All this talk abotu Tournament Scoring, Balanced Lists versus Min-Maxed Lists, and whatnot has been an interesting topic... Since this is a Blog, I've got some thoughts to share, let me know what you think :)
I like to separate my gaming. I LOVE a good, narrative campaign, with rules for tracking your soldiers from beginning to end, with more emphasis on story and fluff than who beat who. At the same time, I enjoy the tournament atmosphere. This gives me the opportunity to take a break from both scenes as I need to.
Now, while I don't specifically attempt to tailor lists towards the goal of being at the top tables, I appreciate those folks at the top tables for their ability to play a tactical game. Tactics including what units to take as well as how to use them. However, I see a NEED for "soft" scoring to play a large part in tournaments. Your Painting, Composition (bring this score back please, organizers) and Sportsmanship SHOULD PLAY A PART IN OVERALL SCORING. This will help encourage people to actually care about those things. And to be honest, while I may appreciate a player or a list at the top tables, I RESPECT a player at a top table who's a good guy, and even if he's tabled me made sure we still BOTH had fun while we played.
My main point is that you can have a good game with the guy or gal across from you, in any environment, with any list played by either person, so long as you each keep in mind the fact that you're playing a game, and the goal for everyone is to have fun in any way. If for you that's taking home Best General in a Tournament, than great! But do so with the dual goal of trying to earn Best Sportsman at the same time.