"Factions" Topic

Depending on the genre or period, combatants may not be conveniently divided by nationality. Some use the term 'faction' to speak of these force groupings, but others despise this term.

What term would you replace 'faction' with?

You can generally put me in the "Despise" camp. Force, Company and Army come to mind.

Force or army would work for me. Faction is a bit antiseptic for me. Faction seems to be ok for Sci-Fi. Orcs, Elves, Hobbits and Dwarves are commonly know.

I think if it's a historical based game you should use terms that were used by the actual combatants or what is most accepted by historians. Sub categories will be by troop type.

The Spanish Civil War comes to mind with all it's different groups, Rebel, Republican, Nationalist, Anarchists, Communists, etc, etc.

Good question.

How about blocs?

If nationality can't differentiate the combatants, factions seems a good shorthand once you've described them.

I think if it's a historical based game you should use terms that were used by the actual combatants or what is most accepted by historians.

Boxer Rebellion – Legation factions?

Haven't we been using the term "faction" in current conflicts, especially where locals of the same nationality are shooting at each other? Just checked wikipedia, and yup, they use the term.

Legation forces. Legation units. Legation guards. Legation garrisons. Lots of other possibilities in this particular case.

To Fusilier Dan's point, "faction" is commonly used when discussing the forces in the Spanish Civil War.

I don't feel strongly about it. Faction may be the best term, or it may not be. Like most word choices, it depends, and it depends mostly on context.

In most cases, faction denotes a group within a larger group. So if you are not describing one or more splinter groups within a common group, it is probably not the right term.

That said, there is no universal "larger group" and the term has been used to denote the uniting of factions within different groups into a larger group. So, if "everyone in central Europe" is your larger group, then a group of people united for a cause that spans borders would legitimately be a faction.

The important thing is "faction" is often used of political groups, which is hilarious since the Latin root of the word means "to do something".

How about blocs?

You mean like the Soviet blocks ..?

I tend to use the term factions to describe the various sides that do battle at faculty association meetings. I think that is an appropriate use of the term.

Sides

It never occurred to me anyone would dislike the term 'factions'. Why is it disliked? I would think it perfectly suitable for a modern civil war situation as noted above, or a game where military forces aren't involved; western gunfight, pulp, etc.

Faction is a perfectly good term to use when it's appropriate, such as some of those modern warfare examples.

Describing the Royal Navy, Kriegsmarine and IJN as factions isn't

What David said. It is the inappropriate usage which drives me nuts. I think it must derive from some set of rules which describes all the various army lists as 'factions'. I blame GW.

The Eight Army and the Afrika Corps are not 'factions'.

The POUM probably is a faction for the Spanish Republicans.

It is mostly used inaccurately as many players will just aimlessly follow whatever they are told.
Yes, I would be appalled if any of my gaming buddies used it. They are quite bright after all.
Following on from Martin I think DAK and 8th army are "Epic armeeezz", "warbands" or NPC to be correct?
To be more pacific noone could care less about this awesome mechanic?

martin

Factions, as useful a word as Army when Army refers to a Battalion size grouping on the table top, or 5 units and a dragon on a fantasy table top!

I might have some mad cap "factions" in my AK47 Forces!

Tally Ho!

As others have noted, "Faction" is fine when it is used appropriately. My issue is that it is often used inappropriately and it is lazy. I blame GW as well.

It is appropriate in a game of Junta, and it is appropriate for a game of royal palace intrigue. It is appropriate in a RCW game where Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and Socialists are fighting for control of a telegraph office.

@Kevin. I think you are on to something. A new boardgame called "Junta: Ivory Tower" edition. Players vying to become the next Dean or Provost. You can have things like some poor forgotten prof who will throw his weight behind anyone who can get him a $15 USDK grant to study ancient Assyrian pottery tools.

Faction is great when they actually are factions – for SYW we use "ally"

"Junta: Ivory Tower"

Look for "Survival of the Witless" – it's about building a coalition to get enough votes for a tenure spot that all players are competing for. Not for the mild at heart. Or children.

"Kremlin" (I think that was the title) has some neat mechanics; played it a couple of times, and it's no surprise that the SU collapsed.

There is really no single word in English that covers everything from modern nation states, to crusaders, to xenomorphs, to a mob of drunk prootwaddles trashing the village. Faction is fine. Any other word is also fine as long as everyone understands it. If faction is to laden with context for the sensitive, perhaps we need a new word. I nominate "flunge."

I agree with most, when it is used inaccurately. I remember the first time this happened. Some young man at the FLGS, when I was in a Bolt Action game, asked me which faction I was. I have never heard this term applied to wargaming before.

I am not playing gangster's in 1920s Chicago or Junta. You mean which country I am playing or which side or which army or Allied or Axis? Really seemed inappropriate, not bad just odd.

Has happened to me several times since then. Someone finally told me it was a term used in fantasy gaming. A genre I am for the most part unfamiliar with. Really strange when I am playing an ACW or AWI game.

There is really no single word in English that covers everything from modern nation states,

Why would you assume we need a single word to cover all the different force types?

We don't do that anywhere else in the language. I can have an extra serving of fries, an extra bowl of soup, and an extra slice of cake. I can even have an extra bowl of fries and an extra serving of soup or cake. I can't have a slice of fries or a slice of soup (unless I am back in the galley of a USN ship). Complex and contextual … yes. Confusing and awkward, needing replacement … I think not.

Now … where the is that cake ..?

Why would you assume we need a single word to cover all the different force types?

Why would you assume that I assumed that we needed one? I assumed my statements to the effect that

Faction is fine. Any other word is also fine as long as everyone understands it.

kinda covered that.

Why would you assume that I assumed that we needed one?

It was the point in your post where you said we needed a new one and then nominated one.

Never said "we needed a new one" just that no comprehensive term existed, and offered a facetious option in case someone else wanted one.

Editor Bill's topic question was "What term would you replace 'faction' with?" I wrote that Faction is OK with me, with the implication that I see no need for a replacement.

That is all I will say. If you want to believe I wrote something that I clearly did not, go ahead.

Well, if you were being facetious, then you wrote it. You just didn't mean it.

I can see what you wrote. Not so much what you meant.

Contingent

Element

Subdivision

"Faction" still makes me think of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.

I can't recall hearing the word much in a miniatures gaming context. If I understand what Bill means by "force groupings", the generic term I mostly hear is "list". As in, "The Estonian SS list is totally overpowered!"