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.
Because dice game man. Can you consistently roll heads on a quarter? It's literally the same concept - just less more coin flipping. Feel free to debunk what I'm saying though - go out there in a game vs your friends and just ignore the objective cards and go for the kill.
Also - I win a lot - so obviously I am doing something right.
Wat? It's a coin flip, but it also isn't a coin flip for you, because of your skill?
Endgame feels more realistic, although some of the progessive scoring missions are sensible.
I mostly play endgame with a smattering of progressive. I leave it to the other players preference. Usuly BRB, sometimes the cards. Haven't really looked into the CA missions. Haven't played itc since 7th. Had a lot of fun with maelstrom in 7th.
I really liked the "secret" missions of 2nd, actually.
I agree with other posters that the ideal setup might be a forced mix of endgame/progressive. Knowing the mission "trend" has an effect on lists, so more mission diversity is healthier, imo.
Now I want to find my copy of Dark Millennium and see how hard they'd be to convert. They were usually pretty fun.
I also liked 4th edition missions quite a lot.
I can't say I remember the 4th ed missions, but it was my favorite edition. . .so that means something I'm sure.
The key thing that made them good was that VPs were calculated as a percentage of the game's points total. Holding a table quarter might be worth 25% (so 250 in a 1000 point game), then units were worth their own points cost for destroying them. Much more balanced than kill points.
Oh man, no wonder I thought kill points was a huge step backwards in 5th.
I know a lot of people hold 5th up as some great edition, but man. . . the reduction of LOS blocking terrain, simplification of scoring, changes to combat resolution, reduction in codex options, casualty removal changes and a bunch of other things really irked me about that edition. 4th was the bomb.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/05 08:07:19
