4500 vs 5000

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

It's a kind of magic... Finally! The Behind The Scenes blog tells you more about the coming rules for the magic phase. We hope you will enjoy the read!

  • I don't think it was kept secret, but may have been unpopular. As I remember they seemed to be more on keeping it at 4500 for tournaments because, well that is what they are used to for balance sake.
    But anyone can play any points they want to at any other time than during official tournaments.
    I am a student. I will always be a student. Because I am always studying for better ways to do things.
  • Polls are incredibly difficult to manage - it's always unclear how much or what portion of the user base is replying to these, and this is highlighted further when the poll is not official and is embedded unofficially within another thread.

    Example: If a poll is created within a thread that is called: Game sizes then only those users that are interested in this topic will see it. If the poll is asking to change the game size, then it's entirely possible that only those users that don't like the current game size will answer. So the poll receives a 100% in favour of changing the game size, yet maybe only 200 people answered, and all of those that did are part of a minority that want to change this. All the other users might have ignored this thread and the poll entirely.

    What this results in, is that those that didn't see or answer the poll are not being taken into account. So either a rule is created catering only to the few, or nothing is done and those that did answer feel neglected.

    Only solution for this is to only allow official polls that are raised in the right place on the site, and that the team have prepared and planned in the time to review the answers and to act on them.
  • Good point.

    At the same time, if you have 200ppl responding to the poll their opinion should not be deleted. If there's significant response, especially in one direction, that's a tell tale sign the poll should be publicized to see if everyone feels the same way.

    Deleting polls only breeds distrust and supports the hypothesis real or unreal that the people making the decisions are dismissive of anything they don't like.

    In Los Angeles we continued to play with 5k after the switch. The only reason we switched to 4.5k was because people were practicing for buckeye. We still have people grumbling about it in our 50person Facebook chat with the opinion 5k is better. 4.5k feels anemic.
  • Korpacz wrote:

    Good point.

    At the same time, if you have 200ppl responding to the poll their opinion should not be deleted. If there's significant response, especially in one direction, that's a tell tale sign the poll should be publicized to see if everyone feels the same way.
    As I remember there was a discussion about the game size after the poll was deleted and potentially moving to 5k in a de facto manner. As in if everyone played 5k then the team would be forced to balance it. This clearly hasn't happened so it is probably safe to assume that the majority didn't mind playing 4.5k.

    From memory this didn't work because some of the abusive builds that were prevented with the % caps on sections (e.g. monsters) didn't work very well at 5k. I also think that the "standard" game size was polled officially - I think the question was: What size game do you normally play? These results have been released and I would assume the question was asked as a response to this poll.


    I think the results (of the official poll) were pretty resoundingly in favour of 4.5k - but there was some discussion about it. I aprciate that the question was not "How many points would you like to play?" though.

    durion wrote:

    Example: If a poll is created within a thread that is called: Game sizes then only those users that are interested in this topic will see it.

    Korpacz wrote:

    If there's significant response, especially in one direction, that's a tell tale sign the poll should be publicized to see if everyone feels the same way.
    That was the point: The poll is not statistically significant due to the serious inherent bias - for starters, you don't have a representative sample. To get anywhere near a representative sample you need would probably need this to be an official poll.

    You also have to be careful as to how the question is phrased to avoid leading questions and prevent people from seeing the results before they vote so as not to influence their decision.

    Korpacz wrote:

    Deleting polls only breeds distrust and supports the hypothesis real or unreal that the people making the decisions are dismissive of anything they don't like.
    I don't agree with this. Unfortunately there are too many people who used polls like this in the past to try to force their own views on the community. The team have published the results of the polls they have done officially and (as far as I know) not held anything back.

    Also, in my opinion the people making the decisions are generally making good decisions.

    Korpacz wrote:

    In Los Angeles we continued to play with 5k after the switch. The only reason we switched to 4.5k was because people were practicing for buckeye. We still have people grumbling about it in our 50person Facebook chat with the opinion 5k is better.
    So you're saying that you tried to make 5k stick in your area but were unable to do so for reasons. If there are 50 odd people in your Facebook group complaining about 4.5k why not run a 5k tournament? You should be able to get at least 50 people interested....

    It's also worth pointing out that just because 50 people are complaining on your Facebook group, that doesn't mean there are not 200 other people who just haven't bothered to wade in favour of 4.5k points because the thread is already negative. Just like the poll, you have an inherent bias in your sample (you have only asked people who prefer 5k points in a small area of the world).

    Korpacz wrote:

    4.5k feels anemic.
    This is just another "I can't take all my toys at 4.5k" argument. Have you considered that that could be intentional? To make you make meaningful choices at list creation?
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • I appreciate the time you put into your response, however you seemed to either ignore or dismiss the points made in my post.

    1. Regarding the poll - If there is a poll and a large number of people said we should do X it does not matter if it's only a subset of a larger group, the fact is a large number of people have this opinion. However, we will never know the answer because.. see point #2.

    2. Deleting peoples opinions on the forums (by deleting the results of the poll), runs counter to the entire purpose of having a message board (sharing ideas and opinions). It breeds distrust.

