My vote is no for two reasons. 1. It didn't do enough for MK. Basicly, first turn each player gets an objective, then they just smash at each other over the middle one and if the game actually goes to time, then second player has the advantage of running over and taking objectives.
2. MW already has a mechanic that gives benefits for controlling areas on the battlefield. It is called VC3. A variation could be instead of just the opponents starting area, have another area on the battlefield give you points if you control it

I also voted no on this. Besides, aren't there more important
problems, related to actual game mechanics, that need to be
addressed? This is minor (and not a problem, anyway, IMHO).
;)

spunky: I suppose the way to prevent pogging a control point would be to impose rules that prevent artillery pogs from being places x inches from control point. But that's not very realistic, in Battlefield 1942 you get shelled no matter where you're standing...

Get rid of all victory conditions and add up what you killed captured and surviving points. That was there is always a winner

Good Idea. Good, good idea.
However, many people here seem to think this ruins MK, so some suggestions:

Play table quarters, like 40K. ?basically, if you've got the most forces in a quarter of the table, it's yours. If you and your opponent are roughly even, it's contested. Add on rules for figuring out if quarters are contested or not, and all of a sudden you have to...*gasp* leave your DZ to win!

Have these objectives add on to VC3. Change the rules so that you only get 1 point for all infantry in a "VC3 area" 2 points for all vehicles, and 3 for all Mechs. (let me explain. no matter how many infnatry you have in a DZ, you only get one point. no matter how many vehicles, only 2 points. They can stack for a maximum of 6 points per VC3 Area per turn. Increase the objective pog size to something like 4" diameter, and if the pog has both side's forces in it, nobody gets points.

I just wanted to hear some opinions of stuff we've talked about at my venue.

Personally as long as WizKids keeps supporting their games I'll still come and compete

I just thought that MK objective system would work well within the MW game (with some tweaking of course)

that said keep up your support for one of the greatest game companies out there :squareeye

hmmmmmmm different forces have different objectives.

How would you rate the following?

1.. Advanced Recon Patrol
2.. Search and Destroy
3.. Probing Attack
4.. Decoy Attack
5.. PreEmptive Strike
6.. Salvage and Recovery Opperation
7.. Supply Raid

Just to name a few missions that Mech Warriors are prone to take on.

So far, most Dark Age battles seem to be "free of fluff" and its a Stand and Deliver battle from the start. The armies tend to meet and engage in a meaningless fight that in role playing terms would have been classed as a "Random Encounter".

That is what I liked about the now nearly useless story lines, they gave the armies a reason to engage in combat and could justify the type of units that can be encountered.

Someone mentioned 'Mechs being able to completely cover an objective token (like uniques in 2.0).

That would be *horrible*.

'Mechs have the longest dials, the highest defenses, and usually the most armour. Standing over an objective and waiting out the last third of the game would be the most boring thing ever.

Besides that note.. I dunno.. objectives being added to MechWarrior would have to be carefully tested before being added. It certainly shouldn't be the overriding winning condition, as it is in MageKnight.

I would like to see some more of the "special rules" we've had in previous campaigns. Make these primary objectives that if completed, wins the game outright, and if not completed, the standard "Two out of Three VCs" being the deciding factor. A good example was when BR had to destroy four out of five buildings; yeah you could do the standard game, but if you managed to destroy the appriopriate number of buildings, you win regardless how much damage your forces have taken.

Couple of things I've done in a non sanctioned event was have one side with superior numbers, but the other only had to kill one or two units and that's it. I had one where bunches of infantry and vehicles had to capture a big nasty mech--killing it was not an option. I had one where one side had a 'military advisor' attached to one of the units; as long as he/she lived, that side gained the Command SE for no cost. However, if that unit was killed or captured, the other side discovered who was trying to instigate a coup and won automatically.

I have not played MK, so I can't comment on how this works there. I can say it has some possibilities if done right. Maybe instead of an token you have a piece or pieces of 3D terrain that comes with the prize support, even if it is like the card things the Pirates game is going to be made out of. It could also be made part of the prize if you win. Like say capture said building/mech-bay and if you when the match you get to keep the item. Then we get better terrain to use in fun games...

Well after just starting to play MK and loosing my first 2 out of 3 games with a last turn mad dash for markers, I dont want to see anything even close to these things in Mechwarrior, it was very fustrating to have beaten your opponent and then loose to a last minute die roll.....how do you say it? YOU didnt beat me, I LOST!!

Keep the game the way it is.......

Objectives are nice for scenario games. They don't really have a place in HtH or Constructed.

Objectives give the game more of a real-feel than just go out and bash your opponent senseless.

Armys never went at each others throats without some sort of objective to attain.

We didn't beat on Iraq just for fun did we? We had an objective.

We didn't beat on Afganistan for fun did we? Ok, maybe we did... :p

BUT we had a mission there to. Teach them a lesson in humility. You beat on us, we smack you down. Nuff said.

I voted that I liked the idea. I would however either add it to VC2 or replace VC3 with it.

Plastic One, I'd have to agree, it'd be unrealistic for the game to outlaw artilery strikes within X number of inches away frm the objective token, HOWEVER if the storyline wanted to block artillery strikes on the objective, they could add that into the storyline, using it as perhaps a crucial supply or oil line, perhaps it's a weapons bunker or something, i dont know, but neither side can risk accidentally hitting it so they blocked all artillery strikes within a certain area.
I cant remember who said it earlier, but i agree that it should act as another variation of VC3 instead of creating another VC. They created VC3 for gaining points for maintaining and controlling key areas during combat, why would it JUST be the enemy Deployment zone? Why wouldn't there be bunkers, warehouses, supply lines, etc. that a team needs to gain control of?

Honestly, I think it'd spice up the game, myself being an old school MK player who wasn't thrilled at all by the 2.0 fiasco, I liked some of the old scenarios they put in MK 1.0, and I'd honestly love to see a variation of MK objective scenarios put into MW, which IMHO would make the game much more enjoyable and realistic.

Oh well, just my two cents, dont hate me for it
-Jackal

The more i think about this, the more i like it.

War isn't about just destorying the other side. Its about Capturing objectives, holding strategic locations and forcing your opponents to withdraw or reposition and divert resources. Having better objective based scenarios would be pretty cool.