Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Right, first of all, this thread is very much intended as an open discussion as to what makes a Tournament good, and what makes a Tournament bad. As you might know, I am not a massive fan of Tournament style gaming. From my own experience, and from what I read online, I feel that they tend to reward those best at the gaming over all other aspects of the Hobby. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with this, as gaming is an important part of the wider Hobby. I just feel it's a shame that gamers like myself who favour a more relaxed approach to the actual gaming, and instead enjoy the painting, modelling etc get slightly sidelined.

For example, I like to play with heavily themed lists. I can usually pull off wins with even the most bizarre lists, but I rarely get massacres or other high end victories. This is less to do with my ability as a player, than my general lack of interest in writing a list designed purely for power and prowess. For example, my current project is 2,000 points of Savage Orcs. I have themed this to the point where if it's not Frenzied, it's not in. It has a fair amount of power sure, as anyone who has been on the end of the Big'uns will testify. What I would like in a Tournament are prizes and awards for this sort of thing. Exactly how that would be worked, I'm not sure, but I do feel that bringing it in beyond Comp Scoring (Which I understand to be too matter of opinion to affect the overall winning outcome) would be a draw to me.

Similarly, if someone has brought a power list (Waltar, 2 Steam Tanks, Thorek Gunline etc) then this can still be waived as Powergaming as long as the game was still as enjoyable as possible. I mean, I can't do much about what you chose to bring, but if you are (again, purely opinion based) a nice guy, who is good with victory, spoke to me during the game and were just generally friendly, I feel this should count. I here a lot about the Chipmunking of Sportsmanship scores, and I understand this to be tactical point adding, or giving the max for fear of not getting it in return. This isn't such a great score after all.

Now before I go waffling on for hours and bore the pants off you, I shall hand over to whoever. All I want is your thoughts about what makes a Tournament enjoyable. Perhaps it's good terrain? Perhaps it's only finding out the Mission Parameters before the game begins, rather than in a pack? It's your opinion, and I don't know it yet.

And remember...this is an open discussion. Feel free to debate points, but don't be calling anyone wrong!

I think the most important thing is having a clear focus for the tourney.

If it's to determine who's the best list creater/general, then let everyone know it's Gladiator style and show up with your cheesiest list.

If it's to have fun, and awards are just 'bonus', then set the scoring up accordingly.

At CAGO-ween, the Best Gamer was one of the worst generals, a 1-2 record with his only win being in the last round against someone that went 0-3. But, he got 7 of 14 votes for best army and 3 out of 3 favorite opponent votes. With those bonus points, it was the equivalent of an extra win, and his painting and sportsmanship scores were better than the top generals, so he won Best Gamer by a narrow margin. We made clear the tourney was for fun, and had a great response. We gave away a Best General, Best Sport, Best Appearance, and a Close But Not Quite award (which was originally going to be for last place, but we had one guy finish in the top three in overall and each category, and his loss to the Best General in the last round knocked him out of Best Gamer). We had some odd scenarios, but it was all for fun.

So, I think it's important to have a focus for the tourney and make it clear. Any direction you go in is fine, if it's very clear what that focus is. I have no sympathy for someone that registers for a Gladiator event and shows up with a fun, fluffy list that gets obliterated. It's clear what the event was. But, I have no sympathy for someone that shows up at a 'hobbyist' type tourney with a max-power-build and gets 0 on comp/sportsmanship and finishes in the middle of the pack with their barely painted army. If you know the expectations ahead of time, you can't complain that things weren't what you expected.

I still think you can have it all in a Tournament.

For the hardcore gamers, awards for largest margin of victory, most games won etc.

For the more gentle side, favoured opponent, most unusual force etc.

A Tournament can surely be all encompassing?

A good tournement has the following for me:

-a good turnout (20+ people for an RTT)

-Battle Points worth about 60-75% of the total for the tournement, I actually prefer that they just have a best general and best overall seperate since that encourages themed lists and sportmanship.

-Smashing the guy who brought that "unbeatable" army.

-Good terrain naturally

-WELL ORGANIZED! I've stopped going to shops based on how they ran their events.

