Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
xking

GW and the bad names

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Kadeton said:

Interesting. What is it about the word "Haunter" that makes you think it should be bigger than a "Ghast"? I might have understood "more like a ghost" or "more of a lurker" or similar, but I'm curious how you would get "bigger" from those words.

Easy, Pokemon. Gastly -> Haunter 😛

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, michu said:

Exactly. They have a whole unit named Gothizzar Harvester!

And looking into english dictionary:

- [intransitive, transitive] reap (something) to cut and collect a crop, especially wheat, from a field

- [transitive] reap something to obtain something, especially something good, as a direct result of something that you have done
 

I wouldnt put more effort than necessary into this point when it gets countered by „Ossian Bone Collectors“ wouldnt sound as silly. 🙄

 

Its literally disagreeing just for the purpose of having an argument. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, relic456 said:

Easy, Pokemon. Gastly -> Haunter 😛

And I wouldn't be surprised if that was exactly the process of thought of the person that named them. :) 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, michu said:

Especially when elvish cavalry never was simple "cavalry". We had Silver Helms, Ellyrian Reavers and Dragon Princes. Using generic names is good for such games as Dragon Rampant when there is no defined setting. 

And for "stupid" ( thing) names - listen, in my country there are such cities like Whiteslope, Buriedunder and even simply Boat! I live in village literally named Mansion of Mares. The etymology of AoS names has more sense than you think @Cèsar de Quart: Hallowheart was founded by Hallowed Knights, Tempest's eye by Tempest Lords, Hammerhal by Hammers of Sigmar, Anvilgard by Anvils of the Heldenhammer, Vindicarum by Celestial Vindicators, Excelsis by Knights ExcelsiorPhoenicium was freed by phoenixes. There is no difference between such names and a real city in my country Bishop's Village because it was founded by a bishop. Greywater Fastness was build close to swamp hence grey(murky)water. Living city? That's probably a direct translation of Sylvaneth name as it was founded by Alarielle herself. And if you think that a city named Greypeak (I've just found it's name on Lexicanum, it's from short story "Shiprats) has a stupid name then I just wrote that there is a city in my country named Whiteslope. And if you want non-descriptive names then there are always cities like Izalend.

But my biggest advice would be to not treat Warhammer so seriously - it has an old tradition of puny names and that's the whole point of it. Having fun and making jokes.

 

Imagine living in a place on land named boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ravinsild said:

Imagine living in a place on land named boat.

TBH, in my language it's called Łódź (boat in english) and the exact etymology is not known but it definitely is not named after a watercraft.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, michu said:

TBH, in my language it's called Łódź (boat in english) and the exact etymology is not known but it definitely is not named after a watercraft.

I was going to point out that the etymology of Łódź is definitely not "boat" xD It's like those folk etymologies that say that Barcelona means "9th Ship" because in its Medieval name, Barchinona can (if you squint) mean just that... the problem is that the Latin Barcino has nothing to do with boats. And everything to do, probably, with Hannibal Barca. Or maybe some Iberians living there, who knows.

I want to slam my fist on the table because people keep repeating the same argument, and I think it's deeply flawed: a country can have places called Boat, or Bellevue, or Whitehall, or Springfield, and that's FINE. It means they're relatively new places. Like, maybe, Hallowheart. But for every Springfield, Europe has a hundred placenames no one really knows the origin of. And a hundred more whose origin we can trace or guess, but not recognise outright. These things are simply not present in AoS.

That's what makes a world deep, grounded and storied. Believable. When there's more to it than just the cool models and BLOODSECRATOR sort of TM names (My pick for the worst name in AoS. Just the combination of languages alone is bloodcurdling. Sorry, sorry...) They don't even need to go THAT deep, in fact. In the days of the Old World, you said Couronne, Middenheim, Luccini or Itza and it was obvious what you could expect these cities to be like. Recognisable, even if silly and unoriginal more often than not. Maybe it wasn't very deep, but it was effective. By name alone, I can't really distinguish most of the placenames they use prominently in the lore. Tempest Lords, Hallowed Knights, etc etc... Time will give them character, just like the Space Marines, but as of now... they're still just different coats of paint, or bland names on a page.

