On the subject of scoring... I've been trying to come up with a good alternate scoring system, but it's tough.

What about something where higher is better though? What are the important elements that should contribute to the score? I've got:

• Remaining heroes/life on heroes
• Number of turns
• Quest difficulty
• Victory Points
• Threat, to an extent
• Number of players

The current scoring system takes all of these except for number of turns and quest difficulty into account in some way. Is there any other variable that we could use? If we're just using the same things to calculate score it's not going to be much different than the current system.

If we want to get complicated we could do something like:

(Quest Difficulty x 10) + (VP) - (# Turns) - (threat cost of dead heroes) - (# damage tokens on living heroes) - (threat) - (10 x # players)

Of course, this is still somewhat similar to the current scoring system. It does incorporate quest difficulty and number of players/turns (although number of players may be unfairly weighted). It still suffers from the fact that delaying the game to score VP and reduce threat can be beneficial... although not AS beneficial. You could add in unspent resources maybe, but that also lends itself to delaying the game for more points.

Svenn said:

I like where you are going with this, but I do have one question for everyone. Doesn't the difficulty change as new cards are released? I have all the adventure packs so far, and I find it is much easier to do some of the earlier quests with newer cards.

So the absolute simplest measure I can think of that doesn't discourage any strategies in particular, uses an even simpler formula than the current one, and doesn't encourage cycling of deck is this:

Final Threat Level + Number of Threat Lowered Using Card Effects - Victory Points Earned

Example: Tom, playing a solo game, has defeated the “Passage Through Mirkwood” quest, with a threat level of 40, having used Gandalf to lower his threat by 5, and 5 victory points. His final score is calculated in the following manner:

Final Threat Level (40)
+ Number of Threat Lowered Using Card Effects (5)
– Number of Victory Points Earned (5)
Tom’s Final Score (30)

So the absolute simplest measure I can think of that doesn't discourage any strategies in particular, uses an even simpler formula than the current one, and doesn't encourage cycling of deck is this:

Final Threat Level + Number of Threat Lowered Using Card Effects - Victory Points Earned

Example: Tom, playing a solo game, has defeated the “Passage Through Mirkwood” quest, with a threat level of 40, having used Gandalf to lower his threat by 5, and 5 victory points. His final score is calculated in the following manner:

Final Threat Level (40)
+ Number of Threat Lowered Using Card Effects (5)
– Number of Victory Points Earned (5)
Tom’s Final Score (30)

This is somewhat simple, but leaves out a lot of information. Not to mention you still have to track something extra. I might just be crazy about stats, but you're leaving out a large amount of information there.