-2 out of my 3 games being close and fun (this is the norm actually in my area)

The difference between a good tournament and a bad tournament starts with organization. If the organizer can start it on time and keep it on time, with everyone knowing where they are supposed to be, results properly tabulated, and rules disputes firmly and consistently handled, they are over halfway there.

This is NOT an easy task. Adepticon manages it, using a TON of pre-tournament preparation, a very large staff, and custom-built software. If you're dealing with fewer than 40 players, you can probably get by with less (but don't try to do it alone).

After that, knowing what you're getting from the tournament is fairly important. GW actually does a pretty fair job here, with their GTs: yes, you know that there will be a core of power-hungry death lists, but you also know that many very attractive armies will be there, and lots of interesting theme. My favorite tournaments along the "something for everyone" lines were run by Adeptus Flatlandicus: the trophy for "Best Theme" was cooler than GW's Golden Chicken, even if it lacked the same monetary reward.

I think that a tournament shouldn't even have battle points. The battle points would be like the points in Who's Line is it Anyway?, where they don't affect anything.

At the end of the tournament, the winner has his name drawn out of a hat.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I think that a tournament shouldn't even have battle points. The battle points would be like the points in Who's Line is it Anyway?, where they don't affect anything.

At the end of the tournament, the winner has his name drawn out of a hat.

My democrat friends will love it. This way, everyone has the same chance to win, regardless of skill or effort.

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:I think that a tournament shouldn't even have battle points. The battle points would be like the points in Who's Line is it Anyway?, where they don't affect anything.

At the end of the tournament, the winner has his name drawn out of a hat.

My democrat friends will love it. This way, everyone has the same chance to win, regardless of skill or effort.

If people don't know how to play well, they should get to use extra points.
Otherwise it wouldn't be equitable.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
If people don't know how to play well, they should get to use extra points.
Otherwise it wouldn't be equitable.

Not only that, but it could hurt their self-esteem.

Well thank you very much for adding precisely nothing to a thread, and instead opting to simply derail it instead.

Did you even bother to read the first post, or see that it was myself talking about Tournaments, and just decided I'm clearly being a hippy about it?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Well thank you very much for adding precisely nothing to a thread, and instead opting to simply derail it instead.

Did you even bother to read the first post, or see that it was myself talking about Tournaments, and just decided I'm clearly being a hippy about it?

Ah, C'mon Doc. It's not like you've never taken a dump on someone's thread before. We were just having a bit of fun.


Okay, I'll give a serious response.

Most tournaments have an entry fee, wheras people can play for free most nights of the week, so you need to give people an incentive to pay to enter a tournament. Prizes do a good job of that, but only as long as they offer something to the different kinds of players out there.

There should be some kind of prize for the people who mostly like to convert and paint.

There should be some kind of prize for the people who mostly like to play the game competitively.

There should be some kind of prize for the people who mostly like to play the game narratively (casually)

These prizes should be independent of each other

I think the recipe for a fun tournament is the following:
1) Well-Painted armies (they need to feel like they're going to see something they haven't seen before)
2) New and different scenarios (they need to be stretched out of their comfort zone and be forced to adapt)
3) A clear schedule that is adhered to. (they need to not get in trouble with their wives for being late)

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Well thank you very much for adding precisely nothing to a thread, and instead opting to simply derail it instead.

Did you even bother to read the first post, or see that it was myself talking about Tournaments, and just decided I'm clearly being a hippy about it?

Don't worry.
I wasn't getting after you, just joking around.


Anyway, one thing I'd like to see is best themed army getting something. Even just more recognition. The RTs I usually enter don't have anything of the sort, and it's kind of a shame, really. I'd like to see a good themed army painted fairly well more than a bog-standard marine army painted a really great shade of blue.

Terrain is another one. Not something that's always easy to fix however, unless you want to use cardboard boxes (bawkses!) as terrain.

Dr. Thunder wrote:There should be some kind of prize for the people who mostly like to play the game narratively (casually)

How do you go about awarding it though?

in the new format of the GW GTs over here the Throne of Skulls one they have introduced new awards to make it a more fun tournament, stuff like Bloodiest Game, Bloodiest General, Light Brigade Award (person who gives away the most VPs over the weekend etc) which adds a more fun element to the tournament but sadly its still mostly about gaming etc

Well, if it's new, just give it time.

I fancy running a Tournament with 'honour' prizes rather than anything else.

