Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Greetings,

A "new" and "hot" mechanic I have been reading about in many game rules is the Leadership Token/Point. This is a pool of tokens that a Tabletop Commander can distribute among their troops for bonus or re-rolls. Frequently, the number of Leadership Tokens is based upon the number of Troop or Command Units you are fielding. I have seen it in such titles as:

All Quiet on the Martian Front
Dux Bellorum
Robotech RPG Tactics

Now, some games use this mechanic differently than others. The Leadership Tokens can be used to impact the following:

1. The entire army- Example: Stealing Initiative
2. Unit Movement- Example: Double Move
3. Unit Defense- Example: Cancel Hits
4. Unit Attacks- Example: Increase attack Characteristic
5. Unit Morale- Example: Rally broken troops

For the purposes of this discussion, let's examine:

1. Other rules systems that use the mechanic and how
2. How it enhances or detracts from play
3. Key genres or design decision that naturally lead to Leadership Tokens

Discuss. I am interested to see where this evolves, or how it dies on the vine.

I believe it was mentioned that Maelstrom's Edge would use a similar 'Command Points' mechanic that could be used to control off-board assets or bring back destroyed units, and I think it also said a large part of their use would be done via secret 'bidding wars' of points. Also, Halo Fleet has something similar, a commander with a unique ability set/'order dice' to spend that isn't tied to any one ship, instead commanding the whole fleet from somewhere well away from the battle.

In principle, I think it's a great idea, especially in modern/future settings where the force Commander isn't necessarily involved in the battle, but rather commanding from on high. Where the player 'avatar' used to be the on-field hero or leader, Leadership Points or whatever allow an immersive and almost more-realistic (for some settings) mechanic where you, the player, are the commander; these tokens that are played 'by you' represent that quite nicely.

And then there's the factor of resource management; feel aside, this kind of mechanic can add a whole other tactical level to the game, which is no bad thing. One of my favourite aspects of the LotR rules was the Might/Will/Fate points that all heroes had, each of which had a variety of uses, so in many ways they were a precursor to army-wide kind of Leadership. Knowing you can either spend your last Might Point to kill that Troll dead OR use it to act out of sequence next turn OR keep it to boost a Fate roll later on certainly adds a tension and another aspect to the gameplay that really defines the system for me.

It's also just more interesting. Yes, you could just say 'all units within X of Command unit Y get +1 Ld' and represent the command skills/inspiring presence of your leader, but having spendable, limited and most importantly active ways of influencing the game is much more fun.

It can go too far, though, and you don't want it so that a battle is won or lost by these overarching actions rather than the actions of the units on the tabletop. I can't think of anything off the top of my head that does this, though.

I think 'leadership' points is a great mechanic because, as Paradigm mentioned, it adds an aspect of resource management.

In a game with a randomization mechanic, resource management helps to give players a feeling of control. Got a bad roll, re-roll it. Cold dice caused that unit to break, put it back into action. Got a pivotal roll to make, add a modifier.

The player can use such resources to proactively and deliberately influence the game. That's good.

Obviously, mechanics must work within the overall context of the game system, but some sort of resource-based 'leadership' system has been used to good effect in many games.

The game I am developing uses a similar resource system, called "Cheatin'." For reference, the game is a little to the left of what you are talking about. It is like a Miniatures RPG. The game has the classic RPG setup of a GM and a party of heroes controlled by individual players, but uses the quick gameplay mechanics of a skirmish wargame.

Anyhoo, re-rolls are a critical mechanic in the game. Each character has access to a skill called Lyin' and Cheatin' (LnC), and they start every game with a number of Cheatin' tokens equal to their LnC rank. A Cheatin' token can be spent to give any player a re-roll. In other words, Player X can spend a Cheatin' token to give player Y a re-roll.

It is a petty simple mechanic overall, but because the game can be relatively bloody and unforgiving, the Cheatin' system helps to soften some of the otherwise very hard edges of the game system. It gives players a way to proactively improve their odds, whether offensively or defensively, and it also encourages communication between the players.

