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.

Putting aside any other issue anyone has with them, is any one else just annoyed/ have trouble keeping track of what each unit is called vs what it does. Way to many I units and in general they just seem more generic compared to what older units were called.

more generic then tactical squad, assault squad and devestator squad?! REALLY?

Yeah, I'm with Davion on this. I think you might have misused the word "generic." Did you by any chance mean, obscure, obfuscated, unclear, nonsensical?

Agreed. It's hard to keep the names straight, even for Marine players.

"My Interceptors always have to walk across the board, they don't have transports!"

"Did you mean Intercessors?" - Have had that conversation at least 10 times.

Weird names for IP protection

 techsoldaten wrote:
Agreed. It's hard to keep the names straight, even for Marine players.

"My Interceptors always have to walk across the board, they don't have transports!"

"Did you mean Intercessors?" - Have had that conversation at least 10 times.

The best part is they're not even Interceptors. They're Inceptors. Interceptors would have been a far better name for a fast moving unit like the Inceptors.

 Smirrors wrote:
Weird names for IP protection

Which is ultimately a fruitless exercise really. Giving something a weird name really only protects that weird name. It really has no impact whatsoever on Krommlech or some such making a perfectly good stand-in and just giving it a different name. I know that in other industries, the intention is to prevent damage caused by unwitting consumers who think they're buying Games-Workshop's Space Marine Intercessors when in fact they're buying "Game-Factory™'s Space Warrior Interlopers©," but with one of the most savvy consumer bases in any industry, I just don't see that as ever being a realistic problem for Game's Workshop. Anyone here buying third party alternates is doing it with intent, not because of any trademark confusion.

Agree with OP the names suck balls. I do like the units though generally.

Breton wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
Agreed. It's hard to keep the names straight, even for Marine players.

"My Interceptors always have to walk across the board, they don't have transports!"

"Did you mean Intercessors?" - Have had that conversation at least 10 times.

The best part is they're not even Interceptors. They're Inceptors. Interceptors would have been a far better name for a fast moving unit like the Inceptors.

Doesn’t Star Wars have a fast ship called an Interceptor?

 Apple Peel wrote:

Breton wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
Agreed. It's hard to keep the names straight, even for Marine players.

"My Interceptors always have to walk across the board, they don't have transports!"

"Did you mean Intercessors?" - Have had that conversation at least 10 times.

The best part is they're not even Interceptors. They're Inceptors. Interceptors would have been a far better name for a fast moving unit like the Inceptors.

Doesn’t Star Wars have a fast ship called an Interceptor?

the TIE interceptor. which makes perfect sense when one considers what an interceptor is.

in·ter·cep·tor
/ˌin(t)ərˈseptər/
noun
plural noun: interceptors
a person or thing that stops or catches (someone or something) going from one place to another.
a fast aircraft for stopping or repelling hostile aircraft.

If you look up the definition of Inceptor/ Incept, it means to Begin, Commence, or Undertake. In the context of Marines, and from how the first Dark Imperium novel described how the Primaris wage war, their name makes perfect sense. They're the ones that ideally start the battle, dropping in from orbit or ships in to defensive locations to mess things up.

They're not Intercepting enemy movements, they're Incepting the battle.

Nonsensical isn't a word I'd use to describe the names, since they all sort of make sense. Archaic, and not easily understood without a dictionary? Sure, I'd say that.

'Hellblaster' is absolutely inexcusable.

 sphynx wrote:
'Hellblaster' is absolutely inexcusable.

Hellblasters use incinerators, so let's start it here as a community to start calling them "incinerators" fits in more with other unit names

 sphynx wrote:
'Hellblaster' is absolutely inexcusable.

Why? They blast you to Hell. It works for the name.

 sphynx wrote:
'Hellblaster' is absolutely inexcusable.

That's one of the better ones. Doesn't match the pattern though.

BrianDavion wrote:
more generic then tactical squad, assault squad and devestator squad?! REALLY?

If I knew nothing about 40k or space marines, I could still tell you exactly what role each of those squads would have. They are generic, but accurate and useful names

What the hell would the role of an "intercessor" be on the battlefield? It's generic and non descriptive.

Do you know what "intercede" means?

To act on behalf of another.

There's also this whole bit:

Intercession or intercessory prayer is the act of praying to a deity on behalf of others. In Western Christianity, intercession forms a distinct form of prayer, alongside Adoration, Confession and Thanksgiving.

redboi wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
more generic then tactical squad, assault squad and devestator squad?! REALLY?

If I knew nothing about 40k or space marines, I could still tell you exactly what role each of those squads would have. They are generic, but accurate and useful names

What the hell would the role of an "intercessor" be on the battlefield? It's generic and non descriptive.

They are using the almost latin that they've been always uing, just extended to more of their units. For me, it calls to mind Intercedere, which is the italian verb derived by the latin intercedere, which has as a meaning "put between", so they are the unit that stands between me and the enemy, AKA the battleine squad, the anchor of your army.
Stupid latin as always!

I often call my Intercessors 'Tactical Marines' as that what they functionally are and as my army is all Primaris there is no confusion.

