martin goddard | 29 Sep 2016 11:35 p.m. PST |
i do notice that a fair few gamers refer to opposing armies as "factions". I have seen the combatants of WW1 referred to as "factions". Faction would be about the same as calling the warring nations of WW2 "split teams", "divided clans" or "fighting cousins". In fact those sound better than factions. I am not upset by the term, but it seems terribly/unknowingly mis-used? Where does this crazy idea come from? Just thought it is worthy of discussion. martin
|
Dashetal | 29 Sep 2016 11:46 p.m. PST |
I suspect 40K. Most likely converted sci fi gamers trying to use terms from their experience with 40K to relate to historical nations or armies. |
martin goddard | 29 Sep 2016 11:57 p.m. PST |
|
willlucv | 30 Sep 2016 1:23 a.m. PST |
I don't know if 40k is to blame, it's just the language of modern sci fi gaming. GW still uses armies as a descriptive term on its website. I think it comes from computer gaming. |
Zippee | 30 Sep 2016 1:31 a.m. PST |
It's just a universal generic – it allows discussion of opposing forces of any game without having to use unwieldy explanation. We can discuss 'factions' in any conflict – real or imagined without having to further define. Just as we can discuss 'forces' or 'manoeuvre elements' without having to get bogged down in whether it's a brigade or division or other technical nomenclature. Defining the sides of a game as factions really comes from the boutique style game where the game may recognise a number of 'legitimate' force lists / races / species / nations / whatever. It's not particularly a GW thing, I think it's much wider than that and applicable to the gaming hobby rather than the narrower miniature gaming hobby or even narrower historical miniature gaming hobby. It's no more a misuse than using 'vehicle' instead of 'Audi' it's a collective shorthand term. |
Yesthatphil | 30 Sep 2016 1:58 a.m. PST |
No … I think 'faction' has definitely crept in from non-historical games and isn't usual/core/traditional to historical wargaming or, in that sense, to standard English usage (in which 'faction' would usually apply to rival divisions within the same side, not to different sides q.v. political parties and their factions) .. In my experience of wargamers, it is a term that jars with historical players (who have no need for it as all the 'factions' they might need a term for already have one) but sits comfortably enough with non-historical enthusiasts and omnivores … Personally, I don't use it (and replace it if I'm describing something where the misuse has occurred): that's my choice … Phil |
Griefbringer | 30 Sep 2016 2:21 a.m. PST |
I am also under the impression that it might originate from scifi settings, where the various "parties to a violent conflict" might involve anything from scavenger gangs and pirate warbands to corporate security forces and alien hive minds. (On another note, there is also quite some misuse of the term "army" amongst the historical gamers, especially in WWII context where it tends to have a rather specific meaning.) |
Martin Rapier | 30 Sep 2016 2:54 a.m. PST |
As above, 'faction' is certainly something which has crept in from somewhere. I suspect from online computer gaming. In historical terms a 'faction' is normally something one might find in a civil war or within a branch of a nations armed forces rather than a description of a combatant nation. |
Weasel | 30 Sep 2016 4:26 a.m. PST |
My gut feeling is video games originally. I suppose it's as good as any other term when it comes to a generic, across-all-games term for the sides you can choose in a game. Scifi games was always "army" or "race" from my experience. |
martin goddard | 30 Sep 2016 4:38 a.m. PST |
I agree with those who know it is a misleading and erroneous name for opposing armies (look in a dictionary) etc! Be just fine if it could stay in the fantasy descriptions though? martin
|
Yesthatphil | 30 Sep 2016 4:46 a.m. PST |
Interestingly, in his new books on the Wars of the Roses, Hugh Bicheno uses the term 'affinity' to describe the various groupings by loyalty within the Yorkist, Lancastrian and other protagonists … A fairly new term to me, but without the loaded meaning 'faction' would have had in that context. Phil |
Dale Hurtt | 30 Sep 2016 6:41 a.m. PST |
Warmachine is more likely, as they use "faction". WH and WH40K do not; they use "army". |
durecell | 30 Sep 2016 7:30 a.m. PST |
By Fire and Sword occasionally uses faction although I think that might be a translation issue. It also uses army and country. |
Ottoathome | 30 Sep 2016 7:35 a.m. PST |
I have read, but never seen or heard the term being used. I think it's done on an unstated numeric criteria. Six to twelve individual figures can be a faction, but not 800 figures on stands with banners flying, musicians playing and in rigid formations. Many above have traced its origin to sci-fi and Warhammer where the forces represent essentially non-state players of borderline legality and nihilistic morality. Essentially street gangs with lasers. |
wminsing | 30 Sep 2016 7:50 a.m. PST |
