PDA

View Full Version : Terminology change?


dicemanrick
02-19-2011, 11:50 PM
For the love of all that is holy, PLEASE change "psiloi" to "skirmishers" or something pronounceable. Only Greeks used them and it's hard to explain what they are to new players unless you say..."they are skirmishers".

(Tongue firmly in cheek as i typed this):D

Cromwell
02-20-2011, 05:44 AM
I have to admit i have always wondered why they are called Psiloi. Skirmishers I think is a more discriptive term.

Matt
02-20-2011, 07:14 AM
Agree completely. In fact, I would take it one step further and make all troop types English - Auxilia??? OK, I get it, but it is specific to one army/country. How about Medium Infantry/Foot?

Richard Lee
02-20-2011, 07:17 AM
Not sure, but I think that the easily understandable term skirmisher was not used because light horse are meant to include mounted skirmishers. That said, I agree that 'skirmisher' would be a lot easier for new players.

Richard Lee
02-20-2011, 07:21 AM
In fact, I would take it one step further and make all troop types English - Auxilia??? OK, I get it, but it is specific to one army/country. How about Medium Infantry/Foot?

Not a bad idea. 'Psiloi' is Greek; 'auxilia' refer to a Roman army type. It would be better to either use all Latin or Greek terms, or, (preferably) use English.

Don't think that it will happen, though.

Rong
02-20-2011, 11:34 AM
How about Skirmishers?

Rock
02-20-2011, 11:44 AM
Skirmishers!

As already said several times, when explaining the rules, you must always dismiss the term "psiloi" and use "skirmishers" for anyone to understand this troop type.

kontos
02-20-2011, 11:48 AM
I'm also a fan and we could also make "auxilia" light foot and get rid of the Roman designation. Of course none of this will happen as that is a lot of army list editing. :yawn

Andreas Johansson
02-20-2011, 12:05 PM
I'm also a fan and we could also make "auxilia" light foot and get rid of the Roman designation. Of course none of this will happen as that is a lot of army list editing. :yawn

Search-and-replace isn't all that much work.

Personally I see no issue with the current terms (or at least no more with Auxilia than with, say, Knights, which gets used for lots troops that were not knights). But then all the terms are in foreign languages to me ...

ferrency
02-20-2011, 12:50 PM
I concur.

I also thought that a unit name change would provide a way to drastically alter the expression of army lists, if an alternate ruleset ever needed to be written.

Alan

Redwilde
02-20-2011, 03:11 PM
I like Knights, Auxilia and Psiloi. Three languages and all. Much more colourful than Heavy Cavalry, Light Infantry, and Skirmishers.

It's easy enough to educate the poloi by simply saying, Psiloi means skirmishers (in whatever language your poloi speak).

Bobgnar
02-20-2011, 03:30 PM
Change Auxilia to Peltasts, or change Psiloi to Velites. Keep the language the same. If you change Psiloi to Skirmishers, you would need to add "Foot" because LH are also skirmishers.

Obadiah
02-20-2011, 03:55 PM
As a non-educated players (in terms of detailed history), the various terms of "Auxilia", "Peltasts", "Psiloi" and "Velites" are just words. You could call them "Vanwinklers" and "Panjogobblers" and it wouldn't make any difference, as long the name is used consistently.

Maybe moving to names that are English is the answer - "foot skirmishers", "medium infantry". "Knights" is OK, but again I wouldn't have an issue with "Heavy Horse".

Having said all that, is this all just a little too radical as a change? I personally doubt it would happen, as I understand the terms are used in DBMM as well.

Lobotomy
02-20-2011, 04:12 PM
The issue for Phil, apparently, was not to mix up terms between DBA and DBM (I do not have the DBMM rules so I cannot compare). He defines "skirmishers" in DBM as Light Horse and Psiloi. He defined those two plus Auxilia as "light troops." These designations had specific purposes in the rules for movement and some other actions. So he has to keep the terms the same in both sets for there to be some minimal consistency.

ferrency
02-20-2011, 06:11 PM
The issue for Phil, apparently, was not to mix up terms between DBA and DBM (I do not have the DBMM rules so I cannot compare). He defines "skirmishers" in DBM as Light Horse and Psiloi. He defined those two plus Auxilia as "light troops." These designations had specific purposes in the rules for movement and some other actions. So he has to keep the terms the same in both sets for there to be some minimal consistency.

Any idea if these subcategories were maintained in DBMM?

Alan

dicemanrick
02-20-2011, 08:09 PM
I cast a vote for Panjogobblers!!:rotfl

kontos
02-20-2011, 08:49 PM
I cast a vote for Panjogobblers!!:rotfl

Doesn't that conflict with HotT? :D

Andreas Johansson
02-21-2011, 02:03 AM
Any idea if these subcategories were maintained in DBMM?

Alan

They were.

Phil isn't afflicted with any foolish consistency however - in DBR, "Skirmishers" is the psiloi-equivalent.

Martyn
02-21-2011, 07:02 AM
They were.

Phil isn't afflicted with any foolish consistency however - in DBR, "Skirmishers" is the psiloi-equivalent.

However, in rules from the same period, written by the same author, using similar basic concepts, I think the chances of making changes in description and definition of troops common to both in only one is, shall we say, unlikely.

winterbadger
02-21-2011, 01:58 PM
Search-and-replace isn't all that much work.