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:
Weird names for IP protection

Which is ultimately a fruitless exercise really. Giving something a weird name really only protects that weird name. It really has no impact whatsoever on Krommlech or some such making a perfectly good stand-in and just giving it a different name.

I've often wondered if GW's recent obsession with increasingly stupid names might actually make things worse.

e.g. let's say that a 3rd party company is making Imperial Guard stand-ins. Well, GW can't copyright Imperial Guard so instead it starts calling them 'Astra Militarum'.

So GW is now stuck using an awkward and pretentious name for its own product, whilst its competitor can just keep using the traditional, sensible and highly-recognisable (not to mention understandable) name of Imperial Guard.

Maybe I'm missing something but this really doesn't seem like the most sensible of moves.

You're missing something, because they also make it clear in the book that "Astra Militarum" is the High Gothic name, while most people call them the Guard.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Do you know what "intercede" means?

To act on behalf of another.

There's also this whole bit:

Intercession or intercessory prayer is the act of praying to a deity on behalf of others. In Western Christianity, intercession forms a distinct form of prayer, alongside Adoration, Confession and Thanksgiving.

I know what it means. It's still nondescript and says nothing about their battlefield role . You could literally name any unit in the army that and it would make just as much sense.

GW has been gak at naming things for nigh on a decade now. We're just enjoying the full brunt of it when new armies are released.

Dae think the company behind such names as deathwatch death guard deathskullz death marks death korps deathleaper death jester might be bad at naming?

I am not a fan of the 'fancy name'-or naming convention at all. Sure, it's more... distinguished than calling them 'Tactical squad' or whatever but it gets really confusing.

TheFleshIsWeak wrote:I've often wondered if GW's recent obsession with increasingly stupid names might actually make things worse.

e.g. let's say that a 3rd party company is making Imperial Guard stand-ins. Well, GW can't copyright Imperial Guard so instead it starts calling them 'Astra Militarum'.

So GW is now stuck using an awkward and pretentious name for its own product, whilst its competitor can just keep using the traditional, sensible and highly-recognisable (not to mention understandable) name of Imperial Guard.

Maybe I'm missing something but this really doesn't seem like the most sensible of moves.

Exactly!

Kanluwen wrote:You're missing something, because they also make it clear in the book that "Astra Militarum" is the High Gothic name, while most people call them the Guard.

Which is hardly relevant to a shopper, because in all of their marketing, they're referred to as Astra Militarum.

What's annoying is that the old marine names were mostly logical...on purpose. If you were dealing in a combat situation, you want basic and simple language. You want something to do what it says on the tin.

"Brother Captain we need to breach the city walls and take them in close combat, fighting building to building..."
"Good, I'll send in a Tactical Company and an Assault Company."
"Perfect."

or...

"Brother Captain we need to breach the city walls and take them in close combat, fighting building to building..."
"Good, I'll move in a unit or two of Agroceptors, Infilizers, and perhaps some Anthroprotractors."
"...okay...?"

The same thing even filters down to the silly detachment names. Outriders, etc. Why not just keep it simple stupid: fast attack detachment, elite detachment, heavy support detachment. That's all you need to say. We don't need invented names.

So we have a lot of I's so far...

Invictius

INfilitrators,

Intercessors

Impulsor

Inceptors

Repulsor

Reviers?

Aggressors

Its so confusing and they sound horrid next to each other. If anything they should be renamed to be more in line with 40k or more associated with their roles that encompass it better. Intercessors are just Defender units and Intercessor is not a great name to encompas that.

It sounded like they wanted to go with cool sci-fi names that are easily copyrightable and sound strange and stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
What's annoying is that the old marine names were mostly logical...on purpose. If you were dealing in a combat situation, you want basic and simple language. You want something to do what it says on the tin.

"Brother Captain we need to breach the city walls and take them in close combat, fighting building to building..."
"Good, I'll send in a Tactical Company and an Assault Company."
"Perfect."

or...

"Brother Captain we need to breach the city walls and take them in close combat, fighting building to building..."
"Good, I'll move in a unit or two of Agroceptors, Infilizers, and perhaps some Anthroprotractors."
"...okay...?"

The same thing even filters down to the silly detachment names. Outriders, etc. Why not just keep it simple stupid: fast attack detachment, elite detachment, heavy support detachment. That's all you need to say. We don't need invented names.

Well we did have in most situations of warfare, 'outrider' and 'vanguard' units as strategies in combat.

The description of outrider is far more niche than fast attack though. As is the name 'vanguard' which is for the the foremost part of an advancing army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
I often call my Intercessors 'Tactical Marines' as that what they functionally are and as my army is all Primaris there is no confusion.

Which honestly sounds better, and they could be an outright upgrade for tactical squad instead of a straight-out different unit.

the_scotsman wrote:
Dae think the company behind such names as deathwatch death guard deathskullz death marks death korps deathleaper death jester might be bad at naming?

I'm sensing a theme here....

Funnily enough was thinking about this very topic last weekend.
Fully agree with the OP.
Just cannot get behind most of the new names. Some are ok but the majority or so non descript to the point of being meaningless.
And so many -ors =/