that I'm in the minority here, but, at least for AoS, I prefer the new faction names. Not the "race" names (like aelves instead of elves), but rather the faction names. For example, the Idoneth Deepkin are one of the newer factions for the game. You could call them Sea Elves, or Ocean Elves, etc. However, naming them the Idoneth Deepkin gives them more story. According to their Battletome, the term "Idoneth" is, in their language, "extreme seclusion". There is a lot more story and narrative with more interesting names.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/15 04:41:01


Post by: Blastaar


E3DD wrote:
I know that I'm in the minority here, but, at least for AoS, I prefer the new faction names. Not the "race" names (like aelves instead of elves), but rather the faction names. For example, the Idoneth Deepkin are one of the newer factions for the game. You could call them Sea Elves, or Ocean Elves, etc. However, naming them the Idoneth Deepkin gives them more story. According to their Battletome, the term "Idoneth" is, in their language, "extreme seclusion". There is a lot more story and narrative with more interesting names.


But are there other Deepkin?


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/15 05:11:49


Post by: Argive


Blastaar wrote:
E3DD wrote:
I know that I'm in the minority here, but, at least for AoS, I prefer the new faction names. Not the "race" names (like aelves instead of elves), but rather the faction names. For example, the Idoneth Deepkin are one of the newer factions for the game. You could call them Sea Elves, or Ocean Elves, etc. However, naming them the Idoneth Deepkin gives them more story. According to their Battletome, the term "Idoneth" is, in their language, "extreme seclusion". There is a lot more story and narrative with more interesting names.


But are there other Deepkin?


You mean like non-indoneth deepkin ?
Good question..


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/15 06:09:26


Post by: Voss


 TheGenuineMetz wrote:
I feel like there's a lot of emphasis placed on having two words in a name. Idoneth Deepkin feels unnecessary when Deepkin would do, with "Idoneth" being the in-setting name they have for themselves, like Asuryani for high elves.

The Death Guard book is particularly guilty of this. Many distinct names with two parts which all blend into each other.


Yeah, that's the product of some copywrite lawyer's need to get a paycheck and it spread throughout the industry. D&D did the same thing for a while, especially 4e where you see stuff like Cyclops battleweaver, cyclops crusher, cyclops feyblade, cyclops guard, cyclopshwer, cyclops rambler, cyclops reaver, etc, etc.

But yeah, it doesn't help. As Crispy78 points out, you can just point to the generic concept and add a scale.

---
For me, the new names require an extra level of buy in, another barrier to getting people into the hobby. 'Space ork' or simply 'ork' does the job. No goes looking for orruks, and Wacky Fantasy Names have a short shelf-life.
Basically this (from xkcd):



Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/15 08:56:29


Post by: Pacific


Blastaar wrote:
E3DD wrote:
I know that I'm in the minority here, but, at least for AoS, I prefer the new faction names. Not the "race" names (like aelves instead of elves), but rather the faction names. For example, the Idoneth Deepkin are one of the newer factions for the game. You could call them Sea Elves, or Ocean Elves, etc. However, naming them the Idoneth Deepkin gives them more story. According to their Battletome, the term "Idoneth" is, in their language, "extreme seclusion". There is a lot more story and narrative with more interesting names.


But are there other Deepkin?


I think 'Deepkin' on its own isn't bad.

In fact is that what Idoneth Deepkin players call them? Asking around, do you say "I'm playing Idoneth Deepkin tonight" or "I'm playing Deepkin" ? Do you say "I'm playing fish-elves"?


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/15 21:01:21


Post by: Mangod


Voss wrote:
 TheGenuineMetz wrote:
The Death Guard book is particularly guilty of this. Many distinct names with two parts which all blend into each other.


Yeah, that's the product of some copywrite lawyer's need to get a paycheck and it spread throughout the industry. D&D did the same thing for a while, especially 4e where you see stuff like Cyclops battleweaver, cyclops crusher, cyclops feyblade, cyclops guard, cyclopshwer, cyclops rambler, cyclops reaver, etc, etc.

But yeah, it doesn't help. As Crispy78 points out, you can just point to the generic concept and add a scale.


I'd still pick Cyclops X over whatever's going on with Nurgle; at least I know what a Cyclops is, so the second name differentiates WHAT that particular Cyclops is and/or does.

Ork Kommando (stealths around), Ork Tankbusta (busts up tanks), Ork Burna Boyz (burns stuff), Ork Warboss (is the boss) - all of these make sense; they're Orks, and here's their function.

But the Nurgle stuff?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Foetid Bloat-drone
Biologus Putrifier
Foul Blightspawn
Feculent Gnarlmaw
Myphitic Blight-hauler
Pusgoyle Blightlords
Putrid Blightkings
Sloppity Bilepiper


These are just word-salad - what the fudge is a Gnarlmaw?


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/15 21:29:59


Post by: judgedoug


 Pacific wrote:
In fact is that what Idoneth Deepkin players call them? Asking around, do you say "I'm playing Idoneth Deepkin tonight" or "I'm playing Deepkin" ? Do you say "I'm playing fish-elves"?


sometimes "the Deepkin", more often just "Idoneth". It's about a billion times better sounding than "fish elves". Same with "Lumineth" vs "high elves" especially as most of the gak GW ripped off from Tolkien is now fading from garbage usage. "Eldar" can rightly stay in Middle-earth.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/16 01:50:16


Post by: Argive


I have yet to meet anyone IRL that refers to 40k Eldar as anything other than Eldar. On occasion Craftworlds... But I have yet to meet anyone IRL that refers to them as Aeldari or Asuryani..

Eldar be Eldar..
#eldarforlife


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/16 02:03:31


Post by: Grot 6


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Come to think of it, the endless desire to make their units more and more copywritable/trademarkable has already shown the logical end to this naming madness:

Captain with Master Crafted Heavy Bolt Rifle

That is literally the name of the unit, and not a description. It's Codex entry says that (it may say Gravis Captain or Primaris Captain - don't have the 'Dex in front of me at the moment).





^See? Not a step above Blue Guy with Big Gun.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/16 02:08:44


Post by: weasel_beef


Old names 100%. "Sloppity Bilepiper" sounds like the name of an Onlyfans I'd be ashamed to subscribe to.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/16 02:30:53


Post by: thegreatchimp


The old ones (though not the really old ones i.e. "Space Orks" and "Space Elves"

The issue I have with the new names is they're too much of a mouthful. Long, hard to pronounce strings of latin / pseudo latin. Just seemed like a bit of a pretentious solution to the IP issues.

Except for the Adeptus Astartes, Ad Mech, Sisters, Inquisitors and all the classic ones of course as they go way back, so theyr'e cool.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/16 03:32:12


Post by: the_scotsman


Depends on the name.