    3. You completely ignored the fact that the only reason we moved to 4.5K was to prep for buckeye battles. The change had nothing to do with what "sticks" as you try to imply, but rather, it was a forced practicality. Our group wants to grow the hobby and travels for tournaments, so they have to conform for events like buckeye and infernal zoo.

    4. I never mentioned polling my local community, the concern raised in this thread is (a) results of the poll (b) why the poll was deleted. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by saying I'm polling the people I play with.

    5. 4.5K is essentially the equivalent of 2,250 in the old system. No one played 2,250. In the US, the vast majority (if not all) of the tournaments were 2,500. Personally, it's not an issue of "take all my toys", its more an issue of "this doesn't feel like an army".

    6. Trying to make the argument that there aren't 1,000 people responding to this post, ergo I'm wrong, is a laughable and petty argument to make. You know better than that.
  • Sir_Sully wrote:


    Korpacz wrote:

    4.5k feels anemic.
    This is just another "I can't take all my toys at 4.5k" argument. Have you considered that that could be intentional? To make you make meaningful choices at list creation?
    I think most players prefer being able to take all their toys in a normal game.
    You have to remember that a lot of the T9A community has come from Warhammer 8th edition where you were far less restricted in terms of army composition and even magical item combinations.
  • theunwantedbeing wrote:

    Sir_Sully wrote:

    Korpacz wrote:

    4.5k feels anemic.
    This is just another "I can't take all my toys at 4.5k" argument. Have you considered that that could be intentional? To make you make meaningful choices at list creation?
    I think most players prefer being able to take all their toys in a normal game.You have to remember that a lot of the T9A community has come from Warhammer 8th edition where you were far less restricted in terms of army composition and even magical item combinations.
    Not trying to pile on, but if you take a minute to think about that statement "I can't take all my toys at 4.5K", it really is a silly statement. It's not like 5K allows you to take 3 extra lords and 2 extra cannons. It just helps you fill out units and add that extra support caster or chaff. The choices made at 5k are no less challenging than they are at 4.5K.

    Maybe the confusion is the % allocations - I'm in favor of updating those to work with 5K. I don't think most people care about min maxing cannons and shrieking horrors, they're just looking to move away from msu that feels right. my 2 cents.
  • I much prefer 5000p. It never feels like I can get a well-rounded army into 4500. There's something inherently satisfying about the number 5000 too, I suppose, but I don't think that's the reason. :D "Playing with all your toys" is literally what this game is about, so I don't see how that's an argument against 5k. It's not like 5000p lets you go hog wild and throw units together any way you want, you just get an army that feels more finished and complete. I enjoy games with that kind of army much more than one that feels like it's stripped down to fit into narrow constraints.

    Theo
  • We played at 2250 in my group pretty regularly in the WHFB days, and I'm glad T9A is balancing at that range.

    I really do feel like I can't quite fit everything I want in a list of that size, and to me it's a good thing. It usually means writing several versions of a list and deciding what to cut.

    At 2500/5000 points, I had fairly stagnant, standard armies set up well to take all comers. With 4500, I'm agonizing over what to trim, writing more narrow, focused lists, and enjoying the process much more. I find I face a wider variety of opponent's lists as well.

    Just my preference, for what it's worth.
    I would rather lose on my own terms than win on someone else's.
  • Sorry about not responding, I was busy doing stuff and didn't have time to respond properly! :)

    Korpacz wrote:

    1. Regarding the poll - If there is a poll and a large number of people said we should do X it does not matter if it's only a subset of a larger group, the fact is a large number of people have this opinion. However, we will never know the answer because.. see point #2.
    Not true - 200 people held this view and while 200 people is a large number compared to say 10 people, it is not a large number compared to the 11,876 members on the site (@ time of posting).

    It's 1.68% of members on the forum. That's a fantastic example of a minority view. I should stress that that doesn't make the minority wrong, but it is misleading to say that a large number of people held this view. It's actually a small proportion of Forum members.

    Korpacz wrote:

    2. Deleting peoples opinions on the forums (by deleting the results of the poll), runs counter to the entire purpose of having a message board (sharing ideas and opinions). It breeds distrust.
    Your statement in #1 actually highlights my point as to why this was removed. People were miss-representing the results of these polls (exactly like you did with your "large number of people"). If you want to criticize the team, you are entitled to do so (I've done it when I felt it was necessary - hopefully constructively) but why would they want to provide you with the rope to hang them? Especially as the poll doesn't necessary prove anything.

    If you want to debate is 4.5k or 5k better, go ahead and start the debate. People will make better points than me about this. Honestly, I prefer 4.5k but I would still play if the team moved to 5k.

    Korpacz wrote:

    3. You completely ignored the fact that the only reason we moved to 4.5K was to prep for buckeye battles. The change had nothing to do with what "sticks" as you try to imply, but rather, it was a forced practicality. Our group wants to grow the hobby and travels for tournaments, so they have to conform for events like buckeye and infernal zoo.
    4.5 k is the official advised level. However, if these tournaments had low levels of interest at 4.5k and the reason for this was because everyone wants to play 5k, the tournaments will follow suit and move to 5k. They'd have to, or they'd just cease to be relevant.