30 years from now people will miss Hallowheart and Hammerhal and the Living City, and even maybe the Ossiarch Bonereapers and the Bloodsecrators.

++

I do have one more thing to say: I guess it's a trademark thing, but the new races are all coming out with an WEIRD ADJECTIVE + COMPOUND NOUN structure that's a bit bizarre.

IDONETH DEEPKIN

LUMINETH REALM-LORDS

OSSIARCH BONEREAPERS

KHARADRON OVERLORDS (nice pun there though)

STORMCAST ETERNALS

FLESH-EATER COURTS (I like this one actually, it's got no unnecessary gibberish)

To me, it feels much more natural to day "Idoneth, Lumineth, Kharadron,..." . "Sir, the Kharadron are here". Or maybe "The Overlords are here". But I'm confused as to whether I have to use both in combination, or else I'm making a mistake. Are the Kharadron the sky pirate dwarves, or just some sort of collective noun for dwarves who split from their duardin kin? Are the Overlords these dwarves, or just any sky pirate can become an Overlord?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is both a new setting and civilization is 'new' following the Age of Chaos. There weren't any old cities left standing to have ancient names.

Anyways, to help with armies, those 'full names' are simply the name of the battletome, they may or may not be actual in-universe names. The full name isn't "Kharadron Overlords" it is "Order Battletome: Kharadron Overlords" that is a fully out-of-universe term, even though it has a strong relation to terms that exist in-universe. Just like the name of a novel isn't something that necessarily exists as a name inside the story within it but is rather the name of the story itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cèsar de Quart said:

I was going to point out that the etymology of Łódź is definitely not "boat" xD It's like those folk etymologies that say that Barcelona means "9th Ship" because in its Medieval name, Barchinona can (if you squint) mean just that... the problem is that the Latin Barcino has nothing to do with boats. And everything to do, probably, with Hannibal Barca. Or maybe some Iberians living there, who knows.

I want to slam my fist on the table because people keep repeating the same argument, and I think it's deeply flawed: a country can have places called Boat, or Bellevue, or Whitehall, or Springfield, and that's FINE. It means they're relatively new places. Like, maybe, Hallowheart. But for every Springfield, Europe has a hundred placenames no one really knows the origin of. And a hundred more whose origin we can trace or guess, but not recognise outright. These things are simply not present in AoS.

That's what makes a world deep, grounded and storied. Believable. When there's more to it than just the cool models and BLOODSECRATOR sort of TM names (My pick for the worst name in AoS. Just the combination of languages alone is bloodcurdling. Sorry, sorry...) They don't even need to go THAT deep, in fact. In the days of the Old World, you said Couronne, Middenheim, Luccini or Itza and it was obvious what you could expect these cities to be like. Recognisable, even if silly and unoriginal more often than not. Maybe it wasn't very deep, but it was effective. By name alone, I can't really distinguish most of the placenames they use prominently in the lore. Tempest Lords, Hallowed Knights, etc etc... Time will give them character, just like the Space Marines, but as of now... they're still just different coats of paint, or bland names on a page.

30 years from now people will miss Hallowheart and Hammerhal and the Living City, and even maybe the Ossiarch Bonereapers and the Bloodsecrators.

++

I do have one more thing to say: I guess it's a trademark thing, but the new races are all coming out with an WEIRD ADJECTIVE + COMPOUND NOUN structure that's a bit bizarre.

IDONETH DEEPKIN

LUMINETH REALM-LORDS

OSSIARCH BONEREAPERS

KHARADRON OVERLORDS (nice pun there though)

STORMCAST ETERNALS

FLESH-EATER COURTS (I like this one actually, it's got no unnecessary gibberish)

To me, it feels much more natural to day "Idoneth, Lumineth, Kharadron,..." . "Sir, the Kharadron are here". Or maybe "The Overlords are here". But I'm confused as to whether I have to use both in combination, or else I'm making a mistake. Are the Kharadron the sky pirate dwarves, or just some sort of collective noun for dwarves who split from their duardin kin? Are the Overlords these dwarves, or just any sky pirate can become an Overlord?