I always thought Space Marines was just far too normie a name, and also disliked any faction that was just "Bad Guy Thing" - dark eldar, chaos space marines, etc.

So I prefer Adeptus Astartes, Heretic Astartes, and Drukhari. Aeldari is just worse to say than Eldar, Astra Militarum and Minestroni Tesdosterone is just garbledygook.

So basically i see a FEW as improvements, some as just "whatever" (like, complaining about T'au instead of Tau...who cares. Whatever.) and a good many as awful.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/16 04:45:14


Post by: Racerguy180


H.B.M.C. wrote:Come to think of it, the endless desire to make their units more and more copywritable/trademarkable has already shown the logical end to this naming madness:

Captain with Master Crafted Heavy Bolt Rifle

That is literally the name of the unit, and not a description. It's Codex entry says that (it may say Gravis Captain or Primaris Captain - don't have the 'Dex in front of me at the moment).




right, it's why they don't push kitbashing any more. they need to make a specific weapon combo to match the data slate so big bad nobody can come along and undercut GW. which leads to lazy ass naming conventions.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/16 09:05:52


Post by: Pacific


 judgedoug wrote:
 Pacific wrote:
In fact is that what Idoneth Deepkin players call them? Asking around, do you say "I'm playing Idoneth Deepkin tonight" or "I'm playing Deepkin" ? Do you say "I'm playing fish-elves"?


sometimes "the Deepkin", more often just "Idoneth". It's about a billion times better sounding than "fish elves". Same with "Lumineth" vs "high elves" especially as most of the gak GW ripped off from Tolkien is now fading from garbage usage. "Eldar" can rightly stay in Middle-earth.


I'm going to have to disagree with you there buddy, I know it has origins in Tolkein but for me Eldar is always going to be Jes Goodwin sculpts and WD127.

Definitely won't be doing weird things with my jaw (and frightening whoever I speaking to) and trying to add an extended 'Ae' in front of it!



Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/16 14:09:28


Post by: Gurkhal


Since I grew up with Old World Warhammer I naturally like that best. But if I grew up with the Age of Sigmar I am certain that I would be more receptive to that style.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/16 14:40:22


Post by: catbarf


I don't hate the new style, but I do agree with everyone else saying the two-part nounadjective nounverber names are annoying.

GW still does some reasonably clever/historical names. Chaos Varanguard, for example, as a mash-up of Varangian Guard and vanguard, which perfectly describes their role. They're the big boss's bodyguard and they herald his arrival.

But then you've got a bunch where the names are redundant or just unnecessarily long. Idoneth Deepkin could just be Idoneth. Vanari Auralan Sentinels could just be Sentinels. Grundstok Thunderers can just be Thunderers. I get that those prefixes are some kind of descriptor/classifier, but they don't need to be part of the name.

And then there's stuff like Bloodbound Bloodreaver and Sloppity Bilepiper. Someone's kid must have come up with those.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/16 15:55:23


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


I fell really bad for the young Billie Piper fans searching for videos.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/16 16:19:40


Post by: Tycho


For me, the new stuff really goes off the rails with things like the newer Ork vehicles. "Ruk-a-Truk-whositwhatsit, Shockjumpdragsta, etc etc.

Even a lot of the die-hard Ork players I know struggle to tell the difference. It often becomes "the one that shoots the rivet gun, the one that teleports, etc".



Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/16 16:22:33


Post by: Da Boss


Hah, yeah. I think the new models look pretty cool but the names were super offputting to me.

I dunno, I see people on Reddit mostly using the new names, and I would say Dakka skews more grognard than Reddit, so I guess the new generation will be happy with the new names.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/16 16:27:46


Post by: PaddyMick


 Da Boss wrote:
Astra Militarum is definitely one of the worst new names.


Agreed. I do like all the tanks being named after monsters though, except the forge world ones, but I like that all those are capitalised.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/16 21:01:01


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 Mangod wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Foetid Bloat-drone
Biologus Putrifier
Foul Blightspawn
Feculent Gnarlmaw
Myphitic Blight-hauler
Pusgoyle Blightlords
Putrid Blightkings
Sloppity Bilepiper


These are just word-salad - what the fudge is a Gnarlmaw?
I totally agree with the irritating tacking-on of an extra descriptor. It irks me both because of how completely unnecessary they are and because no one uses the extra word anyways. However, I do have to be fair and caveat that SOMETIMES it is justified. For example, back when the Silver Tower game launched Tzeentch got a new hero option called the "Ogroid Thaumaturge" and at the time the 'ogroid' was just an extra slap-on. Buuut a few years later they did indeed release another ogroid, so credit where it's due. On Nurgle specifically the leader of a blightking unit is called a blightlord, that's where "Pusgoyle Blightlords" comes from (though I still find 'pusgoyle' a... questionable choice).

As to what a gnarlmaw is, once you see the miniature the name fits so perfectly you could never mistake it for anything else (the 'feculent' is still needless though). https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Feculent-Gnarlmaw-2018


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/16 21:13:46


Post by: Da Boss


Ogroid Thaumaturge is my go to when I want to explain in exactly what way the new GW names are dumb, since it is plainly an Ogre Mage in classic Dungeons and Dragons fashion, but they just had to give it an off brand name.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/16 21:33:22


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 catbarf wrote:
Grundstok Thunderers can just be Thunderers. I get that those prefixes are some kind of descriptor/classifier, but they don't need to be part of the name.
People have brought this up in the thread so far, and it's a point I hadn't considered:

If there was a unit called Grundstok [Something Else], then that first word wouldn't be as obnoxious. If that first word had a specific meaning, as a group signifier, and then the second word was the specific unit within that group, I don't think these sorts of names would stand out. Like the new Slaangor Fiendbloods. If there were Slaangor [Other Things], it wouldn't be as stupid.

Tycho wrote:
For me, the new stuff really goes off the rails with things like the newer Ork vehicles. "Ruk-a-Truk-whositwhatsit, Shockjumpdragsta, etc etc.
There are many things wrong with those Ork buggiest. IMO the names are the least of those problems.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/16 21:40:59


Post by: NinthMusketeer


There are two Grundstock units; Thunderers and Gunhauler. At the time there was also another unit called Thunderers so the distinction was necessary. In the lore, Grundstock is the main mercenary company within Kharadron society, so it is also distinguishing them fluff-wise as hired assets to the main expedition. Kharadron Overlords (the second word is a pun; they are literally *over* you because they are in the sky) are probably one of the best-named factions out there, and certainly are standouts for the extra word in a name actually having a reason to be there.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/16 21:47:12


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Is that one of the ships?


