NagoyaHammer.com

Hey guys,

I wanted to chat a little about what you think are the best and worst game mechanics that you have come across in your years of gaming, be they from a war game, an RPG, a CCG or even a PC game.

What do I mean by "game mechanics"? Simply the way in which you resolve a particular action through the rolling of dice, consulting of charts or other method. For example, how do you shoot an enemy. How do you decide how many cards you can play each turn etc.

For me, I love the card system for Malifaux in place of dice. However, I feel that this mechanic doesn't really have a place in other systems. It wouldn't suit Warhammer or Dungeons and Dragons (though the RPG deadlands did have a similar system for spell casting). The ability to alter your results when you need to adds a nice twist to the standard method of dice rolling.

Another favourite of mine is the order system from the early days of the Space Marine (Epic 40k as it is now) game. Each turn you would place a counter face down in front of each unit. Players would activate a unit by turning over their counters and moving/shooting etc. It created an element of suprise as your opponent would never know what you were going to do and vice versa. Sometimes the enemy you planned to shoot was suddenly halfway across the table or you found your commander suddenly facing off against the fury of a Titan.

One bad game mechanic I have come across was for a game called Star Fleet Battles. A board game style wargame based loosely on the original series of Star Trek. Both players commanded ships and had to allocate power to movement, weapons and shields each turn. The damage system was awful. When you shot your opponent you would cause around 50-100 points of damage. Each damage point had to be rolled on 2d6 against an A4 size chart. The tactical element of the game (planning your turn before you played it) was great, but even in small games, damage resolution took hours.

So what do you think are the best and worst game ideas you've seen?

blood bowl: turnovers. Bloody genius.

Blood Bowl - Turnovers and blocking dice.
Songs of Blades and Heroes - Activation rolls.


Both of these are game makers. Love them.

One game mechanic that I am not a fan of is 'True line of sight'.
what a load of cobblers!
At first, like many other folks, I thought it was a great way to simplify shooting phases and when a model is or isn't in cover but as I have played with it more and more, the more I have come to dislike it.

Why? Because it's too realistic.
"Huh?" I hear you cry. "WTF is Pikey on about now?"
While it is generally true in the 'real' world that if you can see an object you can shoot it, I don't think this should apply to the rather abstract word of the tabletop wargame.

Firstly, human beings who are at risk of being shot at, don't usually stand bolt upright like our rigid little plastic/metal figures do.

Secondly that area terrain you have defined as 'woods' doesn't represent four actual plastic trees. It represents a small thick copse/spinney/orchard/grove whatever.

Likewise, 'real' battlefields are seldom as flat and debris free as the typical gaming table. Where are all the dips, gulleys and hollows in your bed sheet?

Nor is the actual visibility on a real battlefield as crystal clear as it is on the table top. I have yet to see anyone successfully simulate the smoke, sand, fog, dust, mist etc present on most battlefields.

While satellite and spotter planes do exist in real life etc they still not give even the most 'wired' commander the 360 degree view of a battlefield that the gamer has.

Without these other 'real' factors absent from the equation why use 'TLOS'? What was wrong with"If it's 2 inches inside the piece of area terrain, it can't see or be seen." Surely even Jervis Johnson's son can handle that amount of abstraction.

As for favourites...
I also like some of the order systems I have played with, including the old SpaceMarine /Epic ones. I used to use them a lot in Napoleonic gaming. Order counters were placed face down next to the unit and revealed when it's activation came round. Tat leads me to another game mechanic that I particularly like, alternating unit activation. Rather than waiting for such a long time between actions, players take it in turns to activate their units. It added an extra element to the game as you had to judge whether the time was right to activate your elite unit and send it into the thick of the action a.s.a.p or whether you should wait to see how events unfolded. I think it could work well with both Warhammer systems with little or no tweaking.

'Cause I'm on an Epic kick recently, I'll mention Blast Markers from the latest edition as a good 'un. They're a really simple, and in my opinion elegant mechanic that model Fog of War / Battlefield Friction / Suppressing Fire / whatever you'd like to call it rather nicely, and the system allows armies to be strongly differentiated with a minimum number of actual rules.

And I'll agree with the true line of fire hate. If there's one thing that's guaranteed to raise my blood pressure, it's my opponent reaching for a laser pointer.

the Scatter dice... placing an Arrow on a dice instead of using a D12 is really fun. Love it

The SCATTER Dice: The never seem to get rolled close enough to the mark to allow for an accurate alignment. and that is when the arguments start. Yuck

Admiral-Badruck wrote:the Scatter dice... placing an Arrow on a dice instead of using a D12 is really fun. Love it

The SCATTER Dice: The never seem to get rolled close enough to the mark to allow for an accurate alignment. and that is when the arguments start. Yuck

Its not just not rolling close enough, its that when two people look at the same thing from different angles, they dont always see exactly the same thing.
And some people just dont want their other unit getting blasted.