My mate Adam makes proper LARPing weapons, so I could quite easily arrange a proper 'Rubber Lance' for most spectacularly ineffective charge. Just little trophies and things to celebrate the random things that make (in my opinion) the games worth playing.

Others might include the 'Cowardly Gobbo' award for most Flee! Charge Reactions declared. Or even one for the best point to point kill ratio of a character (easily won by say, a Gnoblar picking off the final wound from something nasty. Like when the Sword Gnoblar bumped off my Hydra).

I would definitely include Awards that you just can't play for. It's just a way to try and celebrate the playing of the game rather than the result!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Well, if it's new, just give it time.

I fancy running a Tournament with 'honour' prizes rather than anything else.

My mate Adam makes proper LARPing weapons, so I could quite easily arrange a proper 'Rubber Lance' for most spectacularly ineffective charge. Just little trophies and things to celebrate the random things that make (in my opinion) the games worth playing.

Others might include the 'Cowardly Gobbo' award for most Flee! Charge Reactions declared. Or even one for the best point to point kill ratio of a character (easily won by say, a Gnoblar picking off the final wound from something nasty. Like when the Sword Gnoblar bumped off my Hydra).

I would definitely include Awards that you just can't play for. It's just a way to try and celebrate the playing of the game rather than the result!

Whaa? I gotta say, to me the above sound like quite bad ideas for a tournament, if by a tourney you mean something beyond a group of friends getting together to engage in mutual back rubbing (not that there is anything wrong with that). For example, while a "Booby prize" like the rubber lance above sounds great, and could go over a storm with people who get and recognize the joke, what happens at a tourney when someone executes a "most spectacularly ineffective charge" because they honestly thought it could work, or worse yet, it should have worked and rotten dice ruined what would have been a game winning charge? I dunno, but I can think of few things better for genereating bad feelings then giving strangers prizes to indicate "Most idiotic/Unlucky move of the day".

Ultimately, the biggest problem with any "Awards that you just can't play for" is that they inevitably boil down to popularity contests, which only discourage outsiders showing up.

As for what should be going into a tournament, I'm going to (mostly) agree with Doctor Thunder;

Doctor Thunder wrote:There should be some kind of prize for the people who mostly like to convert and paint.

There should be some kind of prize for the people who mostly like to play the game competitively.

There should be some kind of prize for the people who mostly like to play the game narratively (casually)

These prizes should be independent of each other

The only one I really would exclude is the narrative one, simply because (again) it's not an objective measurement. How do you measure narrative levels between 2 people that are really trying?

If you have the funds, doing some door prizes and/or swag is the way to go. We had Flying Tricycle (thanks Kirby) make some templates and objective markers. And a bunch of buildings we quickly assembled and painted.

At the end of the day, the objective is to have fun. I think if everyone knows the ground rules before showing up and has their expectations properly set, everyone will have a lot more fun.

And match up people by battle points (win-loss, etc.) rather than total points (as some tournies have done). That way the guy with an awesome paint job and a lousy generalship doesn't get stuck playing the hardcore gamer that doesn't highlight.

Stuff I like at tournaments:

A) If it's a gladiator, say it's a gladiator upfront. That's cool, but I'm not putting the prep work into it that I'd put into a Overall tournament. And, it takes a different mindset. If I want to enjoy some games, I'll go to a standard tournament without worrying about having the killer list or idea. If it's all-or-nothing gladiator style, if I'm not feeling it, I'll pass, I don't enjoy the format as much.

B) Terrain. I've been to some tournaments where the terrain was so minimal it basically said if the player who goes first is playing a shooty army, kiss your ass goodbye. That's no fun.

C) Missions. Missions should be based around the general concepts and balance that the basic rulebook features. Meaning, if every basic rulebook mission allows infiltrators, I expect every tournament mission to allow them. It's something I'm paying the points for, so it shouldn't be removed on a whim. Missions should be designed in such a way as to be balanced for whatever style of army a player brings. There's nothing worse than running into a mission that's simply designed to screw an army style that the mission writer happens not to like. I've seen anti-godzilla missions, anti-vehicle missions, anti-horde missions, anti-deep strike missions... and they all suck. If you happen to have brought the army that's in the crosshairs, it's like, why did I even bother to show up. And, it's even worse when you bring something that gets hit by the collateral hate. Like bringing two chaos dreadnoughts, to see which one will kill the other first, only to find that the mission is designed to screw godzillas, and consequently both of them are automatically immobilized.