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/16 21:48:28


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Yeah, the small one that doesn't transport anything. And I would bet that when KO eventually get new models there will be "grundstock something" among them.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/17 00:09:51


Post by: Blastaar


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
There are two Grundstock units; Thunderers and Gunhauler. At the time there was also another unit called Thunderers so the distinction was necessary. In the lore, Grundstock is the main mercenary company within Kharadron society, so it is also distinguishing them fluff-wise as hired assets to the main expedition. Kharadron Overlords (the second word is a pun; they are literally *over* you because they are in the sky) are probably one of the best-named factions out there, and certainly are standouts for the extra word in a name actually having a reason to be there.


In that case, wouldn't it be better if the Grundstock company were a subfaction? There've gotta be thunderers and gunhaulers used by other KO groups.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/17 00:28:50


Post by: Castozor


 Mangod wrote:


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Foetid Bloat-drone
Biologus Putrifier
Foul Blightspawn
Feculent Gnarlmaw
Myphitic Blight-hauler
Pusgoyle Blightlords
Putrid Blightkings
Sloppity Bilepiper


These are just word-salad - what the fudge is a Gnarlmaw?

DG is the worst but really even without the useless second name I'd probably still refer to them as: Drones, Flamer dude, grenade dude, buggies. The names are overly long and refering to them as that is just way easier. In general even without the word salad I prefer the old names if only because they are clearer. IG, nice and easy, same for (Dark) Eldar. Although it's not as bad as AoS were they apparently feel the need to needlessly butcher common fantasy names for no reason.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/17 00:35:39


Post by: cody.d.


I'm fearful of what the orks will get with whatever new units they eventually get. Yeah the nurgle factions have a lotta wordsalad units but orks are creeping up behind them.

Boomdakka Snazzwagon
Deffkilla Wartrike
Shokkjump Dragsta
Kustom Boosta Blasta
Megatrakk Scrapjet

And that's just the one release wave.

Admittedly most players just cut off the first part which is usually pointless, the second portion actually describes the unit. Wartrike, Dragsta, yup I understand what they might be.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/17 01:51:23


Post by: Just Tony


Tycho wrote:
For me, the new stuff really goes off the rails with things like the newer Ork vehicles. "Ruk-a-Truk-whositwhatsit, Shockjumpdragsta, etc etc.

Even a lot of the die-hard Ork players I know struggle to tell the difference. It often becomes "the one that shoots the rivet gun, the one that teleports, etc".



Wait...

Teleporting Ork Trukks??!?!?!


Every day I'm reaffirmed that my decision to stay with 3rd Ed. was the correct one.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/17 02:45:21


Post by: cody.d.


 Just Tony wrote:
Tycho wrote:
For me, the new stuff really goes off the rails with things like the newer Ork vehicles. "Ruk-a-Truk-whositwhatsit, Shockjumpdragsta, etc etc.

Even a lot of the die-hard Ork players I know struggle to tell the difference. It often becomes "the one that shoots the rivet gun, the one that teleports, etc".



Wait...

Teleporting Ork Trukks??!?!?!


Every day I'm reaffirmed that my decision to stay with 3rd Ed. was the correct one.


They're basically doing a "back to the future" and driving through a portal they create. It can lead to some fun plays tbh.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/17 04:55:20


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Unsurprisingly, dropping one word in most cases fixes everything...

cody.d. wrote:
Boomdakka Snazzwagon
Deffkilla Wartrike
Shokkjump Dragsta ---> This one is ok. It's a Dragsta, and the type is 'Shockkjump' as it does describe how it operates!
Kustom Boosta Blasta ---> This one sounds like a gun!
Megatrakk Scrapjet ---> Could even clear this one up by calling it a Trakkjet, as Scrapjet sounds too much like an aircraft






Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/17 13:03:40


Post by: thegreatchimp


Tycho wrote:
For me, the new stuff really goes off the rails with things like the newer Ork vehicles. "Ruk-a-Truk-whositwhatsit, Shockjumpdragsta, etc etc.


Agreed. Bonecrusha, Bowelburna and Death Kopta were amusing and cool. The modern range of light attack vehicles just sound like comething from Inspector Gadget. Also I don't know why they ever felt the need to change "Deathkopta" to "Deffkopta." It was funnier the way it was.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/17 15:25:34


Post by: Zenithfleet


 thegreatchimp wrote:

Also I don't know why they ever felt the need to change "Deathkopta" to "Deffkopta." It was funnier the way it was.


GW have gone back and forth on Death/Deff over the years. I seem to recall some weapons in Epic that were Deff for a while and then went back to Death again.

Most words seem more Orky if you get rid of any 'th' sounds and eff them up, e.g. 'fing' instead of 'thing'. But for some reason 'deff' always turns out looking and sounding wrong, probably because it sounds like 'deaf'. So in this one case Ork words need to keep the 'th'.

The Deathskull clan really should be Deffskulls by Orky pronunciation conventions... except that's just effin' stoopid.

(Don't tell me they're called Deffskullz now. Are they called Deffskullz now? I bet they are.)

/'ardcore Ork grammar nazi


On the naming conventions more generally: I wonder if it's purely a GW copyright issue. There seems to be a general trend toward more bespoke names for fantasy things in gaming--possibly driven by video games. It annoys the heck out of me, but it's not limited to GW alone.

I recently got into the Talisman boardgame, having somehow missed it all these years. The current 4th edition started out by reprinting cards from the original 80s edition, so monsters have straightforward names that everyone in your family would recognise: Dragon, Goblin, Spectre, Ape, Lion. (And nothing says 80s fantasy like a carefree attitude to slaughtering endangered wildlife.) But as the years went on, and FFG brought out more and more expansions, the names for enemies started to get more and more adjective-heavy and convoluted. What's a 'Wrathborn Sorceress'? I know what a Sorceress is, but what does Wrathborn even mean? That she was born cranky?

It started to sound more 'for the geeks' as time went on. The last expansion in the 2010s gave practically every new creature a placename-noun treatment: Rusthill Marauders, Blightwood Cultists and the like. (Going by memory as I don't have the cards with me, but you get the idea.)


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/18 14:34:34


Post by: Geifer


I prefer the older, more functional names. I'm not big on the new ones. Not that they're all bad, but the proliferation of the same unwieldy, formulaic naming format is what makes a lot of new stuff blend together into an unintelligible mess for me. It's not improved my inability to picture how some of the new names would be legit in universe references.

Would there really ever be a point in calling something a Heavytread Fyrebox* if that something was as mundane as a mine? What is so glamorous about your rank and file swordsmen that they have to have a name that goes beyond their function?

In the old naming approach specific names were more commonly reserved for units that had some prestige attached to them in universe, or so it seemed to me for all these years, while common troops would use common, descriptive terms because they don't warrant special attention. To me this made sense and gave elite units an easy signifier that elevated them into that elite position. These days I can hardly tell anymore if a unit is of higher standing in the background than another because everyone is special even when they're not.



