YES! YES! YES!

I'm higher than Matt Arnold on the table (okay we have the same points but I did less events due to running two of them)!

LLLLLOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSEEEERRRRRRR!!!

_________________
You can take my life .... but you will never take my FREEDOM!

I made the top ten!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHA!

How did that happen?!?!

One fourth place, one fifth place and two races played. Simple really  

I'd like to thank Matt O. for all the hard work he's put in organising most of the epic tournaments,Dave B. for all the hard work he's put in on the Epic UK championship site and Gavin Mc. for coming up with the idea of the championship.

Hope to see everyone next season along with more new faces.

Did I detect a little tear in that acceptance speech there Dave  

Hang about, I'm second?

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Yep, the one common confusing factor here is that the championship scores do not include any sports or painting scores. The tournament reports on the site do include the paint and sports so don't show the whole picture.

You won two tournaments, one 5th place and used 4 races according to my records.

For my own amusement and for the benifit of playing fantasy epic, I developed my own championship scoring system. You may be interested in seeing the results.

First the system works like this: It's dead simple. The winner of a tournament gets 1 point. The loser (player who got last place) gets 0. Every one else gets a fraction between one and zero. Their scores are added up and averaged over the number of tournaments they entered. Notice that the placements I've taken for each tournament are the official ones given by the tourny organisers, so they factor in painting and sports etc.

Here are the results


0.96 Dave Thomas
0.88 Nathan Hoole
0.78 Nick Rice
0.77 Steve Gullick
0.76 Ben Skinner
0.76 Chris Hayes
0.73 Matt Arnold
0.71 Thomas Sergeant
0.70 Joe Jephson
0.64 Matt Otter
0.62 Tim Hunt
0.61 Gary Pready
0.54 Mark Hargrave
0.51 Bill Ely
0.47 Alex Whitehead
0.45 Mark Williams
0.43 Wayne Bridge
0.43 Simon White
0.41 Richard Brewis
0.40 David Bartley
0.38 Andy Gerrard
0.36 Ryan Downes
0.35 Damian Bradley
0.35 Kevin Bott
0.34 Alan Cameron
0.34 Paul sutton
0.33 Mark Preston
0.30 Andy Harris
0.29 Henrikki Almusa
0.26 Alan Saunders
0.23 Rob Lane
0.21 Gavin McKenzie
0.18 Chris Steel
0.13 Simon Jenkins
0.06 Chun-yiu Lee
0.00 Tom Webb
0.00 Grade Bowen
0.00 Dave McElligot
0.00 Greg Chambers

Make of all this what you will.

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

Other interesting stats I have is that we had:

38 Different Players at tournament this year
16 New to the tournament scene

12 Who played last year but didn't play this year.

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

other stats (i'm such a nerd)

The number of times armies where taken to tournament in both 2007 and 2008 are (I think):

45 Marines
43 Guard
32 Orks
31 Black Legion
30 Eldar
06 Lost and Damned
04 Tyranids
04 Siege Masters
04 White Scars
01 Feral Orks
01 Speed Freeks

Congratulations to Space Marines for being the most popular!

EDIT ---

Errm I'll stop now!

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

lol, I prefer this table.  
#







.



Any chance of someone working up each army list's win/loss ratio for the year?

I mean, we can see that Black Legion as a list came first, but it could have played a billion games and only won two hundred games, and still come first.

So, percentage-based army list win/loss stats?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

No way, keep going!

That "army used" distribution is fascinating!  Marines are often complained about as being the "weakest" army, yet have the greatest showing, often placing in the top three.

So, what's wrong and what's right with the Marines?

Has anyone done an analysis of winning Marine army composition?  Is it Drop-heavy, or Warhound-heavy or are there no patterns?

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Other than tactics, some factors that I think would contribute are:

Marines are THE main army in 40k.
Everyone who's played Epic for a while has lot's of Marines (and far too many Land Raiders etc)

Conversely (again ignoring tactics) few people have more specialist armies such as Siege Masters and Feral Orks (got plenty of boyz maybe but not enough Trukks or squiggoths)

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

The winning formula for marines at tournaments is generally the air assault, terminator with warhound support ™ army.

This page shows how each race has done against all other this year.

Now One thing I have done is score all victory point games as draws (ie if no one wins on goals I've considered it a draw). Now if that is a wrong assumption on my part it won't be too hard to fix. and change points wins to wins.