 

I think overal as a fan of things like the lord of the rings, they also have names like The Riders of Rohan, Warriors of Minas Tirith are also quite long, yet feel impactful and give a clear view of who or what they are. But throughout the books its mostly the city being referred to like Rohan, Mordor, etc.

 

"We will bring the fight to Mordor."  For example. Maybe what AOS needs is a proper mapped out system where places like Ossia in the other example are proper referred to places. So even though they are the ossiarch bonereapers as an example, they are fighting Ossia. Or fighting for Ossia.

GW can keep their weird names and then the full names will start to have meaning.

I think what somebody else said earlier that the books are like an add to keep branding their product names may be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kugane said:

"We will bring the fight to Mordor."  For example. Maybe what AOS needs is a proper mapped out system where places like Ossia in the other example are proper referred to places. So even though they are the ossiarch bonereapers as an example, they are fighting Ossia. Or fighting for Ossia.

Like this?

EmpireOfBones-Oct31-Map2msvd.jpg

  • Thanks 1
  • LOVE IT! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, relic456 said:

Like this?

EmpireOfBones-Oct31-Map2msvd.jpg

Something like that yes, but different. I am not even sure how to explain it honestly. The main problem I think is that the realms are so immensely big that all the maps we do get are absolutely flooded with names and seem like they have no real history other than small bits of snippets here and there of a neverending land. Its awesome to have detailed maps like this on which artists can use their creative freedom, but while its impossible due to the way the realms are set up everything feels fractured and losely connected.

Like in the old world, you also had places that are far away like araby, nippon, cathai, each with many cities in these lands and awesome maps showing the details, yet lore-wise everything felt connected and gave a sense of familiarity and sense of the space in which stuff takes place.

Current maps just feel bloated to me. Places like the Linead spire, Dolokost, Oredia. They all sound awesome, but if we don't get to experience them through the medium of story or artwork they have no real function other than making a map look fancy.

What many top writers such as Tolkien do extremely well in my opinion is to give everything some sort of purpose or history. Barring that its a necropolis according to the map, if we knew Oredia was something like a human city under the rule of the Ossiarchs, but able to pay the tithe. They can be known for something simple like exporting fine pottery, which they also trade for bones to use as a trade on the next bone tithe. Their tithe is always plentiful and in return the Ossiarch bonereapers let them be. They are useful to them. A little story or history like that would give a place character. It doesn't even have to be walls of text, but if I see a name and go "Whats that?" And dig into the lore, I cant find anything or don't even know where to look. It feels bad. 

More quality less quantity is where I am getting at I suppose. Even a simple legenda would do where cities have a marking under their name to show what kind of place it is. Similar to the one they have at the side, but giving more info. "Big necropolis" "Small necropolis" "road" doesn't say much. A pickaxe can be a mining town. Wheat are farm lands. Anything to spark the imagination and to make these worlds feel like living and breathing entities.

Edited by Kugane
Editted too much text whole pieces went missing :P. Reformated it.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Kugane said:

Something like that yes, but different. I am not even sure how to explain it honestly. The main problem I think is that the realms are so immensely big that all the maps we do get are absolutely flooded with names and seem like they have no real history other than small bits of snippets here and there of a neverending land. Its awesome to have detailed maps like this on which artists can use their creative freedom, but while its impossible due to the way the realms are set up everything feels fractured and losely connected.

Like in the old world, you also had places that are far away like araby, nippon, cathai, each with many cities in these lands and awesome maps showing the details, yet lore-wise everything felt connected and gave a sense of familiarity and sense of the space in which stuff takes place.

Current maps just feel bloated to me. Places like the Linead spire, Dolokost, Oredia. They all sound awesome, but if we don't get to experience them through the medium of story or artwork they have no real function other than making a map look fancy.

What many top writers such as Tolkien do extremely well in my opinion is to give everything some sort of purpose or history. Barring that its a necropolis according to the map, if we knew Oredia was something like a human city under the rule of the Ossiarchs, but able to pay the tithe. They can be known for something simple like exporting fine pottery, which they also trade for bones to use as a trade on the next bone tithe. Their tithe is always plentiful and in return the Ossiarch bonereapers let them be. They are useful to them. A little story or history like that would give a place character. It doesn't even have to be walls of text, but if I see a name and go "Whats that?" And dig into the lore, I cant find anything or don't even know where to look. It feels bad. 