* I was going to use the no less made up name Longstabby Poleboyos instead, but I found that I would totally call my pikemen that. Much to their annoyance, I would bet.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
There are two Grundstock units; Thunderers and Gunhauler. At the time there was also another unit called Thunderers so the distinction was necessary. In the lore, Grundstock is the main mercenary company within Kharadron society, so it is also distinguishing them fluff-wise as hired assets to the main expedition. Kharadron Overlords (the second word is a pun; they are literally *over* you because they are in the sky) are probably one of the best-named factions out there, and certainly are standouts for the extra word in a name actually having a reason to be there.


It's funny Kharadron Overlords would have been my go to name for something that tells the uninformed reader absolutely nothing about the faction. What are they? Lizard people? Evil sorcerers? Ancient Mesopotamian sky watchers? There's no clue in there that I can see. And correct me if I'm wrong, but what actually warrants the overlord descriptor in a literal sense? I can see the pun, but the faction doesn't seem to rule over anybody else, and there rule is no less uncontested than that of any other Order faction as far as I know.

Contrast that to Nighthaunt. You look at the name and your go to image should be ghosts, because haunt is a common enough synonym and ghosts coming out at night is pretty much the stereotype. It's short and tells you all you need to know. Kharadron Overlords does not.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/18 15:34:28


Post by: catbarf


H.B.M.C. wrote:People have brought this up in the thread so far, and it's a point I hadn't considered:

If there was a unit called Grundstok [Something Else], then that first word wouldn't be as obnoxious. If that first word had a specific meaning, as a group signifier, and then the second word was the specific unit within that group, I don't think these sorts of names would stand out. Like the new Slaangor Fiendbloods. If there were Slaangor [Other Things], it wouldn't be as stupid.


NinthMusketeer wrote:There are two Grundstock units; Thunderers and Gunhauler. At the time there was also another unit called Thunderers so the distinction was necessary. In the lore, Grundstock is the main mercenary company within Kharadron society, so it is also distinguishing them fluff-wise as hired assets to the main expedition.


I can think of lots of prior examples of that not being necessary, though- like all the Beastclaw Raiders units under the Ogre Mawtribes umbrella constitute a different subfaction, but there's no need to append 'Beastclaw' to their names. There's no non-Grundstok Gunhauler. There's no non-Grundstok Thunderer within the KO roster, for that matter, and precedent exists for reused names across factions anyways- we never got Empire Crossbowmen and Dark Elf Crossbowmen confused. No reason why there can't just be Kharadron Thunderers and Disposessed Thunderers as two different flavors of gun-armed Dwarf.

Going back to Ogres, this distinction would be like if Maneaters were called Sellsword Maneaters to reinforce the fact that they're often brought in as mercenaries from other tribes. But they don't need that; we know that that's what a Maneater is to begin with. We have Butchers and Slaughtermasters and know that those are the spellcasters gifted with magic, they don't need to be Gutcasting Butchers and Gutcasting Slaughtermasters to embody that distinction as an extra few syllables in the name.

Or look at Skaven. Stormfiends, Ratling Guns, and Warlock Engineers are all Skryre, but they don't get a goofy prefix to convey that. The ones that do have that sort of prefix, like most of the Pestilens stuff, are just Plague + normal word. Plague monk, plague censer bearer, plague priest. You don't need to call them Corruptskitter Postulants and append the Corruptskitter prefix to everything diseased to remember that they're Pestilens.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/18 17:58:28


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 Geifer wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
There are two Grundstock units; Thunderers and Gunhauler. At the time there was also another unit called Thunderers so the distinction was necessary. In the lore, Grundstock is the main mercenary company within Kharadron society, so it is also distinguishing them fluff-wise as hired assets to the main expedition. Kharadron Overlords (the second word is a pun; they are literally *over* you because they are in the sky) are probably one of the best-named factions out there, and certainly are standouts for the extra word in a name actually having a reason to be there.


It's funny Kharadron Overlords would have been my go to name for something that tells the uninformed reader absolutely nothing about the faction. What are they? Lizard people? Evil sorcerers? Ancient Mesopotamian sky watchers? There's no clue in there that I can see. And correct me if I'm wrong, but what actually warrants the overlord descriptor in a literal sense? I can see the pun, but the faction doesn't seem to rule over anybody else, and there rule is no less uncontested than that of any other Order faction as far as I know.

Contrast that to Nighthaunt. You look at the name and your go to image should be ghosts, because haunt is a common enough synonym and ghosts coming out at night is pretty much the stereotype. It's short and tells you all you need to know. Kharadron Overlords does not.
"Overlords" is indicating that they are the dominant force in the skies of AoS, because in that sphere of influence they are very much top dog in a dramatically different fashion to how things look for Order on the ground. To the uninformed reader it only tells them that they are the overlords of something, but not all names have to be descriptive. Some of the criticism of GW naming even comes from them overusing that angle. Besides...

Daughters of Khaine
Fyreslayers
Idoneth Deepkin
Lumineth Realm-Lords
Skaven
Legions of Nagash
Sons of Behemat
Adepta Sororitas
Adeptus Custodes
Imperial Knights
Chaos Knights
Death Guard
Thousand Sons
Craftworlds
Drukhari
Necrons
T'au Empire
Tyranids

On paper all of those offer as little or less than Kharadron Overlords does. But that's why every army book and codex has a clear cover evoking the theme and image of what the army is. Once you combine these with the cover of their relevant rulebook almost all of them give at least a decent idea of what the army is. Same with KO; when you see it next to the cover it is clear 'oh these are sky dwarves in metal skyships'.


But this is all moot of course, because the pun justifies itself.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/18 20:14:13


Post by: Easy E


I can tell I have been out of the GW loop for a long time. I have no idea what half of those names are, and for all I know could be War Jacks in War Machine, or something from Malifaux.....





Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/19 17:03:29


Post by: thegreatchimp


Zenithfleet wrote:
What's a 'Wrathborn Sorceress'? I know what a Sorceress is, but what does Wrathborn even mean? That she was born cranky?
Oh that got a laugh out of me! Yep, too many adjectives being fired around these days.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/19 20:01:08


Post by: oldravenman3025


I much prefer the old naming convention and name choices. And I use them instead of the "lawyer friendly" titles.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/19 22:39:05


Post by: Grot 6


 Just Tony wrote:
Tycho wrote:
For me, the new stuff really goes off the rails with things like the newer Ork vehicles. "Ruk-a-Truk-whositwhatsit, Shockjumpdragsta, etc etc.

Even a lot of the die-hard Ork players I know struggle to tell the difference. It often becomes "the one that shoots the rivet gun, the one that teleports, etc".



Wait...

Teleporting Ork Trukks??!?!?!


Every day I'm reaffirmed that my decision to stay with 3rd Ed. was the correct one.


