Apryl: I think its pretty cool and that all these people seem like theyve put in a lot of work and effort

Ugly: I mean yeah look im not gonna sit and act like I know half of these people or what business they have with being legend 10 billion years later, out of all tho I’d say only Wynn deserves it possibly due to their big contributions in CPA org early on. Outside of these folk with the regular list of people from the year possibly uhhhh Daniel for major with acp’s rise in 2026 and Thunder for s/m for SL’s consistent longevity in the last 2 years or so

Daniel: I think the new system is definitely confusing, and weird. When I was trying to place a vote it was really hard to put a vote in for an S/M Legend since the community vote is putting in just votes for the title of Army Legend, not choosing which category. So it doesn’t really make sense for me to put in a vote for an S/M leader for Army Legend rather than a Major army person. Like what if someone is stuck in the middle of both, do I just not vote for either? Because I could think they deserve S/M Legend but then what happens to other people who have a stronger case, more impactful, but they didn’t do enough for Major Legend. But they don’t deserve S/M, because they didn’t lead many S/Ms. Not sure if I’m making sense here but I tried explaining the through process. From the community’s perspective, I feel like we should still be able to choose for which category, at least. I personally abstained from making a vote, not like it matters much, but it just didn’t feel right for me to be able to have a vote on people I didn’t even see at work. A lot of the people in the list I wasn’t contemporary to and it didn’t feel right at all to vote off of biography that for all I know could be hyped up or toned down. Like, if their contemporaries didn’t vote them in (in a proper board), people who actually saw them at work, then there must be a reason, no? I mean, even the document expressed that there’s lost info we’ll never be able to get back. Isn’t that dangerous? Next, I’m not sure if it’s a good idea to place all legends in one list, either. Like imagine Oagalthorp on the same list as any S/M Legend. It realistically just doesn’t make sense to pair up leaders who led armies that couldn’t get big sizes or last long (no offense to anyone, I’m just being realistic here) with the creator of armies himself; leading one if not the most incredibly successful army of all time. Let alone legendary figures like A, Pink Mafias, Iceyfeet, Commando, Ambrosha, Watex, Tom Wolf. The same people who pushed for cheats websites to be predominant, legendary tactical innovations, and more. All creators of legendary armies who left their legacies implanted in armies who’s effects are felt to this day. I feel like there could’ve been easier ways to solve an issue of “Why can S/M Army Legends on the committee only vote on S/M nominees, while Army Legends can vote on all nominees?”. There must be a reason why both were separated initially, and an Major Army Legend’s legacy is way beyond than what an S/M army could achieve, realistically, at least in most cases. What really makes an Army Legend then? Is the definition of it being played around too much with? A lot of S/M Legends in the past got voted in with the mindset that they’d be two distinct titles. Will the change in the future now that it’s just one? Having someone on there twice in the same list makes it confusing too. I’m in part playing devil’s advocate here, but some of it I do stand for. Would be nice to hear more of what led to these decisions, and as a community member be able get into the mind of the committee to see why such big and drastic changes.

Tornmyfavourite: i think all nominees deserve this chance to become a army legend i didnt see any that dont deserve it

Lia: i’m not very familiar with legend inductions because i’m literally the definition of newgen but i’m cheering dino on and think he is a great contender !!! ^-^

Snowy: Oh, that’s very interesting. I would love it if Wynn won.