More quality less quantity is where I am getting at I suppose. Even a simple legenda would do where cities have a marking under their name to show what kind of place it is. Similar to the one they have at the side, but giving more info. "Big necropolis" "Small necropolis" "road" doesn't say much. A pickaxe can be a mining town. Wheat are farm lands. Anything to spark the imagination and to make these worlds feel like living and breathing entities.

I think to some degree you are onto something. I just have 2 main qualms. 1) The Old World was literally Earth, basically and the main story took place on Fantasy Europe slightly condensed. Everything was named just after real world places. Bretonnia. The Empire. Norsca (norse). (basically Norway) Transylvania. Etc.. At least based on the Total War: Warhammer 2 maps. So it's like of course you know what Nippon is. It's Japan. 

2) Fantasy Battle was around for like 30 years. It wasn't filled to the brim day 1 with all this stuff. Age of Sigmar is like 3 years old and they're filling in the blanks. 2 years ago Ossia didn't exist, and neither did like the Idoneth, or the Daughters of Khaine, etc. Half the lore is brand new so of course it's slightly empty. It takes time to fill out a place. Tolkien wrote his stuff over like 30 years too. He didn't just plop down in a night and ****** out the entire middle earth world in 1 go. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Kugane said:

Something like that yes, but different. I am not even sure how to explain it honestly. The main problem I think is that the realms are so immensely big that all the maps we do get are absolutely flooded with names and seem like they have no real history other than small bits of snippets here and there of a neverending land. Its awesome to have detailed maps like this on which artists can use their creative freedom, but while its impossible due to the way the realms are set up everything feels fractured and losely connected.

Like in the old world, you also had places that are far away like araby, nippon, cathai, each with many cities in these lands and awesome maps showing the details, yet lore-wise everything felt connected and gave a sense of familiarity and sense of the space in which stuff takes place.

Current maps just feel bloated to me. Places like the Linead spire, Dolokost, Oredia. They all sound awesome, but if we don't get to experience them through the medium of story or artwork they have no real function other than making a map look fancy.

What many top writers such as Tolkien do extremely well in my opinion is to give everything some sort of purpose or history. Barring that its a necropolis according to the map, if we knew Oredia was something like a human city under the rule of the Ossiarchs, but able to pay the tithe. They can be known for something simple like exporting fine pottery, which they also trade for bones to use as a trade on the next bone tithe. Their tithe is always plentiful and in return the Ossiarch bonereapers let them be. They are useful to them. A little story or history like that would give a place character. It doesn't even have to be walls of text, but if I see a name and go "Whats that?" And dig into the lore, I cant find anything or don't even know where to look. It feels bad. 

More quality less quantity is where I am getting at I suppose. Even a simple legenda would do where cities have a marking under their name to show what kind of place it is. Similar to the one they have at the side, but giving more info. "Big necropolis" "Small necropolis" "road" doesn't say much. A pickaxe can be a mining town. Wheat are farm lands. Anything to spark the imagination and to make these worlds feel like living and breathing entities.

Those maps are really zoomed out. They cover truly vast areas without any of the detail, we need something zoomed in.

We need maps for each of the underworlds,  with regions, nations and settlements/cities detailed.   Hopeful the AoS RPG we begin the process.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Ravinsild said:

I think to some degree you are onto something. I just have 2 main qualms. 1) The Old World was literally Earth, basically and the main story took place on Fantasy Europe slightly condensed. Everything was named just after real world places. Bretonnia. The Empire. Norsca (norse). (basically Norway) Transylvania. Etc.. At least based on the Total War: Warhammer 2 maps. So it's like of course you know what Nippon is. It's Japan. 