Yeah, basically the Orks were like- A Shock Attack Gun is a great Idea, Lets hook it onto a truck!!!

I mean, hey, what could go wrong?


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/19 22:49:23


Post by: Lord Damocles


I literally still don't know what my Death Guard not-Dark-Apostle-County-Man is actually called.

I just refer to the characters as Bell Guy, Potion Seller, Medic, and Sorcerer.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/20 01:06:42


Post by: Bayonet&Ricochet


 TheGenuineMetz wrote:
I feel like there's a lot of emphasis placed on having two words in a name. Idoneth Deepkin feels unnecessary when Deepkin would do, with "Idoneth" being the in-setting name they have for themselves, like Asuryani for high elves.

The Death Guard book is particularly guilty of this. Many distinct names with two parts which all blend into each other.


I'm not defending the practice but I think you could consider that they're trying to broaden copyright claims. They could potentially be sued if someone else named something jester(fake example) but by using Hollowed Grave Jester they have more robust protection. It also allows them to claim copyright infringement on other things to protect their brand if someone else happens to use one or two of the names.

I've actually recently been talking to copyright lawyers for my wargame it's actually pretty cutthroat people will make claims against anything. Simply because it's really hard for joe random to pay for the legal battle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 thegreatchimp wrote:
Zenithfleet wrote:
What's a 'Wrathborn Sorceress'? I know what a Sorceress is, but what does Wrathborn even mean? That she was born cranky?
Oh that got a laugh out of me! Yep, too many adjectives being fired around these days.


This is pretty easy to answer actually it's a play on words. A lot of fantasy gaming especially in England is based on the contemporary understandings of JRR Tolkien's works. Tolkien was an English language purist to my limited understanding. And a lot of the specific etymology of words was learned by the nerds that grew up reading his works. So it's no wonder that this kind of stuff pops up from time to time. Especially from GWs. The company is no doubt filled with Tolkien fans. Tolkien fans are often very enthusiastic about the deeper meaning of wordplay and his works have deeply influenced literature, gaming, and other media.

Funny thing for anyone that does not know, Lord of The Rings character Bilbo was ripped off or inspired by the works of William Makepeace Thackeray, from something called the Rose and The Ring. Tolkien often drew inspiration from many classical and industrial era, songs, stories, and poems, sagas and history its self.

The Rose and The Ring is a satirical work of fantasy fiction written by William Makepeace Thackeray, originally published at Christmas 1854 (though dated 1855).[1] It criticizes, to some extent, the attitudes of the monarchy and those at the top of society and challenges their ideas of beauty and marriage.

Set in the fictional countries of Paflagonia and Crim Tartary, the story revolves around the lives and fortunes of four young royal cousins, Princesses Angelica and Rosalba, and Princes Bulbo and Giglio. Each page is headed by a line of poetry summing up the plot at that point and the storyline as a whole is laid out, as the book states, as "A Fireside Pantomime". The original edition had illustrations by Thackeray who had once intended a career as an illustrator.

Warborn - someone born during or on the eve of war.

Battle Born- someone born during a battle or the eve of battle.

Wrathborn a play on the above.

I would sort of say maybe we need more creative works like the above, we seem to be losing our understanding of language. It means more than just funny words smashed together. Take Sourceress for example where does it come from, what is its history in contemporary media do you know?. Or Warborn BattleBorn what is that tied into, what was its first usage. Is it fiction or is it tied to a specific person or place in history?

Another great example of this is the middle English word for first (ear,Aer also germanic ) Which is something I'm using in the war game I'm developing. Aer or Ear (air) Koning (king, ruler) Aer Konig the First kings. Or Rus Dan Mann (the men who row) two of the factions in the game I'm developing. A play on words for Russ Vikings early Russian Vikings Rus,menn originally. If I didn't study the deeper meaning of the languages I might not be able to come up with that.

Language can be pretty cool.



Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/20 04:00:32


Post by: jdouglas




*(although let's not get started on paint names, where I'm trying to track down a paint and find it has been changed three times since!)







Well, since you brought it up. Citadel should just use a numerical assession (reference) code for a particular paint shade, that dozen change,
and then they can call them any damn thing they want.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/20 10:53:53


Post by: Pacific


 jdouglas wrote:


Well, since you brought it up. Citadel should just use a numerical assession (reference) code for a particular paint shade, that dozen change,
and then they can call them any damn thing they want.


You do have 'Federal Standard' codes which are used commonly between the many brands in the plastic kit modelling world. Also RAL and RLM references.
https://hobbylandbg.com/colourtable

I'm not sure if anything similar has been done for GW paints in terms of an actual colour combination 'code' (although there is a very useful conversion chart here on Dakka)


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/21 11:14:44


Post by: Grimtuff


 Lord Damocles wrote:
I literally still don't know what my Death Guard not-Dark-Apostle-County-Man is actually called.


C’mon dude, there’s a well known song to help you remember.




Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/21 13:49:47


Post by: H.B.M.C.


So... he's a banana?


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/21 14:01:33


Post by: Grimtuff


Well... mine may or may not totally have "Bananas" written in the dark tongue of Chaos at the top of his clipboard. Nope.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/21 19:08:03


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


While I voted for the "old names" line, reading through some of the comments reminds me that my answer is not a 100% all the time one.

As brought up previously, I think that Drukhari is a better name than "dark eldar"

I dislike Astra Militarum, because I play Vostroyans. They are of the Imperial Guard. A buddy of mine plays Cadians. Another Catachans. Those names mean something, "astra militarum" does not. At least to our group.


I get that a lot of the "old names" conventions, at least back a number of editions ago, were based on some bit of lore that it was inquisitors doing "identification and guide books" to know your enemy. Ergo, we know a Necron warrior isn't really called a warrior (in necron language), but for Imperial forces, it is a quick and easy way to denote that you're fighting a base troop warrior, and not some immortals.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/21 21:25:19


Post by: Dysartes


 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
As brought up previously, I think that Drukhari is a better name than "dark eldar"


Being named after a... "comedian" is better than a more factual description?


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/21 23:02:26


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


 Dysartes wrote:
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
As brought up previously, I think that Drukhari is a better name than "dark eldar"


Being named after a... "comedian" is better than a more factual description?


But they aren't swarthy senior citizens either.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/22 03:38:15


Post by: epronovost


It depend. I like some of the new names like the different names to differenciate the various eldar and elven factions. I also prefer duardin to dwarf which is always a bit weird since dwarfism is also a real thing that's completely unrelated to fantasy dwarves. All in all, I'd say that once the "this is a change" phase has passed, I don't mind the new name.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/22 16:08:30


Post by: stonehorse


As someone who is colourblind, the GW naming method is infuriating. The sheer number of them that don’t even mention a colour, but just names lifted from the lore. Tells me absolutely nothing, and I can't always see which colour it is.