Finally, the LnC system helps to support some of the more narrative aspects of the game as certain types of characters buy LnC ranks much more cheaply than others. The character types that buy LnC cheaply are intended to have more of a leadership role in the game. LnC support this by putting the greater portion of the re-rolls at the discretion of these character types. For example, I might have an LnC of 2, which I blew 5 turns ago. My buddy has an LnC of 8, and if I want a re-roll going forward, I need to get it from him.

I like them they give an added variey to the game and open new opportunities for strategy,

but

they need to be limited, whether it's per 'turn' or per 'game' it should always hurt to spend them as you should have had to have made a real choice to do so

If they are of the regenerating sort (X per turn) I also like the idea of you loosing (some of) them if important command and control minis get killed/leave the board. This has the extra bonus of making people think more carefully about sending their warlord & his bodyguard off into battle unsupported (as they are often great fighters), because if they do get wiped out they loose their command points rerolls (or whatever) too

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
If they are of the regenerating sort (X per turn) I also like the idea of you loosing (some of) them if important command and control minis get killed/leave the board. :

While this does make thematic sense it can also lead to very one sided games. It's a "rich get richer" scenario and can result in sniping and hero hammer.
Once these assets are removed the losing player is often left going through the motions for the latter part of the game.

 Alex Kolodotschko wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
If they are of the regenerating sort (X per turn) I also like the idea of you loosing (some of) them if important command and control minis get killed/leave the board. :

While this does make thematic sense it can also lead to very one sided games. It's a "rich get richer" scenario and can result in sniping and hero hammer.
Once these assets are removed the losing player is often left going through the motions for the latter part of the game.

That's why the rest of the argument was important to modulate the sentence you quoted. Context. Because you know your leader to be such a great resource, you'll be hesitant to commit him to battle, which might mean you end up putting more emphasis on regular troops that can use the tokens, rather than sending off token-generating-guy in a glorious charge up the middle.

Leadership was an important factor in Squad Leader (1977) in which the leader bonuses of commander units were applied to units they stacked with for the purposes of shooting and rallying. Correct deployment of your leaders was crucial for best tactical success.

Out of board command resources are an interesting way to power your game system with something other than game stats, as everything it needs to be build into the narrative of the system, but, it offers a great payoff in my opinion by placing the player outside of the table (were he is really), I feel with good implementation it can make the game even more immersive for the players than the standard " the player is an avatar on the table" approach of old.

What is the best way to have Leadership Tokens generated?

By Unit, an arbitrary starting number, based on Leadership skills on command elements, a dice roll, etc?

Should they be a set amoutn per game, generate fresh every turn, etc?

It also sounds like Leadership tokens are best for genres where off-board command interacting with tactical units make sesne. Sci-fi and Moderns perhaps.

Or

Places where a commander can phyiscally move to/get in front of the troops he is giving Leadership tokens to. I.e. squad level WWI through Moderns, Skirmish games, etc. ?

Depends on the narrative you want to give to your rules really, game mechanics are just the engine parts, the fluff is what ties them together.

How to generate them is a big discussion, are they depleting or regenerating?

Great question. I have seen both methods used. I guess it depends how often you want the commanders involved in the game.

A limited availability makes the tokens more special (or they should be, else nobody will bother with them) but will make the game potentially be judged on who will utilize them better at the best time, regenerative means that players can have a steady supply and depend on them as a tactical resource, but dependent on the methods generating them it can evolve in a "rich gets richer" scenario which will not be enjoyable on the battlefield.

I use it for my game, although I'm going through a drastic revision of the system.

I originally used leadership tokens as the only way that you could activate units to do things. However, I've transitioned to a system where basic activations are free, but the command tokens do extra things.

