Background
Recently, I wrote my final piece on the subject of "super" armies in Art de la Guerre (ADLG). The main points were:
From a visual, and statistically naive, analysis I concluded that there are no "super" armies in ADLG. By "super" I mean armies that offer all players an advantage.
My underlying hypothesis was that as games increase, luck, player skill and list choice even out, so efficacy tends to 50%, leaving only inherent list differences (if any).
More rigorous testing showed that luck does even out. What is left behind is real and not chance, but that leftover is a tangle of list strength, player skill and popularity. The tests can only measure its size, not pull the tangle apart.
My hypothesis was only partially right. In a perverse way my initial conclusion still holds, but for totally different reasons. There still aren't any "super" armies because, given the data available, it's impossible to prove or disprove their exstance. It's case unproven.
One of the "byproducts" of the rigorous testing was a list of 20 (yes just 20) statistically different armies (good and bad) in ADLG V4. At first I didn't see it as particularly useful: the differences could be due to any combination of factors not just an army's inherent performance.
Now I've had time to reflect, I think the lists may be of more general interest; not least because they contain a few surprises and people do love a good list or two.