Part of the reason why I have jumped over to Army Painter as my go to, at least they use colour names.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/22 21:46:01


Post by: Mangod


 stonehorse wrote:
As someone who is colourblind, the GW naming method is infuriating. The sheer number of them that don’t even mention a colour, but just names lifted from the lore. Tells me absolutely nothing, and I can't always see which colour it is.

Part of the reason why I have jumped over to Army Painter as my go to, at least they use colour names.


C'mon, are you telling me that it's difficult to figure out what colour Retributor Armour is supposed to be from the name alone? P-uh-lease!

Next you'll tell me Steel Legion Drab, Leadbelcher, Bugman's Glow, Screaming Bell and/or The Fang are non-descript names too!/s

Yeah, I have no idea what GW thought they were doing when they started slapping copyright names on their paints - was it really that important that Terracotta Armour be trademarked?


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/22 23:30:51


Post by: Voss


Wait, which one is supposed to be Terracotta?

I thought they just dropped that particular paint.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/23 02:33:07


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Mangod wrote:
Yeah, I have no idea what GW thought they were doing when they started slapping copyright names on their paints...
They were thinking one thing: Chapterhouse Studios.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/23 07:45:34


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


I uh, am largely apathetic to the names.

I still use Imperial Guard, but I'm not offended by something like Intercessor or Sloppity Bilepiper.

Really, GW has used silly names for quite some time. After all, names like Bloodcrusher aren't new, and are equally silly. I don't think there's a particularly strong distinction in the names given to units between before and after the renaming of Imperial Guard.


I only really require that the name be coherently pronouceable and sufficiently distinct that I'm not perpetually confused.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/23 08:17:27


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
After all, names like Bloodcrusher aren't new, and are equally silly.
Are they though? As has been made pretty clear throughout this thread, it is the additional superfluous names that are causing the most consternation.

Bloodcrusher is fine. If they were suddenly renamed Skullfist Bloodcrushers, then you'd see people being annoyed.

Bilepiper is fine. Sloppity Bilepiper is stupid.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/23 10:31:51


Post by: Duskweaver


If you think 'Bloodcrusher' isn't silly, then can you please explain how one would go about crushing blood?


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/23 10:58:07


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Not really what I was getting at...


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/23 11:15:51


Post by: Mr. Burning


I have no preference, but there isn't an option for that.

Like others in this thread I don't understand the reasoning behind some of the new naming conventions but they aren't a deal breaker.

There are more naming conventions in the novels and short stories for non sentient items that I find more irksome.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/23 12:50:21


Post by: Geifer


Voss wrote:
Wait, which one is supposed to be Terracotta?

I thought they just dropped that particular paint.


Yes, they did.

*shakes fist angrily at GW*


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/23 12:55:42


Post by: Lord Damocles


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Mangod wrote:
Yeah, I have no idea what GW thought they were doing when they started slapping copyright names on their paints...
They were thinking one thing: Chapterhouse Studios.

Which Citadel paints at the time of the Chapterhouse case had generic names shared with other brands?

Who else was making Boltgun Metal or Bad Moon Yellow? Why is Ironbreaker any more copyrightable than Chainmail?

How does naming a paint Bugman's Glow stop any other company from making the same colour with a different name (it doesn't - in the same way that 'copyrightable names' don't (and didn't) stop anybody from making their own Not-Space-Marine models).


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/23 13:00:32


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Lord Damocles wrote:
Which Citadel paints at the time of the Chapterhouse case had generic names shared with other brands?
Citadel paints have always had lore-flavoured names, but they were still colours. Some of them were twists on existing things, such as boltgun metal being gunmetal (obviously).

The change after the CHS debacle is when we got such descriptive names as XV-88, Necron Compound and The Fang.



Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/23 13:11:15


Post by: Lord Damocles


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The change after the CHS debacle is when we got such descriptive names as XV-88, Necron Compound and The Fang.

Which aren't any more copyrightable [trademarkable] than Desert Yellow, Mithril Silver, or Space Wolves Grey...


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/23 16:33:04


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Mangod wrote:
Yeah, I have no idea what GW thought they were doing when they started slapping copyright names on their paints...
They were thinking one thing: Chapterhouse Studios.



Literally no one else who makes paints has this issue that you're alluding to though.

Grabbing 3 different brands of paint pots that I have sitting directly in front of me:

Vallejo Model Color: 70.957 Flat Red, next to it is 70.953 Flat Yellow

Tamiya: X-14 Sky Blue, also XF-16 Flat Aluminum

Lifecolor: Italian Gloss Dark Green, UA 110/ PS 1407/ 1006


Paints and paint colors should not be dealt with like they are some super special thing. The thing that gets copyrighted in the companies I have sat in front of me is their organizing systems. Copyrighted names for paints are, quite frankly, stupid, even if its how GW has always done it.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/23 18:34:45


Post by: NinthMusketeer


I don't think anyone is suggesting the decision or reasoning was rational. This was late-stage Kirby era GW. The worst excesses of modern GW today were pretty much the standard.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/24 09:16:46


Post by: Slipspace


 Duskweaver wrote:
If you think 'Bloodcrusher' isn't silly, then can you please explain how one would go about crushing blood?


That's not really the point. Yes, on the surface "Bloodcrusher" is nonsensical but it fit with the other units in the army: Bloodletter, Bloodthirster. It was also somewhat descriptive, kind of. It's a big heavy cavalry unit so the "crusher" part of the name sort of fits. It's also perfectly fine as a single word name for a unit. Where it gets silly is when you add extra words to describe it that aren't needed. Firstly because it doubles down on the silliness and secondly because it implies there may be other types of this unit when there never are. If you can have a Sloppity Bilepiper, for example, that implies there should be Bilepipers that aren't sloppity.

As for the paints, it's just yet another stupid decision from GW that shows they don't understand how market position works. If you're GW you're the company least likely to be affected by using more generic names for your paint. Yes, Goblin Green was pretty generic but if anyone mentions Goblin Green (even today, more than a decade after that paint stopped existing) the vast majority of painters will think of the Citadel paint. If you're GW, you can actually leverage that popularity since you're likely the first paint brand many painters think of. That's why, in all the years it existed, we never saw another Goblin Green from another company. Firstly, it's needlessly confusing, and secondly it'll likely lose you sales to GW when your customers tell their friends they used Goblin Green for their models. Now we have the genius of Knarloc (or is it Gnarloc) Hide and my personal favourite XV-88. The idiot who decided to remove any semblance of a clue about the actual colour of the paint from the name needs drowning in a vat of Screaming Bell.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/24 14:06:44


Post by: thegreatchimp


 Duskweaver wrote:
If you think 'Bloodcrusher' isn't silly, then can you please explain how one would go about crushing blood?


