I've always been of the opinion BloodBowl was a game of skill - you managed your odds and worked out your probabilities, and if you made less mistakes, you won.

However, my recent run is making me question this. In 10 games, played since December, I'm 4/1/5, and my Luckometer average for that period is 52.1% v 62.1% for my opponents. In games I win, the average luck is 54.75%(me) v 55.50%(opp) - helped by one win with a negative luck differential of 20% - and in those I lose the average luck is 49.40%(me) v 64.20%(opp).

In only two matches of those ten has the result not gone to the coach with the higher luck, and that includes the draw. The rest of the time, the dice have, it would seem, decided. I know there aren't enough results there for any meaningful statistical analysis, but it is a trend.

Now I will admit my form hasn't been good - I've made more mistakes than usual. However, in low TR, I've always had a very good win record. So I suppose what I'm asking is - is my very poor run of luck exposing the fact that skill only covers you up to a certain point, after which the luck differential is so great it determines the result?

It occurs to me that you could, with enough match results, determine what skill advantage a coach has in terms of percentage luck - e.g. A superior coach, in matches where all else is equal, will have a par record when he is down 5% luck.

From a personal perspective, I'd really appreciate some light at the end of this particular tunnel - and not one that turns out to be an oncoming train...