Some gamers have multiple armies, all painted better than I could do if you gave me a month off work. They have a winning gaming record and, none of their opponents want to beat them to death with a metal dreadnought in a sock after a game. These are Sam, the all-rounder.

But does focusing on Sam lead to accidental elitism?

In which I realise there is a fifth type of player.

The Markus-type are some of the most critical people to have involved in this kind of event. They see the game in a different way to most people and play at a noticeably better level.

I set my event up to appeal to painters and casuals as well as regular tournament goers. So - does his brutal meta list and competitive nature make 90% of tournament players feel like they can’t compete? But if we're not trying to win... why is it even a tournament?

While enjoying the post-tournament afterglow I realise there are many different types of 40k player - and they don’t all want to go to the same event.

In the first blog I choose 4 players who I think are very different, and start the process of asking: Why did this person come to the tournament? Did they get what they expected from it? What effect did they have on the event as a whole? And most importantly… do I want them to come back?