D) A relaxed schedule. I play pretty fast in general, even when running horde armies. If I'm struggling to complete rounds, then they're trying to pack too much into too little time.

Everything else I'm going to mention is going to be based on standard tournaments only, not gladiators.

E) Transparency in soft-score judging. If I receive a 10/20 for painting, I'd like to know why. I'd like to know so that I can improve for next time. If I receive a 0 in sportsmanship from someone, I'd like to know what they thought I did wrong, or at least have them man-up and tell me that they're chipmunking me. I believe checklists for softscores are the best way to handle these categories, and think that they also allow for this level of transparency - if I can ask to see my painting scoresheet and see that I lost a point because my blending wasn't up to par, that's totally fair, and I can live with that. Likewise, sportsmanship checklists prevent outright chipmunking, and allow the judges to catch that sort of thing.

F) Painted armies. If I pay an entry fee to a tournament, I expect to play against fully painted armies. If it's a free tournament, then whatever. If I'm paying to play games, I want quality, enjoyable games, and to me, that means that my opponent's army is painted. It doesn't have to be a masterpiece. It does have to have been attempted.

G) Reasons to not bring the flavor-of-the-month. I don't think battle points should account for more than 60% of the overall. When they do, there's no reason not to bring gladiator-style armies and go for complete smackdowns. I've found that the most enjoyable tournaments that I've attended have had a more laid-back feel to them, and part of that has been the fact that battle points weren't everything. Having 'theme' (NOT comp) awards helps here too. Note, by rewarding (with soft scores) people who don't just bring the power-net-list, you make the tournament more fun overall. By creating missions that punish the power-net-lists, you make the tournament less fun overall.

Let's see...

Good orginization.
A written rules FAQ available before the day of the tournament.
A checklist sports scoring available to the players before the day of the tournament.
A checklist Comp system available to the players before the day of the tournament. (I'm more of fan of the pass/fail system...)
A checklist painting scoring system available to the players before the day of the tournament.
A full explanation of how the prizes are awarded before the day of the tournament.


Nothing is worse than going to a tournament (Especially as an outsider) and finding out during the middle of a battle that they have house rules that don't follow the actual rules. Especially when you made several moves to use that rule to your advantage, putting yourself in a bad position if that rule isn't followed. Or if you design your list with the idea that a rule works a certain way.

Checklists for soft scores, available beforehand because, quite frankly, everyone has biases as to what is good/bad...The difference is that checklists are honest about it...Especially to an outsider. Nothing should be opponent subjective scored.

Buzzsaw wrote:

The only one I really would exclude is the narrative one, simply because (again) it's not an objective measurement. How do you measure narrative levels between 2 people that are really trying?

I was referring to a sportsmanship/having the most fun/yelling the loudest type of award.

I'm one of the worst UM generals ever, a former ork player even. But I'll be damned if I don't enjoy the hell out of those random epic moments where I lose an entire squad of 5 terminators to one cadian flamer, and likewise bring down a carnifex with a combat squad with boltguns in 1 turn. Everyone appreciates a good epic 40k moment. The first thing to remember in a tournament with my buddies is that "it's all in fun." (It's also highly entertaining to watch people's stretegy fall completely apart with the introduction of alcohol )


-Myself: Lascannon to your wartruk, distance: 31inches
-Orc player: Roll to hit.
-Myself: woot!
-Orc player: Roll AP.
-Myself: here comes the pain train...
-Orc player: Roll damage... *sigh*
-Myself: aww...

The only thing I could add would be that the main thing that put me off returning after attending one tournament was not cheesy armies, nor poor sportsmanship of my opponents (both of which do annoy me and put me off the wider tournament scene), but rather the sheer speed at which I had to play the game.

To me, most of the fun is the craic and banter, and sheer fun. Which gets squeezed out when you're trying to desperately reach a result after an hour and a half of intense concentration. And then having to play 8 games in 2 10-hour days... it just stopped being fun for me. Its too much like hard work!