Bahaha! That's pretty hilarious, I hadn't even thought about the meaning of it until now. At least "Skullcrusher" makes some sort of sense.

I think the Death Guard / AOS Nurgle names take the prize for lacking subtlety. Can you picture other heratic Astartes taking someone seriously who introduces themselves as "Nauseous Rotbone" or "Gutrot Spume." "Just tell theim your real name, Timmy"


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/24 14:16:03


Post by: Lord Damocles


Yeah! Get a sensible name like Obsidius Mallex!
Wait, no...


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/24 14:42:02


Post by: Mangod


Slipspace wrote:
 Duskweaver wrote:
If you think 'Bloodcrusher' isn't silly, then can you please explain how one would go about crushing blood?


That's not really the point. Yes, on the surface "Bloodcrusher" is nonsensical but it fit with the other units in the army: Bloodletter, Bloodthirster. It was also somewhat descriptive, kind of. It's a big heavy cavalry unit so the "crusher" part of the name sort of fits. It's also perfectly fine as a single word name for a unit. Where it gets silly is when you add extra words to describe it that aren't needed. Firstly because it doubles down on the silliness and secondly because it implies there may be other types of this unit when there never are. If you can have a Sloppity Bilepiper, for example, that implies there should be Bilepipers that aren't sloppity.


I think CMoN's ASoI&F-game provides a great counterpoint, actually. Most units in the game are named after their allegiance to a particular noble house or armed organization, with the factions in the game consisting of several houses working together. So for example, the Stark faction breaks down into the subfactions of House Stark, House Umber, House Tully and the Crannogmen.

Spoiler:




With these, names like Umber Berserkers tells you two things; it's a unit of Berserkers, and they're members of/sworn to House Umber. If we use GW's Lumineth, we get something similar, with three different Vanari units (Dawnriders, Sentinels and Wardens) and three Alarith units (Stoneguard, Stonemage and Spirit of the Mountain). Alarith and Vanari then provides a unifying element to the army.

But Sloppity, Putrid, Pusgoyle, Feculent, Dyspeptic, Spoilpox - these are just noise, providing nothing except a wordier name for a single model; the only unifying factor between them being the implication that the army needs a bath.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/24 15:18:46


Post by: thegreatchimp


Flappity Flappers of Tzeentch!


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/24 17:12:13


Post by: epronovost


Sometime I think people forgets that many of the names of GW units are purposefully ridiculous and is one of the last remain of Warhammer being a edgy pardody. When they called a demon of Nurle Sloppity Bilepiper, they were completely aware it sounded over the top and ridiculous and that's probably why they decided to name it like that. They wanted something that sounds revoltingly dirty and ridiculous as a joke.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/24 19:42:53


Post by: jeff white


GW sells a universe and with that a product range to support said universe. It is Disney meets Hasbro on coke.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/24 22:12:05


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


 Lord Damocles wrote:
Yeah! Get a sensible name like Obsidius Mallex!
Wait, no...


No no no. . . a sensible name, like Obiwan Sherlock Clouseau


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/25 04:41:46


Post by: Racerguy180


 jeff white wrote:
GW sells a universe and with that a product range to support said universe. It is Disney meets Hasbro on coke.

a very apt description.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/25 10:09:06


Post by: Grimtuff


 Slipspace wrote:

As for the paints, it's just yet another stupid decision from GW that shows they don't understand how market position works. If you're GW you're the company least likely to be affected by using more generic names for your paint. Yes, Goblin Green was pretty generic but if anyone mentions Goblin Green (even today, more than a decade after that paint stopped existing) the vast majority of painters will think of the Citadel paint. If you're GW, you can actually leverage that popularity since you're likely the first paint brand many painters think of. That's why, in all the years it existed, we never saw another Goblin Green from another company. Firstly, it's needlessly confusing, and secondly it'll likely lose you sales to GW when your customers tell their friends they used Goblin Green for their models. Now we have the genius of Knarloc (or is it Gnarloc) Hide and my personal favourite XV-88. The idiot who decided to remove any semblance of a clue about the actual colour of the paint from the name needs drowning in a vat of Screaming Bell.


Coat D'arms still do a Goblin Green. Though, to be fair at one point GW paints were simply their paints repackaged.

 thegreatchimp wrote:


I think the Death Guard / AOS Nurgle names take the prize for lacking subtlety. Can you picture other heratic Astartes taking someone seriously who introduces themselves as "Nauseous Rotbone" or "Gutrot Spume." "Just tell theim your real name, Timmy"


Except "Gutrot Spume" makes sense. Gutrot is a typically "Nurgle-esq" name we've seen many times over the years. "Spume" is another name for sea foam. Gutrot Spume is a Nurgle pirate, so the name fits.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/25 15:34:05


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


 Grimtuff wrote:
 thegreatchimp wrote:


I think the Death Guard / AOS Nurgle names take the prize for lacking subtlety. Can you picture other heratic Astartes taking someone seriously who introduces themselves as "Nauseous Rotbone" or "Gutrot Spume." "Just tell theim your real name, Timmy"


Except "Gutrot Spume" makes sense. Gutrot is a typically "Nurgle-esq" name we've seen many times over the years. "Spume" is another name for sea foam. Gutrot Spume is a Nurgle pirate, so the name fits.


I agree with Grimtuff. This is very much inline with Warhammer naming conventions. Subtlety in Warhammer is something like the Primarch of the Raven Guard being Corvus Corax. Chaos Space Marines in particular like to have cartoon villain names and titles like: Despoiler, Betrayer, Typhus, Blackheart, Slaughterborn, Soulflayer, etc. I happen to have though that Burblespue Halescourge from Vermintide 2 as a pretty good name for a Nurglelord. So much so that I named my Death Guard Lord of Contagion Gurglespew (I know, gross right?).

I think kinda cheezy, pun-tastic or sci-fi/fantasy referential names are part of the charm of GW games. I mean even my Dakka username is one: Saturmorn Carvilli --> Saturday Morning Cartoon Villain, eh? Pretty cleverly stupid right? I am kinda surprised a GW writer hadn't already snatched it up for a character as I think it fits the naming conventions of their settings perfectly sounding serious but completely cheezy when explained.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/25 20:17:35


Post by: Phobos


Sigmar renaming at first really bothered the hell out of me. Then, as I saw the lore and such develop, I actually started to like it. I still think the name "Orruks" is dumb as hell, but I actually think Orcs as they were in WHFB should be squatted and re-imagined in a newer AOS inspired style. Take the new High Elves, reborn as Luminath Realm Lords. The LRL aren't the old high elves (yet are very clearly and obviously inspired from them), and they make sense in the context of the Sigmar universe in a way that the old High Elves really didn't. But that I suppose is off topic.

