don't the current rules and scenarios already add this depth to the game without adding an extra vc? Adding the vc also brings up the problem of 'draws' . right now the game is decided on vc's first, points second. This easily gives a chance for a smart player to walk away with two of the three and therefore the victory. If a fourth vc is introduced then a player has not two but three vc's to attack. This is not an easy task in the allotted time limit!!

not really sceith. See, with an objective in the game, it makes it that much simpler to win. You dont even need points. If you complete the objective, you win. Here's a sample straight out of MW4. A drop ship has crashed and is in the process of being repaired. The Tin Puppies are tasked to defend it for a certain time limit. The Highlanders set out to blow the thing apart. This one is simple because a smart player would just stand back and pound it with arty. But then the SW have to go destroy the arty, so the HL needs skirmishers. Or, the HL could try an all out assault on it, and the SW would have to repel the attack. If the HL only had a Shun and a Inner Sphere BA left, they could still win. In a situation like that, it doesnt matter how many units get toasted, only that the drop ship is either saved or destroyed.

@JinxM - Spoken like someone who wants the name of the game changed. Your complaining about something that would make 'Mechs king of the battlefield again? And don't forget, to keep control they become a sitting duck. Once they're driven away (or run screaming) you recapture or contest the objective

*possible changes*
larger objective tokens
better story campaigns than Faction A bumps in to Faction C and blast each other into slag and gore with no strategic notion

In Epic Space Marine by Games-Workshop the primary way to determine victory was the capturing/controlling of the objective markers. It worked well for that game and I think it would improve MWDA. I have never really understood the point of getting into the end zone as a victory condition. Certainly you want to close with the enemy and neutralize there artillery and what not, but just racing some bikes to the corner of the board to collect a victory point is a very "toys with rules" thing and should not be a factor in a "tactical miniatures game"

I agree. Make VC3 the variable and build more scenarios, it will largely remove the cheese armies and the speed racers heading into their opponent's DZ.

Some samples:

1. There's an entrance to a Castle Brian in the middle of the board. A player has to control that area, uncontested, for a single turn to begin closing the gates. It takes three more turns for the gates to close completely; once they are closed the player with the highest point value in that area wins the game. Once the gates start closing, the number of units that can enter the area is limited. With a 'Mech counting as 4 units and a vehicle as 2 and infantry as 1, the countdown is 4 units, 3 units and 2 units on the respective turns (even before the gates start closing, each player is limited to 4 units entering in their turn). Artillery cannot be placed in the entrance (which will need to be, say, 6" across) but can be placed on the edge - so there's a chance it will affect units inside the entryway, but there's no warpog situation. And hopefully the restriction on entry will prevent a mass race at the last minute from succeeding.

2. A massively-outnumbered army (say 2:1, 600 points to 300) has retreated to the edge of a major city and must hold out for four(?) turns until their dropship arrives to enable evac. The defenders win if they prevent more than 200 points of enemy units occupying the LZ at the end of the final turn. The attacker has first move (but cannot use infiltrate) and must have at least one 'Mech in the 200 points of units in the LZ to claim the VC. This enables the defenders to make a mad scramble to allow the dropship to land, while the attackers have a chance to move into range and pound on the defenders.

Granted, both of the above scenarios would fare better with a larger board, but I'm really excited at the possibilities variable objectives provide!

I'd like to see each player bring an objective token basically as part of their force. This could be something that actually gets placed on the battlefield, or it could be a specific objective that doesn't actually get placed physically on the battlefield. Either way, the objective token would cost a certain amount of points(per 150 points of the army size) off of your battleforce. Obviously, the objectives would be of differing strengths, and a harder objective would cost less points off of your battleforce. These objectives would never replace the current system, just add an alternate condition of victory for each player.

- WraithTwo -

I was thinking along the same lines.
There could be an objectives set similar to the accessory pack for Hero-Clix.
There could be a command tent, fuel dump, observation post, etc…

I voted no but.....

If they want to add more games per month I think it would be a nice change to what we have now.
It would make you rethink the tank-drop/ VTOL
only armies if you have to Hold a location for a while.
(say cheese if you want this is MECHWARRIOR BTW )

I think it would be like some of the old scenarios where you had to hold a building or destroy something.
:classic:

Exactly. All these "Cheese" armies are designed to kill mechs, not hold a position. Look at a :^^^: Shmidtt. Are you going to tankdrop the VC? Fine, you're on it. wow, here comes a hoverbike to base yoy, now here comes a mech and...Boom!

Warpog only has 96 points to hold VC's. Try using that to stop 96 points.

Hell, use my previous VC rules, and make VC3 the ONLY objective. that'd be a realistic game!

If objective victory conditions are added to the game then what has happen with MK 2.0 will happen with MechWarrior.

It will be "he who has the last trun" will get the objective and win the game. All one has to do is go and read the MK boards and see the whinning about this condition that exists in MK.

Now we want to import that into mechwarrior. Come on and let us learn from others mistakes and not let this occur. If and when this does goes into effect then everyone will moan and whin about it after the fact when it is too late.

Leave enough along already.

Make the objectives give you VC3, and make VC3 the only condition. Simple fix.

That mey be true with some objectives, Longsword, but not all. I think the majority of the objectives would be along the lines of "capture and hold for X turns" or "defend/destroy" types. In those games, once the objective condition has been met, thats the end of the game. How many turns the game takes would depend on how fast the objective is met. You could even have multiple objectives. "To win, you must control map points A- D with at least 2 units for 5 turns. If you lose and then regain control of any point, you must restart counting turns."

Here is my problems with using objectives ala MK. In Mk you don't get the objective points unitl the GAME IS OVER. Whoever controls the objective when the GAME IS OVER wins the game.

Notice what this does (I'm in both games), it means that when you only have a couple of minutes left, you may dump everything to go and base the objectives to make them contested. Contested objectives count towards nothing. Meaning that if you control one objective, and contest the other two you win the game. Player 2 always is in a better position (because player 2 must always finish his turn for the game to end in MK).

I think the 3 vç's shoudl be imported to MK. It would make MK a more balanced game, instead of dance around for 45 minutes and make a mad dash to the objectives in the last 5 minutes to heck w/ the damage you sustain.

All of the additions to the rules are starting to add up to rediculous levels. A Battlemaster has to show up with 26 pages of FAQ that often contradicts itself in several places. Adding to that confusion in a game that was originally so simple is ludicrous.

I voted "Yes, add an extra VC."
This is only due to the fact that this game is dominated by artillery armys... and, as has been flamed about before, the name of this game is MECH-warrior.
This, in conjunction with a BM having to bring a HUGE booklet of rulings (that still don't always make sense) to the tournament certainly doesn't help much either!
Another VC is needed... but use that one to CHANGE another one...
VC1 and VC2 are practically the same... not all the time... but mostly!
I understand the current VC3... it's aiding in breaking/disrupting supply lines, that's why we get points for it. But, I do think that we need to ALSO add other objectives to it.
*Modification to the VC4 idea*
If the unit on the token (whether the token is covered or not) is based with an enemy unit, NOBODY gets points for it.
I say,overall, eliminate VC1 and add this new rule to VC3 and make VC3 the main VC, then go to VC2 for tiebreaks!(if applicable)

Jus' my 2 cents,
Peace,
~TKK~