No, it wouldn't be halved. You have 22 against a trial and at least 20 definitely in favour of one. And not everyone in favour of larger armies would have used both votes either, so roughly the poll is probably showing a small majority in favour of a trial. Even if those in favour of a trial had scored just 40% then I would still have sanctioned one for next season. 40% of the 70+ players we have now is around 30 players, which is enough for a viable section of 3 divisions. I am trying to cater for all preferences as much as I can and the idea for larger armies is quite popular.markwatson360 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:21 amYes, I understand that, but the fact remains if you had allowed just one vote per person the number of votes for 1200 pt battles would be the same and the votes for an increase would be almost halved because most of these players will have voted in the 1600 and 2000 categories
However, I also now know that 6 out of 22 would stop playing in the FOG2DL if an increase in army size was introduced across the board. This represents around 15% of those polled, which would mean we could lose around 10 players out of the 70+ that entered this season. That is too high for me, as I spend lots of time pre-season trying to recruit new players, so there will not be a roll-out of larger armies right across the tournament. And I also know now that that those in favour of 1600 pt armies outnumber those who want 2000 pt armies by nearly 2 to 1, so that means 2000 pt armies will not be used in the FOG2DL. I wouldn't have got this information without giving 2 votes.
In the final analysis. I think introducing larger armies in just one part of the tournament is a fair reflection of what the poll is saying. Players who do not like larger armies will still have plenty of other options to join in the tournament.