Names like Sloppity Bilepiper are hilariously stupid. In the modern super serious po faced 40K that we have today, these names are about all that is left of the dark humor that 40K used to have. So, I don't know... I suppose it depends on where you are coming from. If you only ever knew 40K as a "serious" setting, then they stick out and likely chafe. If you remember all the goofy stuff from back in the day, you probably won't mind.





Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/26 19:36:08


Post by: thegreatchimp


 Grimtuff wrote:


Except "Gutrot Spume" makes sense. Gutrot is a typically "Nurgle-esq" name we've seen many times over the years. "Spume" is another name for sea foam. Gutrot Spume is a Nurgle pirate, so the name fits.


Fair enough, I'll leave poor Gutrot alone. But there's no way Nauseous Rotbone is getting off the hook!


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/26 23:34:20


Post by: Mangod


 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
 thegreatchimp wrote:


I think the Death Guard / AOS Nurgle names take the prize for lacking subtlety. Can you picture other heratic Astartes taking someone seriously who introduces themselves as "Nauseous Rotbone" or "Gutrot Spume." "Just tell theim your real name, Timmy"


Except "Gutrot Spume" makes sense. Gutrot is a typically "Nurgle-esq" name we've seen many times over the years. "Spume" is another name for sea foam. Gutrot Spume is a Nurgle pirate, so the name fits.


I agree with Grimtuff. This is very much inline with Warhammer naming conventions. Subtlety in Warhammer is something like the Primarch of the Raven Guard being Corvus Corax. Chaos Space Marines in particular like to have cartoon villain names and titles like: Despoiler, Betrayer, Typhus, Blackheart, Slaughterborn, Soulflayer, etc. I happen to have though that Burblespue Halescourge from Vermintide 2 as a pretty good name for a Nurglelord. So much so that I named my Death Guard Lord of Contagion Gurglespew (I know, gross right?).

I think kinda cheezy, pun-tastic or sci-fi/fantasy referential names are part of the charm of GW games. I mean even my Dakka username is one: Saturmorn Carvilli --> Saturday Morning Cartoon Villain, eh? Pretty cleverly stupid right? I am kinda surprised a GW writer hadn't already snatched it up for a character as I think it fits the naming conventions of their settings perfectly sounding serious but completely cheezy when explained.


First, Saturmorn Carvilli is a f-ing sweet name, and I will definitely steal it at some point.

Secondly, while I don't mind characters having such names (Malus Darkblade, Huron Blackheart, Morbidex Twiceborn, Sly Marbo, etc), that naming structure doesn't really work for a generic character or -unit. Some character named "Sloppit, the Bileous Piper" might have worked as a Pied Piper pastiche/parody, but Sloppity Bilepiper as a generic, descriptive name of a model? It's not exactly Barber Surgeon - Sloppity adds nothing that BILEpiper didn't already tell us.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/26 23:58:20


Post by: Gimgamgoo


I'd like to thank GW for the new gawd-awful unit names. That and changing all the paint names (and colours) pushed me away from GW and into a world full of much better games.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/27 23:42:59


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


 Mangod wrote:


First, Saturmorn Carvilli is a f-ing sweet name, and I will definitely steal it at some point.

Secondly, while I don't mind characters having such names (Malus Darkblade, Huron Blackheart, Morbidex Twiceborn, Sly Marbo, etc), that naming structure doesn't really work for a generic character or -unit. Some character named "Sloppit, the Bileous Piper" might have worked as a Pied Piper pastiche/parody, but Sloppity Bilepiper as a generic, descriptive name of a model? It's not exactly Barber Surgeon - Sloppity adds nothing that BILEpiper didn't already tell us.


Go right ahead, I think it makes a fantastic antagonist name.

I get that both GW (and modern D&D) have overdone the two part, adjective actual-name convention too much. And that such heavily reliance on it (for what appears to be legal reasons) often turns everything into a kind of gray goo. I think it is best to drop the extraneous part and just use the actual-name part. Which for the most part everyone does anyways. Good or ill, we know why it is done, and most of the time, it's easy to just forget the extra even exists.

There certainly have been some missteps with GW naming even for me who is mostly a fan of the newer names. Lumineth Wardens and Lumineth Sentinels probably the most annoying to me instead of just calling them Vanari Spearmen and Vanari Archers. Or even names that aren't basically synonyms of each other. I hear tell Stormcast Eternals are even worst in that regard.


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/27 23:56:45


Post by: Mangod


 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
 Mangod wrote:


First, Saturmorn Carvilli is a f-ing sweet name, and I will definitely steal it at some point.

Secondly, while I don't mind characters having such names (Malus Darkblade, Huron Blackheart, Morbidex Twiceborn, Sly Marbo, etc), that naming structure doesn't really work for a generic character or -unit. Some character named "Sloppit, the Bileous Piper" might have worked as a Pied Piper pastiche/parody, but Sloppity Bilepiper as a generic, descriptive name of a model? It's not exactly Barber Surgeon - Sloppity adds nothing that BILEpiper didn't already tell us.


Go right ahead, I think it makes a fantastic antagonist name.

I get that both GW (and modern D&D) have overdone the two part, adjective actual-name convention too much. And that such heavily reliance on it (for what appears to be legal reasons) often turns everything into a kind of gray goo. I think it is best to drop the extraneous part and just use the actual-name part. Which for the most part everyone does anyways. Good or ill, we know why it is done, and most of the time, it's easy to just forget the extra even exists.

There certainly have been some missteps with GW naming even for me who is mostly a fan of the newer names. Lumineth Wardens and Lumineth Sentinels probably the most annoying to me instead of just calling them Vanari Spearmen and Vanari Archers. Or even names that aren't basically synonyms of each other. I hear tell Stormcast Eternals are even worst in that regard.


Stormcast have the opposite problem to Nurgle, in that a lot of units have names that sound familiar, and since they're almost all single-name units...

Liberators, Judicators, Evocators, Retributors, Fulminators, Prosecutors, Castigators - yeah, it becomes hard to tell them apart after a while. At least the Vanguard units (Vanguard-Hunters, -Palladors and -Raptors) have a signifier to set them apart from the rest of the army. I think the Lumineth/Kharadron/Vanguard-approach is the best one: two names, XY, with X being a designation (Paladin) and Y being the function (Defender).


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/28 05:37:25


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


 thegreatchimp wrote:
Flappity Flappers of Tzeentch!


What next? Tsooty Tzoot Tsuit Rioters of Tzeentch?


Do you prefer the classic or modern GW naming convention? @ 2020/12/28 05:48:20


Post by: Just Tony


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
 thegreatchimp wrote:
Flappity Flappers of Tzeentch!


What next? Tsooty Tzoot Tsuit Rioters of Tzeentch?


Dude, don't give them ideas...