Love to hear some feedback re: missions etc...
Was it too easy to 20-0 your opponent, too hard?
So the 1st mission we did was the 5/4/3/2/1 VP (depending on which way you were facing). On the whole, it's a good dynamic to make armies that depend on being entrenched to get out and fight, as well as make you commit forces to going for the big gamble.
The 2nd Mission, while I understand the intent, I'm not too keen on a "disappearing" Relic; you pretty much have to wait till end game to try to take the relics, as my opponent and I simply waited till we knew which one was the fake, and then moved for it. At that point, it's simply a game of "whomever kills the most stuff" type of game.
3rd Mission was the "count up points in your opponents phase" which has always just felt off in my experience. It appears as if the missions are all based on being very, very aggressive with your list, and a lot of armies don't play that way- Which may be the intent, but it just feels like we (The player base) are being pushed down a path in order to win the scenario, and that feels off. Maybe I'm wrong.
As for counting up points, it took a veeeeery long time for all of us to figure out how to score, and even with Sam's direction, it was a long process to tally up the points/get the sheets turned in. As well, I think the math on the example was also wrong, which confused some of us.
So looking, it looks like there is a fairly large gap between tood/alex, and then Bill/Chris, and then a fair number in the mid-low thirties. I'd say that overall, the design and points scoring is good as it tends to give a clear, decisive look.