Highraiders: Necro only works on 1, 2, or 3- not my idea of a good ability. Summon is decent though. So is Revenant.

I agree, there should be an objective-based VC4.

It seems like this might overlap too much with VC 3 -- theyre both go to certain place on the board and keep live pieces there. I could see replacing VC3 with objectives (and this has been done in some of the storyline scenarios) but I am skeptical about using objectives as a new 4th victory condition.

Geoff

I voted for the change - mostly because I would like to see something different done with victory conditions. Specific objectives are one possibility.

is this a replacement of normal MWDA VC? or an addition?

One problem with making it an extra VC, si that you now have 4 differant VC and need a majority (3) or a tiebreaker to win.

Personally i htink you could use the MK objectives to replace the normal VC3, with the plethra of first turn infiltrators, usually you know who won VC by mid game. and racking up VC3 points turns into a way to rub it in with your opponent.

Also, would the tournement end game conditions end like MK with the seconds player being able to finish his turn?

Who cares!! Just give us more suppoted event!!!

I voted "I don't care" because the others did not quite fit.

A couple of thoughts:

1. Having played MK 2.0 alot, I'm dissatisfied with the 'player two gets the final turn' rule. Too often makes/breaks the game with the final mad dash for the 'musical chair' objective tokens.
2. Artillery in MW is sooo much more effective than Bombardment in MK. Objective tokens would rarely be taken and held (except by suicide troops!) and the mad dash at game's end would be the norm.

An interesting rule might be:
"Each player rolls three dice to determine playing order.
Each player then places an objective token X-inches away from their Deployment Zone's rear limit (X being the number determined by the initial dice roll - 18 at most).
A player who maintains the same [non-salvaged] unit in uncontested base contact with any objective token from the beginning of their turn till the start of their next turn, receives an additional order for that turn.
An objective token is contested when an opposing unit is basing the token.
Single Mech units (only) may completely cover an objective token."

Go after an extra order with a sacrifice peasant.
Turtle, but your opponent may get an extra order or two, plus the opportunity to crack your shell...
Dominate the battle with battlefield command and control.
Screw Liao over when they Awe you.
Shell the objectives mercilessly.

SOOO many possibilities...

Highraiders- have you ever seen "Saving Pvt. Ryan"? It shows the 101st AB holding positions with less than a platoon of men against the Nazis. You can lose the battles and still win the war.

Objectives is what warfare is all about. In the Gulf II, we didnt go in there to just wipe out the enemy. We invaded, moved into an area, secured it (as best we could) and moved on to the next site. Power, water, telecomm, oil lines, those were objectives. I've noticed that the tournys are already trying to get into it, and why not? Makes it a bit more real.

I´ve been playing with this condition in MK and make the games more interesting than only beating your opponent...

Bring it on...

The one good thing about objectives, if done similiar to MK, is that you cannot play a turtle army and hope to win! It could certainly nerf some of the artillery cheese armies out there.

"Yes, I'm sorry Mr. Cheese you must move out of your deployment zone to win the game"

I voted yes. Why? Becouse that kind of victory conditions would be intresting and they would also bring this game neared real mini game.

Interesting idea. But this shouldn't be an additional VC as that would make an even # of VCs which could then result in ties. I would say dump VC3 as it currently stands in favor of this idea.

Stupid really Stupid.....

VC 3 was designed to stop turtle armies, then we got 2 pog arty that reaches the DZ and 1st turn infiltrators, the units in this game can cover any spot on the board from the off and as a result the arty turtle runs rampant, objectives are irrelevent in stoping turtling unless the board is MUCH bigger.

In MK, the objective tokens are the only VC that matters. As well as the fact that the person who is 2nd player always gets all of his actions after time expires. This makes contesting and winning the objectives a lot easier for player 2 than player 1. Killing things only counts after a tie in objectives and if you play the same people with the same build totals. This is a ridiculous way of deciding who wins a game based around combat. This is why I have pretty much stopped playing MK altogether. It is so frustrating that the 2nd player is almost always the winner because of these conditions. MW is fine with the three VCs. MK would be better with VCs instead of the stupid objective tokens. Objective tokens would make no sense with the VCs the way they are. We've played scenarios that are sort of like having objective tokens, which are fine once in a while, but not on a regular tournament basis. Plus, why have artillery, if you can't stand on an objective token?

Let the objective based victory conditions kill MW like it is killing MK right now.