Anyone who has gone to either Warhammered or the Team OP tournament knows how fun custom scenarios can be. I don’t know about Paul’s event but when we ask for feedback from ours we get the odd mixed review from certain scenarios, but generally the response to having wacky stupid odd scenarios is overwhelmingly positive. But I don’t think it’s an indicator that people prefer custom scenarios over standard ones, but rather that people enjoy a unique experience now and then to break away from 99% of the events out there that run standard rulebook missions (or close to). I can’t imagine that people would actually rather play against Thomas the murder train 9 times out of 10 than play a normal mission to work on strategy, tactics, etc (what little of that still remains in 40k)
I prefer Rulebook scenarios, because I’ve experienced too many unbalanced ones in the past, where a tournament organiser has come up with what they felt was a fun scenario without fully thinking about the results for all armies.
e.g. Only vehicles are scoring and you play tyranids = FUN? etc..
Best to stick with the Rulebook scenarios, then at least there are no nasty surprises.
However with narrative games you should feel free to go as crazy as you like, its not necessarily supposed to be balanced, just fun.
Custom scenarios are okay, as long as you find out what they are and how they’ll work well in advance of the tournament. Let the players prepare and practice for what they’ll face on the day.
The one exception to this would be Masters/Hardcore events where players are expected to have enough experience with list building and playing that they can handle anything and anyone.
I believe in rulebook scenarios for tournaments because everyone is on the same playing field. There are no surprises and it comes to generalship of the player not onesided scenarios.
Jaded Gamercast 
Anyone who has gone to either Warhammered or the Team OP tournament knows how fun custom scenarios can be. I don’t know about Paul’s event but when we ask for feedback from ours we get the odd mixed review from certain scenarios, but generally the response to having wacky stupid odd scenarios is overwhelmingly positive. But I don’t think it’s an indicator that people prefer custom scenarios over standard ones, but rather that people enjoy a unique experience now and then to break away from 99% of the events out there that run standard rulebook missions (or close to). I can’t imagine that people would actually rather play against Thomas the murder train 9 times out of 10 than play a normal mission to work on strategy, tactics, etc (what little of that still remains in 40k)
I prefer Rulebook scenarios, because I’ve experienced too many unbalanced ones in the past, where a tournament organiser has come up with what they felt was a fun scenario without fully thinking about the results for all armies.
e.g. Only vehicles are scoring and you play tyranids = FUN? etc..
Best to stick with the Rulebook scenarios, then at least there are no nasty surprises.
However with narrative games you should feel free to go as crazy as you like, its not necessarily supposed to be balanced, just fun.
Custom scenarios are okay, as long as you find out what they are and how they’ll work well in advance of the tournament. Let the players prepare and practice for what they’ll face on the day.
The one exception to this would be Masters/Hardcore events where players are expected to have enough experience with list building and playing that they can handle anything and anyone.
I believe in rulebook scenarios for tournaments because everyone is on the same playing field. There are no surprises and it comes to generalship of the player not onesided scenarios.