You're assuming the text is on a computer. :D

Andreas Johansson
02-21-2011, 04:06 PM
You're assuming the text is on a computer. :D

You forget I possess Secret Knowledge. I know whether the text is on a computer. :p

winterbadger
02-21-2011, 04:22 PM
You forget I possess Secret Knowledge. I know whether the text is on a computer. :p

Ha! Touche! :up

Pavane
02-21-2011, 04:27 PM
I like Knights, Auxilia and Psiloi. Three languages and all. Much more colourful than Heavy Cavalry, Light Infantry, and Skirmishers.

It's easy enough to educate the poloi by simply saying, Psiloi means skirmishers (in whatever language your poloi speak).
I agree. The DBA terms add more colour than light medium and heavy qualifiers for foot and infantry. Everyone has to leard what a "bauer" is in Eucre or a "rook" in Chess.

winterbadger
02-21-2011, 04:32 PM
For the love of all that is holy, PLEASE change "psiloi" to "skirmishers" or something pronounceable. Only Greeks used them and it's hard to explain what they are to new players unless you say..."they are skirmishers".

(Tongue firmly in cheek as i typed this):D

I totally agree. OTOH, there are other things that I'd far rather see on the plate (bigger boards, no LH QK on Pk/Sp, revamped terrain) if there's only so much room for change.

Martyn
02-22-2011, 06:58 AM
Everyone has to leard what a "bauer" is in Eucre.....

Or do you mean "the benny" ;)

Bob Mcleish
02-22-2011, 09:59 AM
I don't have any problem with Psiloi, Auxilia or any other DBA terminology. To be honest I actually quite like them, and haven't encountered any problems when teaching the game to new players - most only need to be told they're skirmishers, or whatever, once or twice. The number, type and equipment of the miniatures on the base are usually explanation enough.
I'd much rather PB's attention was focused on the stuff that really needs fixing...

Bob Mcleish

timurilank
02-22-2011, 01:02 PM
I think it should remain. The term psiloi is a light infantryman, however, skirmishers can include bow or javelin armed light cavalry.

winterbadger
02-22-2011, 01:26 PM
I think it should remain. The term psiloi is a light infantryman, however, skirmishers can include bow or javelin armed light cavalry.

And the fact that we have a type named "Light Horse" doesn't make that clear? :rolleyes

All right, but if we're having "psiloi", can we please have grosfomachoi and toxotai instead of Blades and Bows? After all, if we're aiming at terminological precision, those elements aren't *just* swords and bows--they're the people carrying them. We wouldn't want to go engaging in public synecdoche, now would we? :D

Andreas Johansson
02-22-2011, 02:13 PM
And the fact that we have a type named "Light Horse" doesn't make that clear? :rolleyes
The element type designation I can actually recall causing confusion at the table is Cavalry. Some newbies find it less than trivial to wrap their heads around Kn and LH not being "cavalry".

So, well, no, I wouldn't expect the existence of Light Horse stopping the odd player from assuming that "Skirmishers" included skirmishers on horseback.

winterbadger
02-22-2011, 02:17 PM
So, well, no, I wouldn't expect the existence of Light Horse stopping the odd player from assuming that "Skirmishers" included skirmishers on horseback.

I don't know about your group, Andreas, but most of the players in mine are odd. :silly

ferrency
02-22-2011, 03:29 PM
The element type designation I can actually recall causing confusion at the table is Cavalry.

I agree. I've come across problems grokking the difference between "mounted" as a general troop category and "cavalry" as a specific element type.

winterbadger
02-22-2011, 03:35 PM
I agree. I've come across problems grokking the difference between "mounted" as a general troop category and "cavalry" as a specific element type.

Ah, clearly folks who were not raised (in a military history sense) on the French army, where "cavalrie" = what the rest of us would call "medium heavy cavalry" (not lights, not dragoons, not carabiniers).. :)

ferrency
02-22-2011, 03:54 PM
Ah, clearly folks who were not raised (in a military history sense) on the French army, where "cavalrie" = what the rest of us would call "medium heavy cavalry" (not lights, not dragoons, not carabiniers).. :)

Yeah.

That has guns, right?

;)

Wm.E.Reseigh
02-22-2011, 09:02 PM
You may want to bear in mind that the current colorful terms used in DBA replaced cumbersome stuff like 'superheavy cavalry with lance and shield' (SHC, L, Sh in army lists, now "Knights") or 'heavy infantry with one side arm (assumed), heavy throwing weapon, javelins and shield' (HI, HTW, JLS, Sh), now "Blades". Personally, I don't want to go back.

I have no strong opinion on whether Greek or Latin based terms should be preferred.

winterbadger
02-22-2011, 10:54 PM
You may want to bear in mind that the current colorful terms used in DBA replaced cumbersome stuff like 'superheavy cavalry with lance and shield' (SHC, L, Sh in army lists, now "Knights") or 'heavy infantry with one side arm (assumed), heavy throwing weapon, javelins and shield' (HI, HTW, JLS, Sh), now "Blades". Personally, I don't want to go back.

Who's talking about going back? We're suggesting going *forward* :D to the term that replaced Psiloi in later DBx games. Which doesn't seem to have confused any DBR (or DBA-RRR) players.

Andy Swingle
02-24-2011, 01:56 AM
I have no problems with the current terms. I like the terminology.. They are fun to say.:D Besides, i really do not know any other languages besides a few words.. When i am talking to a non-gamer about a game.. It makes me sound smart.