The arty rules don't need to be changed, the victory conditions do.

Right now, the game comes down to killing your opponet's pieces while keeping yours alive. A warpog army doesn't ever need to leave it's deployment zone to do that.

Get rid the VCs and give us objectives to take and hold.

Well said!

this just makes a bigger problem as fast infeltraters will be the end all and be all

Easily fixed.

Either make infantry infiltrate x1 like mechs or vehicles, or just make holding objectives based on who has them at the end of the game.

So, if the objective is a piece of blocking terrain, then the person with the most points basing the blocking terrain at the end of the game holds that objective.


Maybe try this:
After both players are done placing terrain, each player chooses a piece of terrain to be an objective. Whoever holds the most objectives wins the game. The player with the most points basing an obective controls the objective. Use the current VC3 as a tie breaker.

Before rejecting the idea, play with it. If you had to come out of the DZ to take an objecive, warpog would not win. rarely does a warpog army obliterate everything on the board, just heavy damage everywhere and a few deaths. If you had to hold a piece of terrain, that is something warpog is NOT good at because it abhors movement.

But as we have seen in past scenarios with holding objectives based solely on the end of the game, everybody dances around a little bit; ignores each other a little bit; and in the last 5 minutes of the game runs every mech they have to base the objectives along with any other unit that can get there.

Wouldn't artillery be able to sit back and pound on whatever enemies are trying to hold the objective?

I agree that an all artillery army would probably not do well - not enough mobile points to secure the objectives by the end of the game - but a slightly more balanced army that has a couple of artillery pieces could really punish figures that are pinned to an objective.

Personally, I see two options with artillery
1) get rid of it alltogether, it speeds up the game in a way I don't like
2) increase the point cost of the artillery units. The mechanics work fine, they're over-used because for the points you can do amazing amounts of damage. With one pog that does 1 damage you can do, say 5 damage to an infantry formation, from 30 inches or something like that. For around 30ish points. What else can do that? Get multiple pogs and more damage, and you can do insane amounts of damage with a very cheap figure. Now, if the artillery piece costed, say, 70 or 80 points (consider still that a 5 damage mech is well over 100 points), then the artillery wouldn't be the great deal it is now, and you'd see less of it - and isn't less good, because it's more balanced? Eh, I don't expect anything to change, and since my set is all older stuff I'm not planning on playing sanctioned tournaments anymore, I've got a good group of friends and there's no problem with us saying "no artillery" and it's fine.

about infiltrate,
how about speed mode foot get x 2 infiltrate, then you have the problem solved, and the fastest infiltrate will be twenty inches.

and that's "crappy" bannson shortliving infantry, nothing to be scared of

Objectives are used in MK2 and work very well. They have turned a static game into a very dynamic game.

They would certainly improve the situation in MW.

This isn't a very well-thought out idea, since it basically opens up a new can of beans for people to complain about.

Also, it robs the game of any semblance of reality. In conflict, even skirmish conflict, the objective is only rarely "go take that hill". Making the game all about that essentially turns MW into Capture the Flag. Except less fun.

VC1 and VC2 are fine. So is artillery. Next subject.

I have to disagree (if you're speaking of real combat operations) : Think of how successful the American army would have been if all they'd done was smash the Republican Guard and then sit around in the desert, waiting for Saddam Hussein's regime to crumble?

Oh. Wait. We tried that back in '90-'91, and it didn't work then either.

Taking and holding the Iraqi cities (we can debate liberation or occupation on our own time) was a vital objective that was a condition for victory (however you want to define that word) in the operation.

If WizKids is going to continue to insist that the paltry 450 to 700 point battles we're fighting are determining the fates of these worlds, then I (for one) am going to continue to demand that these battles make some sense.

- GhostPony