"Favourite Mechanisms" Topic

What are people's favourite rule mechanisms? Any thing that makes you go "Yes, that works – that represents the period well", or are just elegant solutions to gaming problems?

Horse and Musket:
A moves
B fires
A fires
close combat
B moves
A fires
B fires
Close combat

actually that works for most periods

Opportunity fire, solved a host of sins.

The ANY unit in a group is the command unit rule from Fistful of Tows. Goes against the grain but also solves a host of sins.

Card Driven Games. Resisted them at first but they are brilliant when done right.

GCACW's initiative rules.

LoS in Deadzone from Mantic. If you can see ANY part of the model you can shoot at it. If you can see the ENTIRE model you get a major bonus.

Bolt Action/Kings of War (both had Cavatore as author/co-author) refuses to use templates for weapon effects. If a weapon hits according to the dice, you get xd6 possible wounds. Totally gets rids of template placement arguments.

Dice test mechanic in DreadBall/Deadzone. You roll x number of dice, which can add/lose dice depending on factors. The target # for each die is based on the models stats. So factors influence the # of dice and the model's proficiency/stat influences how likely those dice are to roll successes.

I like rolling for command. I really liked it when I encountered it for the first time in Warmaster, it was a good way to simulate fog of war without being too in depth and keeping it game like.

I like Grand Armee's zone of control and that two opposing brigades square up on each other. It keeps unrealistic flank turning and two units fighting one. You still can have two units fighting one but it takes good planning.

If you strip the historicity away from Advanced Squad Leader, the dice mechanics work well for any type of role playing/skirmish game, board or miniatures.

Simultaneous, map-marked movement. Nothing else brings the same excitement level to the game.

Rick

Untried units – boardgame, one side (say the Russians 1941) have different valued units. Most low, but a few meaty ones. They are placed face down by the Russian player at the start of play, so that neither side knows their value.

Their true strengths are only revealed at the moment of combat. It gives uncertainty and reproduces those moments when for whatever reason, a player gives a very robust stand.

The combat/statkeeping mechanic in QILS. Reason? Elegance: bulit-in trade-off system for unit design with no charts and tables, simple and quick opposed combat with no need for charts, several billion different unit designs at the base (one die) level gives a lot of flexibility, it is easy to gauge approximate odds and not feasible to know exact odds during play, it is easy to pick on strengths vs weaknesses of different units during play, lots of variety in ranged combat capabilities again without stats diagrams and charts.

The to hit/damage system from silent death. Elegant and unpredictable.

Morale System in 'They Couldn't hit an Elephant'. When a unit is hit roll a d6. -1 per kill, -1 if lost 10%, or -2 if lost 25% of strength. 1 or less, lose a morale level
Normal -> Fighting (worse in combat) -> Defeated (no shooting) -> Rout

The brigadier gets a dAv or dAv+1 dice with which to issue orders or rally off morale loss. 1 unit move or 1 level per pip.

First few turns you wonder how you are going to break the enemy, but as the casualties build up, and it causes more units to fail tests, you spend more and more of your pips rallying units to keep them in the battle, and thus have less to give movement orders. You watch your units slowly disintegrate, constantly trying to repair the line.