Objective fell short for me, even though it was close to being awesome.

That is why Objective feels undercooked to me. The problem is not that every Objective card needs to form one complete package. The problem is that, when one Objective result should satisfy another Objective, the game does not take the next look. A mechanic built around quests should make completion feel dependable. Right now, it can feel anti-intuitive instead.

Objective’s initial release was probably right

New mechanics almost never go over well. Giving us the simplest possible Objectives was probably the right introduction.

The intended direction was for individual quests that might have a little overlapping synergy.

The more people discuss Objective, the more I feel they want cards that can feed into one another when their conditions line up. I would love to run three or four of them in one deck and have the package create a meaningful sequence instead of asking each card to do its own job in isolation.

That tension has become harder to ignore as more Objective cards arrive. The mechanic was introduced as a series of individual tasks, yet some of its card relationships invite players to look for a chain.

Objective checks once, then stops

Second Dinner has acknowledged how the current sequencing works. At the relevant check, the game goes through the Objective effects present and validates them at once. If an Objective output would complete another Objective that was not satisfied when validation began, that second Objective does not execute. The team has said that behavior is intended.

Second Dinner also said it explored letting Objectives complete other Objectives during development, but did not find a sustainable solution. It may revisit the idea. I do not know the technical restriction that made the approach unsustainable, but the current answer leaves cards that want to connect unable to finish their sequence.

Objective needs more checkpoints

My proposed fix is more checks. At end of turn, check Objectives. If one resolves, check Objectives again. Keep doing that until no additional Objective has become satisfied, then continue into the next phase. I would apply the same loop at end of game.

That would turn Objective into the little flowchart it wants to be. A card gets its checkpoint. If the answer is no, it waits. If the answer is yes, it performs its Objective, and the game asks the question again because the result may have changed the board state for another card.

I think more checkpoints would buff every Objective card except maybe Archangel.

A later result could satisfy an Objective that was not satisfied at the initial check. Under the system I am asking for, that new state gets another checkpoint instead of being ignored. I also placed the same need at end of game, where another checkpoint could check a newly satisfied Objective.

This is my proposed change. Still, it addresses the exact point where the current mechanic falls short. A chain cannot work if the game refuses to see the link that the previous Objective created.

End-of-turn mechanics need to work

A concern raised in the discussion is that repeated checks could slow the game.

I am not persuaded that this is a reason to leave Objective as it is. I would rather have end-of-turn mechanics work.

I also do not see an endless-loop problem in the Objective cards as described. Once an Objective happens, it resolves and is done. Even if a future deck somehow created a long chain of Objective completions, that would be the mechanic delivering on its most exciting possibility rather than failing because of it.

The concern may have a technical answer that was not shared in the discussion. What I cannot accept is treating the lack of another checkpoint as a satisfying endpoint when it blocks the very interactions that make Objective appealing.

Objective is trending down

I’d put Objective at probably a six out of ten now, down from a seven last month. The mechanic remains close. Its cards can still be diverse. Yet the more cards that want to feed into each other, the more obvious the resolution gap becomes.

I think Objective needs a support card that ties its cards together.

My verdict is not that Objective cannot work. It is that Objective fell short of what its own card relationships ask players to expect. Give it more checkpoints, let it recheck after an Objective resolves, and the mechanic has a path back toward the promise it showed at the start.

Watch the full discussion: the original episode.