Faction is useful in sci-fi or fantasy settings where the different forces/armies/whatever may represent state, non-state and quasi-state forces. In a game setting where one force might be a national army, one might be a religious cult, one might be a private military contractor, etc, then 'faction' a possible descriptive term. -Will |
The Beast Rampant | 30 Sep 2016 10:26 a.m. PST |
What Will said. I use the term all the time, but never for forces that can be otherwise defined as apples-to-apples political entities. It's common use well predates Warmachine. |
DeRuyter | 30 Sep 2016 10:29 a.m. PST |
I too think it has origins in the online gaming community, perhaps the fantasy side of that as well. World of Warcraft in particular but also other MMORPGs. Sadly, the term faction, clan and others have crept into the historical end of online gaming world. I agree that faction is an erroneous and misleading term used in a historical setting. |
martin goddard | 30 Sep 2016 10:50 a.m. PST |
I think we need to say it is grody to the max. |
etotheipi | 30 Sep 2016 10:57 a.m. PST |
In my experience of wargamers, it is a term that jars with historical players Yeah, using the actual meaning of faction as parties within the same political group that are fighting (in our case warring) amoung themselves, what historical player would call the forces on the board factions? Well … I mean … except people who game: The Hogen Rebellion The Heiji Rebellion Roman Civil Wars (100BC-400AD) The First through Fourth Fitna Fitna of al-Andalus The Mourning Wars An Shi Rebellion Civil War in Norway (1130-1240) The British Anarchy (1135-1153) Crusader Civil War (1152–1153) Age of the Sturlungs Several English Barons' Wars The Livonian Insurrection The Byzantine Civil War of (take your pick) Castilian Civil War Ottoman Interregnum Hussite Wars Wars of the Roses Onin War The Wars of Spanish Succession German Peasants' War Any given Tuesday in Late Medieval Europe Kazakh Civil War ECW TYW Bleeding Kansas Cypriot Civil War The War of Northern Aggression Communist Insurgency (Thailand) Nigerian Civil War Sri Lankan Civil War Liberian Civil War (1 and 2) Sudanese Civil War [Any country not yet named] Civil War Luddite Rebellion Taiping Rebellion Boxer Rebellion Whiskey Rebellion Vietnam War Korean War The Glorious Revolution The Russian Revolution The Mexican Revolution Pick a decade in the Balkans Pick a decade in Afghanistan Darfur War The Communist Insurgency in [Eastern Europe] The Communist Insurgency in [Southeast Asia] … did I miss any? ;) |
Oberlindes Sol LIC | 30 Sep 2016 1:35 p.m. PST |
etotheipi, I'll call your list of factional conflicts and raise with the following: St. George's Night Uprising (mid 1300s Estonia) Various revolts of peasants in France (mid 1300s) Various peasant rebellions in Scandinavia (mid 1500s) Rebellions of Bolotnikov, Stepan Razin, and Bulavin (Russia 1600s-1700s) French and Indian War (1750s) Post-Independence insurrections and rebellions (United States, 1780s-1790s) Post-Civil War insurrections and rebellions (United States 1866 to present) Finnish Civil War (ca. 1918-19) Irish War of Independence (ca. 1919) Northern Ireland troubles 1960s-1970s |
Yesthatphil | 30 Sep 2016 3:01 p.m. PST |
If etotheipi is having such a bad day, may I say that I have no problem with the correct usage of 'faction' for, er, 'factions' (though, mostly in wargame terms, the forces would likely be described differently) … But to reel of a petulant list like that is rather missing the point Martin was making So if we are quoting me to make some kind of point, I am happy with what I said: 'faction' would usually apply to rival divisions within the same side, not to different sides q.v. political parties and their factions Phil |
martin goddard | 01 Oct 2016 5:04 a.m. PST |
Just to bring the topic back on course. I was referring to the mis use of the word not the correct use of the term. I am not mislead if a word is used properly. However should a new set of WW2 rules refer to the US, Germany and Russia as "factions" then there is a misconception there? To mangle Zipee (sorry Zippee!) it is akin to referring to all vehicles as Audis. "British Audis often operated in groups of 4, with one of that number being a firefly variant. In the German army however, it was not uncommon for 2 Tiger Audis to be supported by a couple of lighter Audis". Just lightening the mood! martin |
etotheipi | 01 Oct 2016 6:52 a.m. PST |
I believe martin goddard's point was this: Where does this crazy idea come from? I think it comes from the fact that there are tons of wargaming milieu where it is an appropriate term. The more common a term is, the more likely it is to be misused. Look at what's happened to "ironic" in the past few years… There was no malice in the intent of the list, only absurdity. Before we turned this into impugning others' motives, we got another list of factional conflicts. I don't play WW2 or a number of others where factions is not an appropriate term for the forces. Though I do play some. I was only pointing out that "historical players" is a broad church, so saying they react negatively to the term may be overstating the case a bit and marginalizing those who don't. |
Weasel | 01 Oct 2016 1:36 p.m. PST |
If we want to be silly, "army" is just as incorrect, given that skirmish games often involve irregular forces that do not constitute an army and for many pulp games, military characters may not be present at all :-) |
