BlackPrince wrote:As the ancients and late armies where in separate comps so the winning 12 BG army did not fight the winning ancient army of 16 Bgs so I not sure just because a 12 BG won the late comp it proves in open comps a 12 Bg army has the same chance of winning as 16+ BG army with equal skilled players.
The army that won FoG late had 13 BGs and along the way to first place it fought and broke two armies of 15 BG.
The army that came second had 12 BGs, along the way was broken in the first game by a 16 BG army (belonging to the player who finished 3rd) and broke armies of 14 and 16 BG.
But after reading the thread the reason I suggested a cap on BG numbers was not to address any potential advantage in winning a game but to stop a large number of BGs limiting how badly you are going to lose a game by.
I suppose it depends on what you want from a game. I never set out at the start of a game with the aim of not losing. If everything goes wrong I will do my damndest to not lose my army but that is not a consideration of army design. I think (but may be wrong) that I have never had my army broken in a FoG singles tournament, I came close in Helsinki but from memory that was the only one.
At present in the UK at least we still have what I think is a healthy proportion of completed games i.e. just over 50%. Some people may consider this to be too many 'draws' but I think that many more than that will have a lot of players twiddling their thumbs waiting for the next round.
Like a far more important problem in today's world, the sceptical viewpoint is very attractive as it avoids having to think about the difficult problem of what should be done. Which can be summarised as shooting the messenger 
