This actually relates to my original point: that most 4E monster names do not use the CompoundWord form for their descriptors, and use normal everyday words instead. That's kind of the whole point of the thing.
So alongside you chillborn zombies and skullborn zombies you have grasping zombies, shuffling zombies and zombie soldiers.
So, then, you no longer believe that "That's a product of them having different types of each monster, each with its own name"? We make progress!
Where is the IP protection in "zombie soldier"?
Your claim that these names are used for IP protection seems extremely unlikely, given that only 15% of monsters have such names (by my count), and the distribution of said names seems pretty random. Why would they protect some zombies and not others?
You seem to think that every term, or even a vast majority of terms, must be SpecialNames in order to invoke IP Protection. There is simply no reason to believe that to be the case, and a lot of reason to believe the opposite.
You also fail to answer two points above,
(1) You placed arbitrary limits on "how common" they are when you counted.
EDIT: Cool. You answered this while I was posting. Obviously, you decided what you were counting before you started. Equally obviously, that decision was arbitrary and skewed your results.
(2) They don't have to be "more common" to protect IP than they are; they just have to exist in relation to enough common or popular monsters, classes, and setting elements that WotC can control their usage. And they are more than sufficient for that purpose.
We note that you didn't count classes, setting elements, or base monster types when deciding that TransparentGlass ProtectIP names were not common. Let us just say that this skews your results in favour of a conclusion that your posting history makes seem that you have previously held.
As well as the general "You don't always need a SpecialName to IP Protect something; you can also Eladrin your elves, make things like tieflings core, etc. The whole move from OGL to GSL is about IP Protection, so it should come as no suprise that IP Protection is a concern.
You can claim that the OGL to GSL is about "quality control" or whatever else you might think it is about; it is still also about IP Protection. That WotC is concerned about IP Protection re 4e isn't idle speculation. It is as close to a fact as anything we have about WotC's inner workings.
In fact, that these names
accidentally provide IP Protection is a truly extraordinary claim, IMHO, requiring more than "They only did it 15% of the time, if you ignore a bunch of other examples!" to back it up.
It is also an insulting claim toward WotC from a certain point of view. IMHO, they came up with lame names, but at least had a reason for so doing. In your point of view, they just came up with lame names.
RC
