God, I would hope not. It redirects the game to 'king of the hill' style, which should be reserved for specific scenarios. It also takes away from the enjoyment of having an open field which you can manipulate to win.

Ahh...idea brewing here. Objectives defintely sound like a good idea, but how you go about it would be the issue. I do like the idea of sector-holding, as it would force more strategic gameplay, but I think it might also offer some new possibilities for tournament peices. Scenarios could be designed to be able to 'capture' a new unit and use it against your opponent. *grins* Also, scenario objectives would be a DEFINITE plus, becuase it would cut back on the classic 'hack and destroy' mentality that commons most games. Of course, objectives would have to be weight-balanced. One possibility for how to do that is end-of-game add ins for clearing objectives, ones that would tack would give kick-backs to the player who managed to complete one (or more). Another would be the sector=style, which would be more likely to work in tournament and standard games. Overall, I think objectives would be a very good thing to add to a game which so far has had a reputation for being a 'stand up and shoot em'.

I voted for the objective tokens, but I think that they should just count towards VC3. If this was the case, VC3 could be the more important VC, which make it seem a little more realistic. You don't want to lose most of your troops but defending the objectives of a mission is still most important.

I think objective based VCs would be pretty kewl as long as they were relevant. I get kinda tired of the same old slugfest every month, with only the addition of some confusing and obscurely worded special rules.

"God, I would hope not. It redirects the game to 'king of the hill' style, which should be reserved for specific scenarios. It also takes away from the enjoyment of having an open field which you can manipulate to win."

My thoughts exactly. How many times is their something sitting out in the middle of a field that 2 forces would have to fight for? Isn't a battle usualy for something somene already controles? Isn't that what VC3 and the DZs are all about? A VC4 doesnt fit in except in special scenarios. If their was something like VC4 i would hope that they would make it part of VC3 so it doesnt overpower the current game style.

Despite the fact that MK 2.0 came out after Mechwarrior, and has learned from both Mage Knight and Mechwarrior's mistakes, the 2.0 objective system pales in comparison to the Mechwarrior VCs. Think about it. In the nearly two years Mechwarrior has been running, how many posts have you seen complaining about the "broken" way in which games are decided? How many well argued and strongly agreed with complaints have been made about the second player advantage in the MK 2.0 objective situation? By all means, keep MW:DA the same. The corollary of this poll should be put to the Mage Knight community, where I know how I'd vote. Besides, it saves WizKids the money for manufacturing objective tokens and control markers :)

I'd have to say no. It would be fine for scenario events, but the unrestricted head to heads and those kinds of games should not change yet. If the scenario games area huge hit it could be considered at a later date.