Thanks Dave ,will you be writing a report of the Bloodbowl event on your blog.
With the new points system in use at Open War there may be a few tied gaming scores.

Yes, I'll be doing a quick post game report. A short summary would be game one - my dice hate me. game two - my dice love me. game 3 - my dice decide late on to hate me  

Thats a good thing given the seemingly random painting scores - I would love to see a breakdown of how they came to those scores.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

Seems there's not alot of regard from the epic community for the OW painting scores...

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

You were one of those who got shafted by the painting scores weren't you Alan?

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

The decision not to include painting scores in the championship was taken at the start by Gavin, a decision I wholly agree with as all the different tournaments have different ways of selecting the winner and different amount of points available.

Looking at the OW painting scores does make me wonder how the judges view painting in the epic scale. Even the winning blood bowl team wouldn't have made my top 5.

I was a little surprised

poor Alan Cameron got 0 painting points. Dunno what happened there

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

I was too when I looked through the scores, some strange ones indeed.

The original idea was to provide a championship based on people's skill, unsullied by arbitrary considerations like competition scores, painting or even sportsmanship, in order to get a representative view on the armies being played and their relative strengths.

The "4" points per new army was intended to provide sufficient incentive for people to use different armies so that ultimately, even the skill (or lack) of the various players would be compensated for to some extent, while the top players would have achieved that position using several armies rather than purely relying on a particular 'power-variant'.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

And, imo it has achieved your aims.

I'll get the site updated tonight.

Site updated with the results from OW10.

UK EpicA Championship

As posted earlier painting scores were removed before generating the player scores. Were players had the same score I placed them according to Win, draws and loses. So a player with 2 wins and a draw would beat a player with 2 wins and a lose. If that didn't split them then I used margin of victories as the final tie breaker. By this method the top 6 were :-

1 Matt Otter
2 Matt Arnold
3 Dave Thomas
4 Joe Jephson
5 Chris Hayes
6 Mark Williams

The OW10 sheet is the results with painting added.

If you disagree with my method can I remind you that this just for fun  

I don't care ... I'm still ahead of Rug  

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

Once again thanks for all the time and effort you've put into this.

Thanks again for all your work on this Dave.

Personally I have no problem with the painting scores  

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion

It has been pointed out that I have incorrectly assigned Tiny Tim 4 points for a new race at Open War 10. I'll fix this tonight. It makes not change to the order just Joe is 4th and Tim 5th.