Ok, well since everyone else is doing it, I'll put up my scoring system.
I've decided that I'm going to score lists in total out of 1 or for you math nerds 100%. My analysis will be based on five categories (which I will describe in a moment), for which I give a rating out of 1 and then I will combined those scores and average them. My reason being that some players will design their lists with specific things in mind. For some it's aesthetics, for others it's fluff, and for others it's plain and simple competitiveness. Based on this it does not make sense to "penalize" certain lists for not detailing their fluff, or even for making sub-optimal choices in order to match their fluff, and for these lists I will tailor the categories for which I rate them. This rating system is completely subjective, and I won't give values for meeting specific criteria. This way I can tailor my rating to the given qualities of the list.
Categories:
For each of the following categories I will ask these questions:
Strategy:
Do they have a specific goal to achieve victory? Do they have a specific style or method of obtaining this goal? Is this method viable? Does it take into account the three main objective types? In this regard, is there a balance of Scoring/Non-Scoring, and tough units/easy Kill Points?
Composition:
Does their Form lead to Function? -or- Do their unit choices make sense for their Strategy? How flexible is the list? Is it easily knocked off balance, or can the list maintain composure given their Strategy is foiled? Is there a balance of units? Or if their Strategy requires an emphasis in one area, do they have a sustainable means of making up for their weakness?
Efficiency: Does the Form of each individual unit lead to it's Function? -or- Do their OPTION choices make sense for their units purpose? Do they have a balance of Anti-Tank, both ranged, and up-close? Do they have a balance of Anti-Light Infantry, or Anti-Heavy Infantry firepower? Do they have a balance of Close Combat units?
Theme:
Do they have a well described background? Is their fluff consistent with Eldar canon? Does their theme match their Strategy and/or Composition?
Ingenuity:
Is their Theme/Strategy unique? Are their option choices exotic or different from usual? Do these choices detract from the overall effectiveness of the army?
So to show you what I mean by my averaging system, lets say I have two armies. One of them is designed to simply be a fun, competitive army. The other is clearly designed to be a unique, fluff driven list. For the more competitive list, I'll grade it only using the categories of Strategy, Composition, and Efficiency. For the more Fluff driven list, I'll grade it using Strategy, Composition, Theme, and Ingenuity. Or any combination of Strategy+Composition+any other categories.
To give an example, I'll grade the 1750 pts list that I currently use given the models that I have.
Farseer: /w doom, fortune, spirit stone, and runes of warding: 145 pts
Autarch: /w power weapon, fusion gun, and mandiblasters: 100 pts
Striking Scorpions (10): /w exarch, /w scorpions claw, shadowstrike, and stalker: 212 pts
Fire Dragons (6): /w exarch, /w tank hunter and crack shot: 128 pts
Dire Avengers (10): /w exarch, /w power weapon and shimmershield, defend, and bladestorm: 177 pts
Waveserpent: /w twin-linked bright lance, shuriken cannon, and spirit stone: 155 pts
Dire Avengers (10): /w exarch, /w power weapon and shimmershield, defend, and bladestorm: 177 pts
Guardians (10): /w starcannon, and warlock, /w embolden: 135 pts
Guardians (10): /w scatter laser, and warlock, /w embolden: 125 pts
Vyper: /w shuriken cannon, and shuriken cannon: 60 pts
Falcon: /w Eldar missile launcher, shuriken cannon, holofield, and spirit stone: 190 pts
Wraithlord: /w 2x flamers, wraithsword, and bright lance: 140 pts
Total Points: 1744 pts
Total Models: 60 infantry, 3 tanks, and 1 monstrous creature
So for this list, I would see that the author "myself" did not design the list with any fluff, or theme in mind. Rather these are the units he has currently available, and this is how he decided to structure them. Thus I would grade this list on Strategy, Composition, and Efficiency, as clearly the intent was not to go for theme or ingenuity.
Strategy: This sample list does not have a particular game plan or strategy which it plays to. It is a rather generic hammer/anvil style, but leaves itself plenty of space to wiggle around in and adapt to the enemy. It has a strong level of Troops for an Eldar army, with 2 units of Avengers, and 2 units of Guardians, but leaves enough room for support units to get the job done. It is quite capable of performing in a variety of different missions, with it's high number of troops, and a wide variety of combinations of unit sub-groups, and it's mix of speed, and deployment options means that it won't be overwhelmed by any one type of deployment. This list would therefore lose out on points for not having a strong gameplan, but would also gain points for having an enormous amount of flexibility both in unit selection, and in it's ability to win a variety of games.
I would rate this a .6 for Strategy
Composition: Despite the lack of a particular goal, the list is allowed so much flexibility and has such a balance of units that causing it to lose composure would require the opponent picking up on such a drastic error on the part of the Eldar player. There are several "weak-links" in the list which an opponent can pick up on, but the overlap of roles allows for a more cohesive force that can adapt to a variety of situation, including the loss of particular specialized units.
I would rate this a .7 for Composition
Efficiency: The list has a great balance of units, with Striking Scorpions as devoted Close Combat, Fire Dragons as devoted Anti-Tank, and Dire Avengers as devoted anti-Infantry. The inclusion of units like the Autarch, Starcannon/Scatter Laser guardians, Sword-Lord, Shuriken Vyper, and the Bright Lance/EML for the two tanks round off the list as a whole, allowing for the Eldar player to hunt tanks, kill infantry, or assault the enemy in a variety of ways. The list loses out in that many of these option are not the most efficient at doing any one job, however the flexibility it adds ensures that loss of any particular aspect will not hinder the list too greatly.
I would rate this a .7 for Efficiency
Now with ratings of .6 in Strategy, .7 in Composition, and .7 in Efficiency the list averages out to a .66 out of 1.
I hope that this was not too confusing, but if it is, then just look at the first few lists I rate to see exactly what I'm talking about.
Good Hunting,
-Stezerok