2) Fantasy Battle was around for like 30 years. It wasn't filled to the brim day 1 with all this stuff. Age of Sigmar is like 3 years old and they're filling in the blanks. 2 years ago Ossia didn't exist, and neither did like the Idoneth, or the Daughters of Khaine, etc. Half the lore is brand new so of course it's slightly empty. It takes time to fill out a place. Tolkien wrote his stuff over like 30 years too. He didn't just plop down in a night and ****** out the entire middle earth world in 1 go. 

You are right. I really wonder how they plan to fill those blanks honestly. They are on the right track I think though. Like in magic the gathering they have all the different planes that each have their own theme, laws of physics and such to it, but they are all very distinctly based around "real" places, myths, legends and stories. Nostalgia and familiarity can do wonders I suppose. Time will tell :D.

47 minutes ago, xking said:

Those maps are really zoomed out. They cover truly vast areas without any of the detail, we need something zoomed in.

We need maps for each of the underworlds,  with regions, nations and settlements/cities detailed.   Hopeful the AoS RPG we begin the process.

Very much so, lol. Either way its getting off topic anyways. I hope the old world thing they are working on caters to that itch if AOS wont. XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Phasteon said:

If you think Ossian Bone Collectors would be a more fitting name than the poetic sounding Ossiarch Bonereapers I have nothing more to say to you.

Nowhere did I state "Ossian Bone Collectors" would be more fitting than "Ossiarch Bonereapers". You've added that in yourself. I only said it would sound less silly.

You seem to be reading "silly" as meaning something akin to bad, undesirable, of poor quality. I'm not connecting those concepts, that's all on you. The way I'm using it means "absurd, irrational", and I've pointed out various ways in which "Ossiarch Bonereapers" is both absurd and irrational. But if you enjoy the absurdity, then it's best if you embrace the silliness, not try to deny it.

Edited by Kadeton
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kadeton said:

Nowhere did I state "Ossian Bone Collectors" would be more fitting than "Ossiarch Bonereapers". You've added that in yourself. I only said it would sound less silly.

You seem to be reading "silly" as meaning something akin to bad, undesirable, of poor quality. I'm not connecting those concepts, that's all on you. The way I'm using it means "absurd, irrational", and I've pointed out various ways in which "Ossiarch Bonereapers" is both absurd and irrational. But if you enjoy the absurdity, then it's best if you embrace the silliness, not try to deny it.

What makes a word someone created hundreds of years ago less silly than a word someone created recently inspired by those words?

 

I dont get your point. 

 

Edit: I like AoS because those names are creative and create immersion. Would hate to play against „Deep Sea Elves“ with „Battle Eel Cavalry“ ... That would sound silly imo, because its generic as f* and even though they technically are battle eel cavalry it would be a ridiculous name for a product. 

Edited by Phasteon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ravinsild said:

I think to some degree you are onto something. I just have 2 main qualms. 1) The Old World was literally Earth, basically and the main story took place on Fantasy Europe slightly condensed. Everything was named just after real world places. Bretonnia. The Empire. Norsca (norse). (basically Norway) Transylvania. Etc.. At least based on the Total War: Warhammer 2 maps. So it's like of course you know what Nippon is. It's Japan. 

2) Fantasy Battle was around for like 30 years. It wasn't filled to the brim day 1 with all this stuff. Age of Sigmar is like 3 years old and they're filling in the blanks. 2 years ago Ossia didn't exist, and neither did like the Idoneth, or the Daughters of Khaine, etc. Half the lore is brand new so of course it's slightly empty. It takes time to fill out a place. Tolkien wrote his stuff over like 30 years too. He didn't just plop down in a night and ****** out the entire middle earth world in 1 go. 

That’s the point: The Old World didn’t have to be filled. It filled itself in many parts. 
From an RPG perspective, as a GM you just have to say „Araby“ and there are immediate pictures in the heads of all players. Without knowing anything of the setting, they have a basic understanding how the landscapes and cities could look like, what people wear, what they eat, which animals they herd and what kinds of work they do. The GM just has to fill in some things that may be special about the place, and can rely on the knowledge and imaginations of the players to fill in everything else. Otherwise, it would be impossible to transport a living, breathing, complex reality with just a few words and descriptions.