For me the "perfect" recipe would be 2 games over a single day. 3 games, if they were small ones which could be resolved in 1/5 hours without a struggle. Anything more and I get burnout. But then the possibility of determining a "winner" is pretty impossible after only 2 games I guess.

I suspect I just should stay away from tournaments altogether really, or just go as a spectator to chat with my friends and come away when I get bored.

I suppose to be brutally frank, the older I get, the more I like the modelling and banter involved in the hobby, and less about actually playing the games at the end of it all. There's part of me that seems to be getting stronger that keeps telling myself that "its only a kids game with army men and dice, so stop bothering about it and go and find something less hassle to spend your time on"...

Hi all.
Rule No One.
Pick a rule set suitable for ballanced competative play.

Rule No Two.
Define and enforce standard conventions across the tournament.

Rule No Three.
Limit entrants -number of games to a managable level.

Rule No four.
Inform all participants well in advance of any changes.

But this is me being a bit literal perhaps?

TTFN
Lanrak.

Osbad wrote:The only thing I could add would be that the main thing that put me off returning after attending one tournament was not cheesy armies, nor poor sportsmanship of my opponents (both of which do annoy me and put me off the wider tournament scene), but rather the sheer speed at which I had to play the game.

To me, most of the fun is the craic and banter, and sheer fun. Which gets squeezed out when you're trying to desperately reach a result after an hour and a half of intense concentration. And then having to play 8 games in 2 10-hour days... it just stopped being fun for me. Its too much like hard work!

For me the "perfect" recipe would be 2 games over a single day. 3 games, if they were small ones which could be resolved in 1/5 hours without a struggle. Anything more and I get burnout. But then the possibility of determining a "winner" is pretty impossible after only 2 games I guess.

I suspect I just should stay away from tournaments altogether really, or just go as a spectator to chat with my friends and come away when I get bored.

I suppose to be brutally frank, the older I get, the more I like the modelling and banter involved in the hobby, and less about actually playing the games at the end of it all. There's part of me that seems to be getting stronger that keeps telling myself that "its only a kids game with army men and dice, so stop bothering about it and go and find something less hassle to spend your time on"...

Word.

Frazzled wrote:

Osbad wrote:The only thing I could add would be that the main thing that put me off returning after attending one tournament was not cheesy armies, nor poor sportsmanship of my opponents (both of which do annoy me and put me off the wider tournament scene), but rather the sheer speed at which I had to play the game.

To me, most of the fun is the craic and banter, and sheer fun. Which gets squeezed out when you're trying to desperately reach a result after an hour and a half of intense concentration. And then having to play 8 games in 2 10-hour days... it just stopped being fun for me. Its too much like hard work!

For me the "perfect" recipe would be 2 games over a single day. 3 games, if they were small ones which could be resolved in 1/5 hours without a struggle. Anything more and I get burnout. But then the possibility of determining a "winner" is pretty impossible after only 2 games I guess.

I suspect I just should stay away from tournaments altogether really, or just go as a spectator to chat with my friends and come away when I get bored.

I suppose to be brutally frank, the older I get, the more I like the modelling and banter involved in the hobby, and less about actually playing the games at the end of it all. There's part of me that seems to be getting stronger that keeps telling myself that "its only a kids game with army men and dice, so stop bothering about it and go and find something less hassle to spend your time on"...

Word.

"Arugula" is a fun word.

I disagree completely. As I get older, I have less time to play; tournaments offer me a chance to get in as much dice-rolling time as possible. Socializing is also fun, but fits nicely into the downtime inherent in any event not run completely by (and on) computers, during food breaks, and in the evening, when we all gather to lament the miserable state of our random chance cubes, and the surely-loaded dice of our incredibly lucky opponents.

A lot of good thoughts here. My own preference is for seperate best general, painter and sport awards. That means everyone gets something.
Organisation: Use the standard missions, or only very minor deviations.
Terrain should be excellent and lots of it, not thrown together.
You need to actually think about each table carefully, and lay out terrain fairly. Too often I've been screwed by terrain, to the point where I'm tempted to make lists that ignore terrain entirely becuase it seems to be the big failing of most competative tournaments in Ireland.

