PG - the points system is listed in the
third post of this thread, and is experimental in that we put together something based on the F1 scoring system - and I said as much in that post. Equally we are using the same scoring system for awarding points per game across all the tournaments
As Mephiston says, the tournaments are run using the standard lists without any modifications, so none of the proposed CSM mods are included. From memory, all the BL armies fielded around 9-10 daemons, at least one Feral, a minimum of 3x Obliterators, 1-2 Daemon Princes, 1-2 Chosen, 1-2 Retinues, 1-2 Forlorn Hopes and and usually some Wheels; so pretty much a similar format throughout.
As for interpreting the statistics and raw data, and given the knack of rolling poor dice that some people have, I am sure one can discount some of the results for various reasons. However, the fact remains that we have now played 5 competitions comprising some 21 rounds and 288 battles involving 35 people at one time or another.
So I stand by the statement that in that time, BL has done
significantly better than the other races. While you can certainly put some of this success down to dice rolling (eg my 75% failed initiative against Steve Gullick), at this point the dice stats should be starting to even out a little. However, to-date they have won 29 and lost 18 and drawn 2 in the five tournaments - or a success rate of around 59% in 49 games, where the other armies success rates are in the range of 30%-45%, which is the reason why they are consistently in the top three positions in the five UK tournaments to-date.
And for what it is worth, I don't think anyone has been playing particularly 'tweaked ' lists, except possibly Mark Hargrave who fielded no less than 7x Obliterators in his
4000 point list for Britcon; nor is it down to the same players as there have been 6 people fielding BL armies in the 5 tournaments
(Modified to include WPS CC stats)