I just think these tokens are a good way to allow for a variety of interesting abilities to be available to a player, but then require them to pick and choose what they want to use that turn. Otherwise, without such limits, the combos and ability spam can get out of hand.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
A limited availability makes the tokens more special (or they should be, else nobody will bother with them) but will make the game potentially be judged on who will utilize them better at the best time, regenerative means that players can have a steady supply and depend on them as a tactical resource, but dependent on the methods generating them it can evolve in a "rich gets richer" scenario which will not be enjoyable on the battlefield.

One way to prevent a rich-gets-richer scenario is to use such resources to help maintain parity between players, that is, players doing worse tend to get more resources, or to have a minimum amount of resources proportional to those of their opponent.

For example, in Cthulhu Wars, players always have at least half the power generated by the player with the most power.

In Chain of Command (a ww2 company level game), every time you roll a 5 on activations, it gets added to a pool on the side. Every time you have 6 points in the pool, they convert over to a CoC-point. You could basically ambush your opponent out of turn, seize the initiative, or do a slew of minor actions with those.

The downside was that if you got a lot of CoC-points, it meant your guys were basically twiddling their thumbs the rest of the time. You'd get 5 or 6 activation dice per phase so having more than one 5 come up was a bit crippling. More than a single 6 meant you lost initiative and turned it over to the opponent. So, say, rolling three 6s, two 5s and a 1 meant a single team of dudes (usually 2 or 3 soldiers) did something before turning it over to your oponent.

Deadzone uses these as well, in the form of a pool of counters used for command actions.

I've been trying to read that book... it suffers from run on sentences in some cases.

So, in the CoC example, you maybe had bad activation rolls, but it was somehoe off-set by creating a "command" pool that you could use to influence the game in other ways later? So, it was attempting to ballance out the "chaos" of its own activation system then?

@Scarlet Squiq- Can you give us a broad idea of how using the points would influence the game? Things like help you hit more, shoot more, not run away, etc. ?

Guildball is doing this with Momentum, and it's a cool mechanic! You generate it each turn based on what you do, and can spend it to perform additional actions, or save it to help win the first activation next turn (whereupon it resets for the new turn).

GW specialist games have a lot of mechanics that represent the effect the commander/coach/captain (i.e. player) has on the army/team:

Blood Bowl uses something a little similar in the team re-rolls; which reward unskilled teams more than skilled ones (since you have to choose between using a player skill reroll or team reroll). That's a nice way to simulate the relative benefits of good command to both green recruits who both require more and benefit more, and veterans who can generally look after themselves. The mechanic is limited in that you can only spend one per turn, though they regenerate halfway through the game.

The Command Point mechanic in Space Hulk is both very useful, and scarily random! However, because you have to use every model, you can't afford not to put your sergeant(s) in harm's way.

While you army commander (a bought upgrade) is alive in Epic: Armageddon, you get a once per turn reroll on Initiative, a vital resource. Losing your commander is a nasty but not irrecoverable blow.

Yes, BFG also uses a fleet Re-roll for the admiral.

I never thought of it, but these are similar to the Leadership Tokens, or perhaps a proto-version of them.

Let's continue the discussion about avoiding the "rich-getting-Richer". I would love to hear more ideas on that.

For example, in Dux Bellorum as you lose units in combat you lose LD Tokens, which is critical. In this game, ithe "Rich-ge-Richer" is an intended side effect and also used to show how the battlelines in dark age combats get weary and brittle as battle continues. However, I can see how players could object to this process as unfair/not fun.

In many ways, I think it's a good idea to reward player(s) for removing leaders from the board, particularly when that's the only reason the leader model is present (as opposed to being a powerful playing piece for other reasons). As a result, the 'rich-getting-richer' effect is then a welcome addition – a reward for killing the opponent's leaders, or a punishment for not protecting your own.

One alternative is for the pool of leadership tokens to remain consistent (as they represent the orders of the player themselves, rather than the leader models), with casualties in-game reducing the ability to apply them.