I dunno what it is, but the tournament players in ireland who travel around seem to all be really nice guys, and I never really have an issue with cheating or bad sports. Interestingly, it is often local club players with a poor grasp of the rules that cause the most issues at tournament.s

I've not much experience in 40k/Fantasy tournaments, which is what I gather you want more input on, but I do participate in monthly WM/Hordes tournaments. They are pretty successful and everyone seems to have fun. It is extremely rare that there is a complaint about the format/results.


We use the official Steamroller or slightly modified Steamroller rules. Here's how they are usually set up:

Fixed terrain

Two army lists - There is always going to be the occasional bad match-up between opposing lists, this does a lot to alleviate that.

Timed turns (5-10 minutes depending on point size, plus a once-per game 5 min extension per player at larger point sizes)

Timed games (30-60 minutes, hard "dice down" or "finish the roll" depending again on point size)

No comp/sports scoring - Steamroller format does not include these, and they are not added by the TO. However, we tend to be a very friendly gaming group. If someone ever begins to show bad sportsmanship, they are called out on it. If it continues or is disruptive, the TO has every right to eject them. We've only had one instance to my knowledge, and it was really just a matter of the player having a bad attitude that day. He was banned from events for 3 months, and that set him straight.

No paint requirement/scoring - Steamroller does not require painting, though Hardcore format does. If there ever is paint scoring, it is done completely segregated from the actual Tournament.

Official company prize support - Sure, gold/silver/bronze coins and champion gold-bordered cards don't actually do anything, but they do get people excited. Silver/bronze coins for first and second place are a pretty cool incentive to continue to play your best even if you lose a game early in the event. The champ cards have a neat side effect as well. When a person wins a few times and begins to build a collection, they tend to want to complete their champ card set. This pushes them to play with models that they would not necessarily normally bring to a Tournament setting, and it discourages them from using the same models they won with last time.

Additionally, there are occasionally door prizes, like gift cards to the FLGS or a blister/box of some newly released model.

A new policy that was just implemented was that the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd placed players are not allowed to use the same Warcaster/Warlock in a tournament for the next 3 months. Its kind of a self-fulfilling diversity model.


In my mind, one of the things that makes these tournaments consistently enjoyable is the use of timers.
Timed turns make for a more aggressive fast-paced game and simultaneously allow for more games within the window of the tournament.

The lack of painting requirements is another good thing. This allows new players and non-painter players to enjoy the game without penalty. I always strive to play with a fully painted army, and I like the occasional paint judging, but I don't feel that others should be excluded or penalized if they don't paint.

The lack of soft scores is also a good thing. I like the all-or-nothing approach that the Steamroller format provides. Anyone can use whatever legal models they want. Everyone behaves themselves, or the TO kicks them out. There is no subjective scoring and your final tournament placement is determined primarily by your skill.

Now, I know that some of this cannot be directly applied to a GW tournament due to the differences in the games, but I think that a lot of it can be modified to fit.

First of all not a knock out tournament if you've travelled any distance to play and your knocked out in the first round it annoys you. I also like not playing with the same regular groups and getting a variety of games I'd almost say that people from the same club shouldn't play each other in large tournaments.

Make sure it is a fair tournament. I went to one once, had the only completely painted army, had gotten 16-18 on the GW RTT scale consistently...I'm not a GD painter, but it was def standard quality. About the level of Dave Taylor's Ultramarines at the past GT.

I go 2-1, losing to a guy who didn't know the rules about terrain and insisted we dice off for whether area terrain blocks line of sight. I didn't feel like standing my ground and I say ok, lose, and lose my Whirlwind right away ( playing against Guard). We were on the number 1 table, playing for the top spot....

His army was not only unpainted, but not fully assembled. So he wins Overall.
Another guy wins Best General.
Another guy with a half painted Imperial Fists army wins Best Painted.
Someone else wins Best Sportsman.

My first 2 games were a blast, and while the last guy was a jerk, I overall had fun at the tourney. But....come on, don't favor the locals in prizes.

I also prefer trophies to battleforces as prizes. I want something I can put on the wall and say, look what I got. Not more toy soldiers to paint....

The coin idea would be cool for 40k/Fantasy tournements. I like it more than trophies since trophies break (i move a lot) and to be honest i've got a ton of models so I'm not overly concerned with winning big prizes of more models