Most HATED objective

Igemon

Normally, every objective means you either manage to meet secondary condition or win without it.
Except for one, "Win with X life or less".
Here you meet condition or lose.
That's why I normally just ignore it.
We hates this condition. We hates it forever!

Tilwin90

Most have been enumerated, but if I were to pick an order:
1) Win with X or less life - oh god I hate these objectives. I never bother with them in PVE and it's a wonder I actually do it in RtO. They are the perfect example of both gambling and playing an anti-game. If I wanted anti-puzzle quest I would like a game of its own in this direction. It's too swingy for my taste, and I dislike playing to lose before winning...
2) Take X or less damage - since there is no mulligan in MTGPQ the risk of a poor hand with a poor board is high. And then you're stuck with your opponent throwing a couple of hasty creatures and beating you turn 2 with them. There goes your objective, bye bye!
3) Kill X or more creatures - those creatureless decks? Annoying!
4) Kill X or less creatures - since opponents can be hateful and put a bunch of sweepers and sacrifice spells in their decks. Heck, you see this in B4T with those freaking dinos killing their own stuff.

BONUS: Lose X or less creatures. Ever since dagger came out, hate decks have started to appear in order to give the creature to the opponent THEN destroy it, circumventing even creatureless decks.

TomB

Put me down for the "Win with X or less life" followed by the "Take X or less damage" group. I hate both those objectives for reasons already given by others. I also don't like the "Kill X or more creatures" objectives, though those don't seem to be as prevalent as they were before.

Sirchombli

Now I'm thinking about the kill x or less creatures objectives. Why does it count against me when Greg kills his own creatures ? Especially with the frequency at which he points removal at his own creatures? Seems like a design flaw. 

Stormcrow

I have reached a point where I just completely ignore any objective that can be read as "Play badly".

"Win with X or less life" is definitely the top offender in that category.

Kinesia

I realised just before that I'm happy to take time and think when setting up my decks but when I play I just play.

So while the requirements are always possible for me I end up missing them because waiting seems too annoying in the playing stage.

So against Lannery I was on 4 pirates and had to just shake my head and go, nah, just gonna win right now.

Machine

Definitely Survivor, win with X or less life. I've just beaten 5.1 with 9 HP left and the game didn't give me the Survivor objective, because it thought I had 24 life left. Great job devs! God, I'm glad I'm not a paying customer for this.

Before it got me to 9 HP, I almost fell asleep... just sayin'.

Mburn7

FindingHeart8 said:

Gun Bunny said:

For me, "take 10 or less damage" barely edges out "survive with 20 or less life". Forget Olivia, Gaea's revenge, et. al, things like inferno jet exist that can get cast on a non-cascade turn one. Granulation of scores has devolved into a crapshoot where whoever gets lucky wins. With the solution to tie scores now firmly in place for what, a year now? Casting over, or under, a certain number of (insert card type) is fine, but still a crapshoot (no spell nodes drawing a Nyx lockdown deck, for example), but it's something that can be planned around.

Please remove stupid, counterintuitive objectives (looking at you, G/R werewolf node) also.

back in the day *picks up cane and wobbles over* token generation counted towards the objective.  So get Garruk's 2nd ability off once and you've completed that objective.

The summon 2 1/1 spirit spell used to also complete the summon 2 or more spirits objective.

Doesn't work that way anymore, sadly.

That was pretty bad back then, though.  Any "summon x or less" objective was basically impossible.  1 Turn to Frog (or Imprison in Moon) basically ended your day.

The only good thing about tokens counting was it allowed them to do "Summon 8 or more" stuff and it was perfectly reasonable.

Gilesclone

@Machine there’s a very old bug they never bother to fix.  If you gain life when you’re at max life it adds that to your life total at the end.  Incredibly annoying.  So don’t use anything that gives you life when you’re full.  For me it’s usually Unholy Hunger that does it.

FindingHeart8

Mburn7 said:

FindingHeart8 said:

Gun Bunny said:

For me, "take 10 or less damage" barely edges out "survive with 20 or less life". Forget Olivia, Gaea's revenge, et. al, things like inferno jet exist that can get cast on a non-cascade turn one. Granulation of scores has devolved into a crapshoot where whoever gets lucky wins. With the solution to tie scores now firmly in place for what, a year now? Casting over, or under, a certain number of (insert card type) is fine, but still a crapshoot (no spell nodes drawing a Nyx lockdown deck, for example), but it's something that can be planned around.

Please remove stupid, counterintuitive objectives (looking at you, G/R werewolf node) also.

back in the day *picks up cane and wobbles over* token generation counted towards the objective.  So get Garruk's 2nd ability off once and you've completed that objective.

The summon 2 1/1 spirit spell used to also complete the summon 2 or more spirits objective.

Doesn't work that way anymore, sadly.

That was pretty bad back then, though.  Any "summon x or less" objective was basically impossible.  1 Turn to Frog (or Imprison in Moon) basically ended your day.

The only good thing about tokens counting was it allowed them to do "Summon 8 or more" stuff and it was perfectly reasonable.

Yeah those were hard times.   Usually would groan every time I faced a Kiora deck (usually filled with Imprison/TtF).  I still groan when I face a Kiora deck, but now just for green ramp-loop.  I guess some things never change lol.

stikxs

The combination of 'win in X turns or less' and 'lose X or more creatures' pretty much work against each other and makes no sense.

Machine

Gilesclone said:

@Machine there’s a very old bug they never bother to fix.  If you gain life when you’re at max life it adds that to your life total at the end.  Incredibly annoying.  So don’t use anything that gives you life when you’re full.  For me it’s usually Unholy Hunger that does it.

Thanks @Gilesclone. I didn't know that. Buuuuuuutt.... if it's known for that long, it should have already been fixed. Any bug that has the possibility of screwing up your objectives should have priority as individual and team scores depend on it.

Gilesclone

It’s been around at least a year.  I suspect it’s been around since the beginning.  On the flip side, it can help on levels that say have at least 80 life at the end.