Edited by Beastmaster
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Beastmaster said:

That’s the point: The Old World didn’t have to be filled. It filled itself in many parts. 
From an RPG perspective, as a GM you just have to say „Araby“ and there are immediate pictures in the heads of all players. Without knowing anything of the setting, they have a basic understanding how the landscapes and cities could look like, what people wear, what they eat, which animals they herd and what kinds of work they do. The GM just has to fill in some things that may be special about the place, and can rely on the knowledge and imaginations of the players to fill in everything else. Otherwise, it would be just impossible to transport a living, breathing, complex reality with just a few words and descriptions.

So AoS did more creative work in 3 years than WHFB in 30. 

Because I have a picture in my mind of how the place my lodge comes from looks like. 

Its called a „fantasy“ game. 

If people are too lazy to use imagination and read things and just want real life analogies like „araby“ or „nippon“ then they maybe want to spend their time with a more generic game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

So AoS did more creative work in 3 years than WHFB in 30. 

Because I have a picture in my mind of how the place my lodge comes from looks like. 

Its called a „fantasy“ game. 

If people are too lazy to use imagination and read things and just want real life analogies like „araby“ or „nippon“ then they maybe want to spend their time with a more generic game.

I just think the unusual is more interesting in contrast to the usual. Matter of taste, maybe.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

What makes a word someone created hundreds of years ago less silly than a word someone created recently inspired by those words?

I dont get your point. 

I've noticed! That's okay, you can go back and re-read my earlier posts if you want to understand my point. I'm not going to outline it again in full, but if you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.

59 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

Edit: I like AoS because those names are creative and create immersion. Would hate to play against „Deep Sea Elves“ with „Battle Eel Cavalry“ ... That would sound silly imo, because its generic as f* and even though they technically are battle eel cavalry it would be a ridiculous name for a product. 

I think perhaps you mean "dull" rather than "silly" here, unless you're using some other meaning of "silly". "Sea Elves" is an extremely literal description that's grounded in the reality of the thing it describes, as is "Eel Cavalry". There's no room there for absurdity.

I'll make one more attempt to get across what I'm trying to say. I don't begrudge GW their creativity, in fact I wish they would apply a little more of it, generally speaking. "Idoneth" is a good name. But here's where it hits "reality", or rather immersion in the setting:

Terms that sound bombastic, grandiose or needlessly elaborate carry a certain tone. We generally only encounter references like that in unusual and specific circumstances - in extremely pompous formal ceremonies, in the stylised over-emphasis of dialogue in old plays, and in entertainment aimed at children, for example. When used outside those limited contexts, they sound stilted and strange.

Imagine someone came up to you in your everyday life and said, "Hello! I am a human businessman from Earth." They haven't said anything inaccurate, but it's still a weird thing to say, right? It's too specific, and seems like something that's normally not necessary to state, which makes you suspicious about why they felt the need to do so.

Being too specific and including unnecessary words is a big part of the strangeness of GW's naming scheme. If you met a sea elf, and asked what their people were called, and they said "We are the Idoneth Deepkin," that level of specificity immediately raises questions. You might think "Idoneth, okay - that must be the word for sea elves... so why Deep Kin? I understand those as words individually, but why are they needed here? Are there Shallow Kin? Are there other Idoneth in the Deep who are not Kin?" When the answer to all of those questions appears to be no, you're left with "Well why the heck did he say it, then?" That unanswered why the heck causes the lingering discomfort with these names.

If that same sea elf just said "We are the Idoneth," you'd just think "Idoneth, okay - that must be the word for sea elves." And you're done. No further questions. The world makes sense, and you can go on with your life.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kadeton said:

I've noticed! That's okay, you can go back and re-read my earlier posts if you want to understand my point. I'm not going to outline it again in full, but if you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.

I think perhaps you mean "dull" rather than "silly" here, unless you're using some other meaning of "silly". "Sea Elves" is an extremely literal description that's grounded in the reality of the thing it describes, as is "Eel Cavalry". There's no room there for absurdity.

