I was thinking about what could be done about objectives, and thought that perhaps it might be good to simply change their focus a bit, rather than downplay them or simply get rid of them.

What if the tokens simply were strategical points in gameplay, not in the score? Say, after they were placed you rolled to see what bonus they would grant. They could boost defense, heal clicks to demoralized warriors, improve accuracy, grant stealth while in contact, teleport a warrior, anything.

Make them objectives you WANT to go after, but don't neccessarily HAVE to.

Make kill points the main goal.

As far as objective points go, I propose objective CARDS, or something of the like. Basically, each player contributes 4 or so cards to the pool before the game, and is given a random objective from the pool. This objective is kept secret from the opposition until the end of the game.

IF you fulfill your objective, you gain bonus points.


I thought about suggesting a rolloff for a scenario for each game, like in Warhammer, but those always end up slanted in favor of one person or the other. And that's fine for that game, I enjoy it actually. But each having your own special objectives without changing the game itself should have the same effect, without the cons.


Of course, I haven't played in a while, so this could be complete stupidity for all I know. But it sounded fun at least.


Let me know what you think.



Strider

sounds like fun to me

Could be a good idea, certainly the best alternative to the current sytem that I've seen proposed.

Unbalanced objectives could let things get out of hand, but at least that can be fixed with simple errata.

I've been thinking of the same thing, sort of. I think battlefield objectives need a bit of an overhaul. In their current state, they only act as means of a cheap victory or cheating a superior force out of a victory (second player makes a last minute dash to contest the objective). I believe objectives should br more than something to tag at the last minute. At least make them worth victory points or something (say, earn 15 pts at the beginning of each command phase that you control the objective).

Secret objectives sounds like a pretty cool idea. They could either grant special bonuses (ex: when you control two battlefield objectives, all of your warriors get +2 to their attack values) or even alternative victory conditions (At the beginning of your command phase, if you control three objectives and have a friendly figure in base contact with each one, give each of them a special action to win the game).

Or even something like an "assassination order" would be pretty cool: At the beginning of the game, write down the name of a unique opposing figure that is not a titan or multi-dial on a piece of paper and fold it in half. No one else may look at the paper. If a friendly warrior would target the chosen opposing figure with a ranged or close combat attack, unfold the paper before resolving the attack. If the attack succeeds eliminate the target, if the attack fails, eliminate the attacker and remove the assassination order from the game.

I'm not sure if this would make it into the final game, but it would definately make for some good casual play. In fact, if enough people support this idea I can crank out quite a few "secret objectives" myself.

Well, I think the main point to be made is that changing it up so that the objective tokens become point-related or whatever will be just as bad - only more complicated.

Kenntak brought up a simple way for the objectives to become just that real OBJECTIVES. Just like a real battle. Plus they would be no more complex than a relic or domain, just a set of instructions: If you do [requirement], then receive a bonus of [bonus].

Anyway, this is veering off track... there'll be time enough to play with rules changes once a new group is formed and organized for continuing the post-production administration, one goal at a time!

I have a more fundamental way of thinking. I'm showing my age here, but I was drafted for Vietnam. The major tactical problem the US Army faced in VN was the almost zealot focus on taking objective points. It wasn't about holding them, but taking them. If you killed enemy soldiers along the way ... so much the better. They idea was to show that you were making progress in territory. Does this sound like the objective idea in MK ? We all know what happened to the US Army in VN.

Now move forward to today's army tactics. Objectives are nice, but the dogma is now about wiping out your enemy with overpowering force. Eliminate your opponent. Sounds like what MK used to be. It was about kill points.

My opinion is the same as striders. Kill points should be the measure for performance. As I've always said. The game I enjoy the most are the ones where you can "kill 'em all".

Steve

Personally, I think it's about the mindset. I've seen players who their only goal is to take objectives. Often, they lose, because their opponent is gathering strategical locations to strike and wipe them out.

Other players focus on kills only. Those players are often successful (unless they get wiped out themselves), though they run the risk of fighting a hard-to-win fight. IE, some armies are just harder to wipe out, and if they focus only on pure killing, the risk losing in the end.

