Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I never understood the murdersword either. It's a sword. Swords have only ever had one purpose. Axes and Hammers have other purposes, hell even shovels have been used to murder. Murdershovel makes sense because it's not what it usually does.
(Note to self, model all power axes as power shovels)
But saying Murdersword just seems silly. Why couldn't they just call it the Ravenous Blade or something.

And who names these things. I just imagine the person that posts "first" on Youtube comments in the future as some marine that calls dibs on naming relics. I just imagine a bunch of disappointed marines in the back shaking their heads.

i actually have a guard commander holding a shovel and use it as a power maul.

It's a game of toy soldiers. Get over it. People are complaining because things look or sound more like toys.

Guess what......they're toys, folks.

Great thing about this is that you can NAME something WHATEVER you want. Ever been to a Rogue Trader tournament, where they specifically state in composition rules that your units, and even their wargear, sometimes, should be given unique names thought up by you?

Don't like Murderfang's Murderclaws? Call him something else, and name his claws something else. Or don't name them. Call them standard issue dreadnought-class combat claws. GW has been trying to get people to name things on their own and create their own stories for years. If this one is just too campy and silly, then finally do what they've wanted for so long, and quit whining that the story they spoon-fed you wasn't to your liking.

 Spellbound wrote:
It's a game of toy soldiers. Get over it.

It's an argument about a game of toy soldiers. Let's meet a compromise. You cry a river, and I'll build you a bridge so you can get over it.

People are complaining because things look or sound more like toys.

People complain that the look of something. Are they wrong for having an opinion on how it looks? The Stormfang looks like a flying tugboat. Why is it wrong that I think it looks ugly.

Guess what......they're toys, folks.

Wrong. They are a product. They want me to purchase them, but I won't because I'd be better off duct taping a couple jets from a G.I. Joe plane onto a Tonka truck.

Great thing about this is that you can NAME something WHATEVER you want.

GW can do the same thing. They chose a silly name.

Don't like Murderfang's Murderclaws? Call him something else, and name his claws something else. Or don't name them. Call them standard issue dreadnought-class combat claws.

I can do both. I can say that the name is silly and then not refer to that name when using the model.

We really don't need another thread devoted to Murderfang, regardless of the viewpoint presented in the OP.