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.

tneva82 wrote:
Why not multiples? All scenarios following same just restricts design space needlessly

It's easier to remember. As long as the systems follow in order A, A, A, B, B, B, C, D, E instead of A, A, C, A, B, B, B, D, E then it's fine, but GW failed that in some mission packs.

 catbarf wrote:
I'd also very much like to see a re-work of secondaries, because as it stands they're another element of the game that further rewards army optimization and pre-game planning, things that are already too prevalent as it is.

I'm ok with spam being bad. It is better to have obvious incentives for rounded lists instead of just mandating that spammy lists are entirely illegal by going back to the force organization chart (and tightening up battlefield roles and unit sizes such that it affects everyone equally).