I personally like objectives, when playing agianst players who use them "right" - ie, tools for focusing armies, but not detracting from the attacks against the other players :)


As I've mentioned in other threads, I think it's important as things coalesce and such that things not get too hasty. Ideas are being thrown around of "change this" or "fix that" or "overhaul here". If the game is to continue, there can't be drastic changes made, especially all at once. For now, take it one step at a time. The game is still officially sanctioned. While momentum is important, keep in mind that there is still plenty of time for these discussions :) Basically, my point being, let's just make sure that no conclusions are jumped into too fast.


Just my 2 stamps, for whatever they are worth now :)

I agree completely. This isn't that important now. Nor should we rush through decisions, OR try to change much.

That being said, I would contend that it's in our best interest to begin considering these things now. If we're set on not rushing ourselves, we might as well begin discussing things like this now, use all the time that we have.


It's decisions we shouldn't rush into, I think. Discussions are another thing entirely.

Perhaps if we were to start thinking about just how much change is 'too much' then when the time comes we can choose our priorities. *shrugs* Just a thought.


Maybe objectives shouldn't change at all. Fine by me. I'm merely offering possibilities.


Strider

I personally believe we need to shift back to kill points as well, but maintain objectives as a more subtle route to victory. They do, afterall, provide safeguard against pimped out uniques and reduce turtling.

The best way to accomplish this, IMHO, is to make the objectives themselves worth points. There are two viable systems that can be incorporated. The first is to straight out make them worth X% (50% is a good number) of the build total's worth in points each at the end of the game. Another way is to grant each player X% (10% maybe) of the build total's worth in points each turn for each objective controlled.
Another interesting idea along the same lines is to make the center objective worth a bit more, as it is harder to control.

We shouldn't change a thing until Jan 2006, then MK Opensource 3.0 is a go...

With that said, my take is objective tokens are good and bad.
Good 'cause they add another dimension to the boring 'kill, kill, kill' style of game.
Bad 'cause the current system leads to 'mad dash'.

I like the concept of kill points + contol of battlefield points = victory.

In a current game of MK, how many rounds of turns are taken in an average game? 15-20?
If a point value is assessed to the control of each objective token (example: 5 points per full turn in complete control of a token), total available points for control of all tokens for the entire game = 225-300.

Makes for a bit of record keeping (need nickels for token control points), but makes the objectives less all or nothing.


Enhancing the fluff, the objective tokens could also be magestone power focal points providing +1 :wand:-type attack/Counterspell attempts to a single figure in base contact with the token (must be a friendly contolled token).

We could introduce a set of "objective effects" cards that you would play as, or along with, domains. The effects from controlling or keeping a figure on the objectives would be a great way to add another layer of strategy to the game, if that is the route we would like to take. We could also add anti-objective effects spells or domains to keep it in check.

That's a neat idea. Perhaps each player could chose which (minor) objective effect their objective has, and the middle token could be 'neutral'. I bet the '+1 to counterspells' objective effect would be popular... :)

or make it something like this:

1 objective: minor advantadge
2 objectives: moderate advantadge
3 objectives: major advantadge

Would definately make those objective tokens that much more imortant :D

I've alreayd made a list of change ideas I've sent to NobleWarrior for examination, but my take on objectives is that the game still needs them unless some massive banning is made.

For exemple, in the current state of the game, it's possible to field a piece which is very very veryhard to kill, and which can win you a game without even taking a click of damage. (Vithzerai, I'm looking at you here).

Now, some of you might think that an objectives win is cheese, but just how much more cheesy is it then the guy who plays Vextha + Magestone Armor in sealed? Personally, I'd tend to believe the second player is much more cheesy then the first player. First of all, there's all the matter of the fact that the opponent of the Vithzerai /Vextha player actually survived throught the whole round against such uber-figs, which is actually quite a feat if you ask me, especially when stalling isn't involved...

Now that's a problem, and you can't solve it while removing objectives. The facts are that you need to be able to have a shot at winning no matter what you play, which wouldn't be the case in a game without objectives, and with big-uber all-dressed uniques.

Going for kill point isn't quite gonna cut it either as it's nearly impossible to take out a Kossak Darkbrigner with a Blade of Dominance under Storm Gale. Sure, it is actually possible, but it means that you have to play a 200, and more pts fig in your army, or be assured to face defeat. Indeed, how do you win on kill points when you can't even touch most of your opponent's army build total? Now, if you want your game to thrive, you need to find a balance between bigger uniques, and smaller unit.

without objectives the ammount of turtle armies would increase. at least with objectives you can win the turtle army without goin for it.