capncarp | 01 Oct 2016 5:32 p.m. PST |
Next topic on the debate agenda: "Given: The number of angels able to stand on the end of a pin is finite." |
Oberlindes Sol LIC | 03 Oct 2016 1:27 a.m. PST |
@capncarp: Doesn't that depend on stacking rules and the number of angelic factions on the end of a pin? @etotheipi: We're in agreement on the point of lists. There was certainly factional strife during World War 2. Factions in Yugoslavia and China, e.g., fought one another as well as the enemy. |
Griefbringer | 03 Oct 2016 2:14 a.m. PST |
Factions in Yugoslavia and China, e.g., fought one another as well as the enemy. Not to mention various other partisan and resistance movements/organisations found around in various parts of German-occupied Europe (and in some cases also in Soviet-occupied areas). Also later on in the war there were multiple Polish military organisations: Free Polish army based in Britain, another Polish army established in Soviet Union, and the underground Armia Kraiowa in the occupied Poland. French military also ended up being split into the Vichy France military and the overseas Free French led by de Gaulle. Late war Italy was also rather divided: the Kingdom of Italy fought now on the Allied side, while the Italian Socialist Republic in the north was under the control of Germans. In the meanwhile, a lot of partisans were hiding up at the mountains. Also, what about the various volunteer forces from neutral countries that fought on various sides, such as the Swedish volunteer forces that fought on the Finnish side in late Winter War (but were equipped with Swedish weapons etc.) or the Spanish Blue Division fighting for the Germans on the eastern front?
|
etotheipi | 03 Oct 2016 7:39 a.m. PST |
There was certainly factional strife during World War 2. That brings up two great points: (1) These are the types of conflict I like playing in WWII and post-WWII/proto Cold War. Where the factions are trying to defeat a common enemy, so must cooperate, but don't want those other guys to come out on top (most resources, most political backing, etc.) when the Evil Empire Du Jour is defeated. (2) That said, I explicitly left anti-Communist counterinsurgencies off my list. I don't consider the sides to be factions of the same entity, but the Freedom Fighters and Oppressors/Colluders to be separate political entities, thus not factions (though certainly, each may have internal factions). But you could argue that either way. Hopefully over a couple cold beers. You could certainly argue against some of the ones I put on the list, using my argument from above. Most notably, the (tongue-in-cheek) War of Northern Aggression (a.k.a the ACW). Some would say this is a factional division within a single entity, other that these were two different political entities at war. That second point leads back to the OP. I think we've agreed that there are appropriate and inappropriate usage cases for "faction" in wargaming. There are probably a lot of "clear" cases where there is 99.99% agreement on appropriate or inappropriate. But I would also say there is a significant number where you could legitimately argue either way. That leads to ambiguity in the use of the term, which weakens its common usage. |
Old Contemptibles | 03 Oct 2016 8:18 a.m. PST |
I also think the term comes from non-historical gaming like 40K. I have to admit the first time I heard it used in a historical context was rather jarring. The word immediately brought to my mind the Roman Civil Wars or factions within post WWI Germany. Factions within various political parties. Also factions within the ECW, SCW, the RCW and Gangsters in the 1920s and 30s. More political as opposed to military history. If you have always been a historical player and have never in your life played 40K etc. Then it stops you cold. The first time I heard it use was when we were playing a Command Decision Scenario and I was trying to explain it all to a young man, probably about 18 or so. I was explaining the game when he said "Oh so those are different factions fighting each other." It stopped me dead in my tracks for just a second or two. That sort of sent me off trying to give a history lesson. Not something most 18 year olds want to hear. |
Weasel | 03 Oct 2016 5:57 p.m. PST |
Definitely not originated in 40K, though I do see people use it now. Can someone explain why its a bad word and what the right word is? Army or nationality all have major exceptions to them as well. "What nationality did you bring to the game?" "British Free French" |
etotheipi | 04 Oct 2016 5:07 p.m. PST |
Can someone explain why its a bad word and what the right word is? There isn't necessarily a generic word that works in all cases. Why does there have to be? Factions is appropriate in some milieux (historical or not) and not in others. Same with nationalities or armies, or even (one of the more generic terms) forces. Personally, I prefer sides, but that is really about how the game is divided up and not necessarily the identity of the forces (to force a term) that comprise the sides. This becomes apparent in the milieux where one force switches sides. |