Thureophoroi and Roman Auxilia - HF or HF/MF

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 1:13 am

ShrubMiK wrote:"We are the dead!"

"Yes you are the dead!"

"...uh-oh."

Hmmm, I managed to vote alright in the other thread. Clearly my views are not welcome in this one

You voted. You believe the lies. I thought there may be one 'free' soul here. Obviously not.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:54 pm

ShrubMiK wrote:"We are the dead!"

"Yes you are the dead!"

"...uh-oh."

Hmmm, I managed to vote alright in the other thread. Clearly my views are not welcome in this one

Poll was set to run for 10 days - it started in 12 Jan ...

ValentinianVictor · Post by **ValentinianVictor** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:34 am

nikgaukroger wrote:
ShrubMiK wrote:"We are the dead!"

"Yes you are the dead!"

"...uh-oh."

Hmmm, I managed to vote alright in the other thread. Clearly my views are not welcome in this one
Poll was set to run for 10 days - it started in 12 Jan ...

Not sure how your going to call this one Nik, although 43% dont want any changes, 30% do, and 26% did not care one way or another. Looks like the best bet would be to leave things well enough alone on this one.

ethan · Post by **ethan** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:45 pm

ValentinianVictor wrote: Not sure how your going to call this one Nik, although 43% dont want any changes, 30% do, and 26% did not care one way or another. Looks like the best bet would be to leave things well enough alone on this one.

He could equally say 56% are not opopsed to doing something the authors think is the right thing. Lots of design involves taking risks and doing what the designer things is "right" as opposed to what is popular or finding the "average" result.

Lots of what is now seen as ground-breaking hugely popular architecture was very unpopular when first built. As a designer of most anythign doing something great sometimes involves risk and occasionally failure.

From Wikipedia on the Tower:

The tower was much criticised by the public when it was built, with many calling it an eyesore. Newspapers of the day were filled with angry letters from the arts community of Paris. One is quoted extensively in William Watson's US Government Printing Office publication of 1892 Paris Universal Exposition: Civil Engineering, Public Works, and Architecture: "And during twenty years we shall see, stretching over the entire city, still thrilling with the genius of so many centuries, we shall see stretching out like a black blot the odious shadow of the odious column built up of riveted iron plates."[12] Signers of this letter included Jean-Louis-Ernest Meissonier, Charles Gounod, Charles Garnier, Jean-Léon Gérôme, William-Adolphe Bouguereau, and Alexandre Dumas.

ValentinianVictor · Post by **ValentinianVictor** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:10 pm

ethan wrote:
ValentinianVictor wrote: Not sure how your going to call this one Nik, although 43% dont want any changes, 30% do, and 26% did not care one way or another. Looks like the best bet would be to leave things well enough alone on this one.
He could equally say 56% are not opopsed to doing something the authors think is the right thing. Lots of design involves taking risks and doing what the designer things is "right" as opposed to what is popular or finding the "average" result.

Lots of what is now seen as ground-breaking hugely popular architecture was very unpopular when first built. As a designer of most anythign doing something great sometimes involves risk and occasionally failure.

From Wikipedia on the Tower:

The tower was much criticised by the public when it was built, with many calling it an eyesore. Newspapers of the day were filled with angry letters from the arts community of Paris. One is quoted extensively in William Watson's US Government Printing Office publication of 1892 Paris Universal Exposition: Civil Engineering, Public Works, and Architecture: "And during twenty years we shall see, stretching over the entire city, still thrilling with the genius of so many centuries, we shall see stretching out like a black blot the odious shadow of the odious column built up of riveted iron plates."[12] Signers of this letter included Jean-Louis-Ernest Meissonier, Charles Gounod, Charles Garnier, Jean-Léon Gérôme, William-Adolphe Bouguereau, and Alexandre Dumas.

The changes to various voting legislation in the UK means that undecided or votes not cast automatically go into the 'Yes' category, so, in this instance the 26% could be lumped with the 'I want changes' camp. But, in some other countries the opposite is true i.e. votes not cast etc are automatically lumped in the 'No change' camp.

I would say that fairness dictates that because there is no madate for change, there not being a clear 50% in favour, then the status quo should remain.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:50 pm

If you all just accepted what you were told you would have so much less to worry about.

The pretence of democracy just makes you feel like you have a say.

The Democratic People's Democratic Repulic of FoG

Say it twice and you feel even more democratic

davesaunders23 · Post by **davesaunders23** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:30 pm

aren't we getting close to the WRG solution of having light heavy foot and light medium foot etc..?? or am i wrong. it was a long time ago. this has been a problem for a long time.

i quite liked the solution i remember from the last days of DBM that roman legionaries should be some form of regular/drilled warband.

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:44 pm

davesaunders23 wrote:aren't we getting close to the WRG solution of having light heavy foot and light medium foot etc..?? or am i wrong. it was a long time ago. this has been a problem for a long time.

i quite liked the solution i remember from the last days of DBM that roman legionaries should be some form of regular/drilled warband.

I think Nik feels that the current lists are too permissive and wants to lay the ghost of light heavy foot by making these Auxiliaries HF. So he's doing the reverse of what you're saying.

I fear you mis-remember the last days of DBM. Roman Legionaries were always Regular Bd(O)

shadowdragon · Post by **shadowdragon** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:14 pm

philqw78 wrote:If you all just accepted what you were told you would have so much less to worry about.

The pretence of democracy just makes you feel like you have a say.

The Democratic People's Democratic Repulic of FoG

Say it twice and you feel even more democratic

So that would put you in the "not free" category so that you are not a "slave"???? "Freedom is slavery."

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:29 pm

ValentinianVictor wrote: Not sure how your going to call this one Nik, although 43% dont want any changes, 30% do, and 26% did not care one way or another. Looks like the best bet would be to leave things well enough alone on this one.

I think its sufficently split and an intolerably low sample size to support any argument in any direction. The question is what do the rules authors believe?

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:49 pm

The poll question tells you what the authors think. Dan, you have been around reptiles (sorry lawyers) long enough to spot a leading question when you see one.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:31 pm

timmy1 wrote:The poll question tells you what the authors think. Dan, you have been around reptiles (sorry lawyers) long enough to spot a leading question when you see one.

You either think too much of lawyers or too little of reptiles. But I would not put the authors in either category.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:36 pm

Not a big fan of reptiles...

Thureophoroi and Roman Auxilia - HF or HF/MF

Should any new lists just classify Roman Auxilia, etc. as HF rather than allow the option for them to be all HF or all MF?