I'll make one more attempt to get across what I'm trying to say. I don't begrudge GW their creativity, in fact I wish they would apply a little more of it, generally speaking. "Idoneth" is a good name. But here's where it hits "reality", or rather immersion in the setting:

Terms that sound bombastic, grandiose or needlessly elaborate carry a certain tone. We generally only encounter references like that in unusual and specific circumstances - in extremely pompous formal ceremonies, in the stylised over-emphasis of dialogue in old plays, and in entertainment aimed at children, for example. When used outside those limited contexts, they sound stilted and strange.

Imagine someone came up to you in your everyday life and said, "Hello! I am a human businessman from Earth." They haven't said anything inaccurate, but it's still a weird thing to say, right? It's too specific, and seems like something that's normally not necessary to state, which makes you suspicious about why they felt the need to do so.

Being too specific and including unnecessary words is a big part of the strangeness of GW's naming scheme. If you met a sea elf, and asked what their people were called, and they said "We are the Idoneth Deepkin," that level of specificity immediately raises questions. You might think "Idoneth, okay - that must be the word for sea elves... so why Deep Kin? I understand those as words individually, but why are they needed here? Are there Shallow Kin? Are there other Idoneth in the Deep who are not Kin?" When the answer to all of those questions appears to be no, you're left with "Well why the heck did he say it, then?" That unanswered why the heck causes the lingering discomfort with these names.

If that same sea elf just said "We are the Idoneth," you'd just think "Idoneth, okay - that must be the word for sea elves." And you're done. No further questions. The world makes sense, and you can go on with your life.

I‘d not be surprised if I asked about someones background and he answered „I‘m a french businessman“, ofc „from Earth“ would be strange because in our reality all humans are from earth, but its not strange at all to tell people where you are from when introducing yourself.

Also I‘m pretty sure that an Idoneth would first and foremost introduce himself as an Aelf. Then he might say he belongs to the Idoneth and next he would say from which Enclave he comes from. 

You are taking the whole name thing far to serious and far to literal to a point where the only „silly“ or „strange“ thing is your desperate argumentation that uses unfitting examples.

Thats why I don‘t get your point. 

 

Edit: Its btw the same absurd discussion with those pseudo-militaristic guard fanboys, sticking to „Imperial Guard“ instead of calling them their proper name WITHIN THE UNIVERSE they are being part of, Astra Militarum (which is high gothic). 

If you don‘t like the names FINE use nicknames all you want, but don‘t act as if they were something wrong, bad, ridiculous, silly or whatnot just because you are not capable of accepting a setting thats not directly linked to the real world. 

Another one: 

Dark Elves are called Druchii. 

So the correct term of the armybook should have been Druchii. 

Why not call a Battletome „Druchii Funtakers“ when its what they are and what they do? 

If they are renowned for taking the fun from other people then their battletome‘s name is a combination of their race/origin („Druchii“) and the thing they are known for by other races/ themselves („Funtakers“). 

I‘m sure not every Aelf from that faction would go around and call themself a „Druchii Funtaker“ but some might. 

Who are we to judge how folks behave in a FICTIONAL setting with fictional standards?

Edited by Phasteon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A ton of great points in this last page.

"The unusual is best when contrasted with the usual" is a very obvious remark. AoS, and this is not a flaw, it's really a feature of the setting, is very, very over the top, filled with magic items. That's fine, but I'd rather that the unusual, magical things were something more mystical, odd, and not a thing of the everyday. I hate it when D&D world make it so everyone can learn magic. It takes the allure of magic away.

"The Old World filled itself", I've been saying this for years. But I understand why someone could see the Old World and think it unoriginal or boring. To me, its familiarity made it much more approachable and alive. That's the reason, I suspect, alternate history is popular.

And Kugane got his finger on something I wasn't quite able to see for some time, but nagged me all the same: the maps are very vague. Yes, I see Carstinia and Necropolis, or Penultima or Necros on the map... but I don't quite know what they are. Are they countries, geographic areas, political entities? The labeling on the maps is unclear. A bit more concretion would be appreciated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2020 at 6:38 PM, Gecktron said:

 

And now to connect the off-topic with the on-topic. I do the same for most units. Akhelian Leviadon maybe the official full name but I can just call it a Leviadon (which is a good name in my opinion). Same goes for the Lumineth. The full name adds meaning and signals what the faction is about, while the shortend version is perfect for use in normal conversation. 