One such mechanic might be reducing or removing a unit's ability to do things if it doesn't have an officer, for example. With this mechanic, I think it's best if the unit must pick from a limited pool rather than becoming inert (a little like Epic Armageddon's restricted activation if you fail your command check).

This mechanic could be expanded to avoid the rich-getting-richer effect by allowing units that remain able to receive orders to use more of the remaining pool.

For example, assume five order tokens per turn and three units. Normally, you (the player) will assign one or two to each; but if two of your units are removed, you can concentrate your orders on the survivors; giving them all five order tokens.

This means that when you're losing, there's a balancing effect in that your remaining forces benefit from your static pool.

A potential problem with a rich-gets-richer mechanic that punishes a player for losing a leader is that the game can be reduced to assassinating the opponent's leader model.

If this doesn't end the game (as it does in Warmahordes), and causes the game to become increasingly unbalanced/very difficult to win for the leaderless player, it can be perceived as an exercise in futility.

'Okay, my leader died. I'm gacked, but it will take me another hour of gameplay to lose...This has stopped being fun and turned into a sportsmanship chore'.

I think it is more interesting when a player's options become increasingly limited, so long as most of the normally available options are about equally effective in a vacuum, i.e. there may be one or more 'best options' given the current game state, but there are no options inherently more effective across a wide variety of game states.

The reward for good gameplay becomes forcing your opponent to behave more predictably/eliminating options that you are particularly vulnerable to given the current game state.

For example, if you have a pool of leadership tokens, but can only apply the effects of those resources to certain areas of the board given various conditions, players can restrict an opponent's ability to make best/effective use of those resources. A player can then potentially re-allocate resources/shift tactics to reduce the resulting adverse impact.

In short, players should ideally be able to remain 'in the game' with at least a fighting chance. Within the context of a player v player, evenly matched game, having a dead-man-walking scenario isn't fun for plenty of players.

I am reminded of games like Blood Bowl where the outcome of a particular game can be pretty darn obvious very early on. However, in the context of a league, it can still be beneficial for a player to play with the metagame in mind. Play for a more favorable point spread, play to injure/kill the opponent's troublesome players, play for EXP, etc.

I remember fondly one time when a buddy of mine was losing a match badly and lined up his players in a really odd manner in the next drive. I asked him what kind of play he was running and he said, "This is my kill-your-star-player formation." The outcome of the match had become obvious, so he shifted tactics to limiting my options in future matches.

A simple example of leadership points (tokens) is DBA where your general rolls a D6 for PIP points at the start of each turn. One PIP is used to activate a unit or formation to move and fight.

Your amy consists of 12 elements, which can be organised into 12 units or combined to fewer larger formations, allowing you potentially to move the entire army as a single unit for 1 PIP. This would be unlikely because normally you have different types of troops that work better separately.

Anyhow, if you lose elements form your army, you don't lose PIPs. Therefore an army that has lost one or more elements, has a slight advantage in being more likely to be able to activate all its remaining elements within a single turn.

I see it as one of those modern abstractions that can very quickly ruin immersion for me if used heavy-handedly. The penultimate case would be Infinity's model activation system.

I like the method where leaders give the unit a limited bonus, eg a re roll of a single dice for their unit per game turn'
So unit with leaders have slightly more chance of success due to the experience of the leader making better decisions.
(The re roll represents the leaders influence.)
The player has a tactical choice when to use the re roll in the game turn.

If the number of leaders directly effect the number of actions a force can take , it can become too pivotal to game play, as already discussed.

Yes, if you're 'enriching the rich' for killing leaders, then I'd suggest that the leaders shouldn't be pivotal pieces (a la Warmachine, for example) unless you include a sudden death mechanic (which is what Warmachine does).

In Epic: Armageddon, leaders tend to be simple upgrades for formations that provide one or two special rules (a little like a heavy weapon upgrade in 40k) useful and annoying to lose, but far from essential.