    Korpacz wrote:

    4. I never mentioned polling my local community, the concern raised in this thread is (a) results of the poll (b) why the poll was deleted. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by saying I'm polling the people I play with.
    This was in reference to your 50 person facebook group (where you said you still get grumbles about 4.5k). I guessed that they were probably localish and the idea of the group is to organise games etc?

    I have already explained b) and a) is probably no longer known. You could start a debate about 4.5k or 5k and which is better (as mentioned above) and see what falls out.

    Korpacz wrote:

    5. 4.5K is essentially the equivalent of 2,250 in the old system. No one played 2,250. In the US, the vast majority (if not all) of the tournaments were 2,500. Personally, it's not an issue of "take all my toys", its more an issue of "this doesn't feel like an army".
    When I started playing WFB ages ago, the gold standard was 2,000 points not 2,500.

    For me, playing KoE, 5k would allow me room to squeeze in a hippogriff duke (half MW item) a fully tooled up druidism damsel (to heal the hippo duke), a second duke on a horse and a BSB. I would lose a special unit because I'd need to increase my core points but otherwise I'm all set.

    Korpacz wrote:

    6. Trying to make the argument that there aren't 1,000 people responding to this post, ergo I'm wrong, is a laughable and petty argument to make. You know better than that.
    That miss-represents my argument. My argument is that there are very few people responding to the thread so I inferred (possibly incorrectly) that they probably don't care about this issue. But prove me wrong, (I may have mentioned this before) please open up a discussion on 4.5k vs 5k rather than the poll results request. That might generate more interest
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • theunwantedbeing wrote:

    Sir_Sully wrote:

    Korpacz wrote:

    4.5k feels anemic.
    This is just another "I can't take all my toys at 4.5k" argument. Have you considered that that could be intentional? To make you make meaningful choices at list creation?
    I think most players prefer being able to take all their toys in a normal game.You have to remember that a lot of the T9A community has come from Warhammer 8th edition where you were far less restricted in terms of army composition and even magical item combinations.
    I just don't believe that allowing everyone to take exactly what they want all the time makes a better game. Especially considering that there is nothing to prevent people playing 5k.

    If 5k was so fantastic why are people complaining that they "have" to play 4.5k? They clearly can't find an opponent who is willing to play 5k (for whatever reason).

    And I came from 8th too! :)

    Korpacz wrote:

    Not trying to pile on, but if you take a minute to think about that statement "I can't take all my toys at 4.5K", it really is a silly statement. It's not like 5K allows you to take 3 extra lords and 2 extra cannons. It just helps you fill out units and add that extra support caster or chaff. The choices made at 5k are no less challenging than they are at 4.5K.
    You contracticted yourself:
    1. It's just as hard to make decisions at 4.5k as at 5k
    2. but at 5k it's easier to fill out units, get extra chaff or a support caster.....
    3. that you couldn't afford at 4.5k.
    4. So choices are harder at 4.5k than at 5k
    This is a contradiction of terms.

    Korpacz wrote:

    Maybe the confusion is the % allocations
    I do agree with this. It is the unfortunate nature of percentages. The percentages were balanced at 4.5k to allow a fluffy, balanced army to be chosen without broken combinations. If you increase the army size, at some point will the broken combinations will become allowable.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • Sir_Sully wrote:

    If 5k was so fantastic why are people complaining that they "have" to play 4.5k? They clearly can't find an opponent who is willing to play 5k (for whatever reason).
    I would suggest the following reason as to why people can't find an opponent willing to play 5k.
    • Many people play 4.5k because that is what tournaments generally allow points wise.
    • Tournaments generally run at 4.5k points because the grand daddy tournament, i.e. ETC, runs at 4.5k.
    • ETC runs at 4.5k because the guys who literally wrote the rulebook decided to balance the game at 4.5k.
    Question is, why 4.5k?
    Was it easier to balance?
    Did they want slightly smaller (quicker) games?
    Did they want fewer models on the table, so space and movement became more important?
    Was the decision based on a belief that fewer points meant it was harder to write broken lists? (OK seems pretty broken at 4.5k....)
    Did they want to nerf certain races, while not hurting others and thought the easiest way to balance it was with a points drops?

    I don't know, I'm just spit-balling here, and the truth is there is probably a number of reasons why the decision was made.

    What I do know is that I prefer to play 5k games. However, like OP, I play 4.5k because most people in my area do and I want to go to tournaments and therefore there is no point in practicing with lists I can't use.

    However, I've started to see (and taken part in) 5k tournaments, and everyone there seems to have just as good a time.

    Maybe we just need to find the answer as to why 4.5k was chosen, over 5k. I'm sure when the decision was made, it was fully explained, but despite scouring the forums/news sections, I've not been able to uncover it.
    Mainly play KoE and OnG

    Member of The London Wargaming Guild.
    Find us at meetup.com/The-London-Warhammer-Gaming-Guild/