I‘ll call them Lecaith (thx @Cèsar de Quart)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kadeton said:

.....

Imagine someone came up to you in your everyday life and said, "Hello! I am a human businessman from Earth." They haven't said anything inaccurate, but it's still a weird thing to say, right? It's too specific, and seems like something that's normally not necessary to state, which makes you suspicious about why they felt the need to do so.

Being too specific and including unnecessary words is a big part of the strangeness of GW's naming scheme. If you met a sea elf, and asked what their people were called, and they said "We are the Idoneth Deepkin," that level of specificity immediately raises questions. You might think "Idoneth, okay - that must be the word for sea elves... so why Deep Kin? I understand those as words individually, but why are they needed here? Are there Shallow Kin? Are there other Idoneth in the Deep who are not Kin?" When the answer to all of those questions appears to be no, you're left with "Well why the heck did he say it, then?" That unanswered why the heck causes the lingering discomfort with these names.

If that same sea elf just said "We are the Idoneth," you'd just think "Idoneth, okay - that must be the word for sea elves." And you're done. No further questions. The world makes sense, and you can go on with your life.

Idoneth means “extreme isolation” according to their Battletome. So you’d be wrong if you’d think it means “Sea Elf”. Where does it even say that they’d introduce themselves like that?

Few of the factions in the Old World called themselves by their army book name. It’s more likely that some people call them Idoneth and some Deepkin. And maybe they call themselves sometimes one or the other, or more likely go by the name of their enclave. Or “extreme isolation” also received the meaning of “Deepkin” in their language over the centuries. They could call other Aelves Lightkin, Shadowkin and so on. So many possibilities which would make sense. 

Likeliest reason is so that GW doesn’t have trademark issues. Plus it can help to get the concept easier across if you don’t know that an Idoneth is. 

I wouldn’t defend all those names, not sure if Realm-lords is good for example, but then, it’s probably something a bunch of High Elves would call themselves.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, michu said:

called Łódź

If I’m not mistaken then there is a city that even carries that name.

So I guess boat really is a name fir a city, reminds me of other cities or towns, which have a kinda funny sound when spoken in another language😂.

Edited by Skreech Verminking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, LuminethMage said:

Idoneth means “extreme isolation” according to their Battletome. So you’d be wrong if you’d think it means “Sea Elf”. Where does it even say that they’d introduce themselves like that?

Well that's honestly my question - how would they introduce themselves? How do they refer to themselves, to distinguish their people from other people? Whatever it is, that's what I think should be on the front of their battletome.

17 minutes ago, LuminethMage said:

Few of the factions in the Old World called themselves by their army book name. It’s more likely that some people call them Idoneth and some Deepkin. And maybe they call themselves sometimes one or the other, or more likely go by the name of their enclave. Or “extreme isolation” also received the meaning of “Deepkin” in their language over the centuries. They could call other Aelves Lightkin, Shadowkin and so on. So many possibilities which would make sense.

That would be awesome if it were true - see my previous posts about the Ossiarchs calling themselves Ossiarchs and the people they attack calling them the Bone Reapers. But that's not the impression I get.

If some people call them Idoneth and some people call them Deepkin and nobody calls them Idoneth Deepkin, why does their book constantly insist on referring to them as such? They could have just called it "Battletome: Idoneth" and started the introduction by noting that they are also known as the Deepkin, then used either term interchangeably throughout. Instead, they overwhelmingly use both together, and it's the combination that really doesn't work for me.

17 minutes ago, LuminethMage said:

Likeliest reason is so that GW doesn’t have trademark issues. Plus it can help to get the concept easier across if you don’t know that an Idoneth is.

Well, precisely. The names are formed to be trademarked first and foremost, then ham-fistedly shoe-horned into the world after the fact. That's why those terms are so immersion-breaking - they sound awkward and artificial because the reason they are what they are is not the reason that people in an actual living world have for naming themselves. Nobody establishes their language's root term for "us" by making sure it can be defended as intellectual property in court.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...