<p>This is called <strong>first in wins</strong>.</p>
<p>See for example <a href="https://kevingnunn.com/2014/05/16/bottom-up-scoring/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this article on game design</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>First in wins.</strong>  Markers placed later are considered to fall behind those placed earlier.  The only way a later player can get ahead is to exceed the previous count. This is generally best if the game has a start player disadvantage.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is in a broader class of tie-breakers favoring efficiency, which one author categorizes as <a href="https://kanga.nu/%7Eclaw/blog/categories/game-design/index-1.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">epsilon tie-breakers</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The efficiency argument and even the game balance factor are a restatement of the epsilon argument addressed above. The game balance point is perhaps a little more subtle, but in essence is the same as the many majority/plurality games which state that the first one in is the default winner of the contest (eg Medieval Merchant, Die Neuen Entdecker, etc): another phrasing of epsilon.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>(which I found interesting because of the default formulation of this rule: &quot;first one in&quot;, a form of &quot;first in wins&quot;)</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-01-25T17:08:10.350Z
Thanks, that's great! Is there any other source that confirms that this phrase is used by others as well?
Greg Martin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-01-25T17:54:11.623Z
Not that I could find. The term (and its opposite) are also used in concurrency programs like signal passing and databases -- that's where the rest of the hits go. But really, it seems like a relatively obvious/shallow mechanic, at least as far as needing a name goes (obviously it can lead to deep strategic choices), so (re)using a straightforward descriptive tag seems logical. It was the term that came to mind when I entered my search (so I searched for it in quotes).
L. Scott Johnson
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-11T20:13:15.067Z
@GregMartin A similar mechanic that is regularly used in a lot of other games (usually in things like attack systems) is known as "Defender Wins".
Man_Over_Game
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-01-25T12:43:05.710Z
2021-01-25T18:59:44.777Z
2021-01-25T18:59:44.777Z
L. Scott Johnson
<p>I'm hoping to find a common general terminology for a mechanic I have encountered in several board games.</p>
<p>As an example, here's an excerpt from the rules for <a href="https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/245655/kings-dilemma" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The King's Dilemma</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>At the end of your voting turn, if you are now the player with the <strong>most Power [tokens] on your Vote</strong> (no matter which side you chose), you <strong>immediately</strong> take the <strong>Leader token</strong>. Do <strong>not</strong> take the Leader token if you only <strong>equal the highest bidder</strong>’s amount of Power [tokens].</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The general idea is that, if you have (say) 3 tokens on the space I want to control, it's not enough for me to put 3 of my own tokens on it; I have to put 4 or more to be in control. And if I do put 4 tokens on it (thereby gaining control), it's not enough for you to then add a 4th token of your own—you'd need to bring your total number of tokens up to 5 or more to regain control.</p>
<p>Is there a general term for this mechanic?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-01-25T03:42:22.240Z
I had a look around and couldn't find a name for the mechanism. I agree that it shows up in plenty of places (e.g. the Longest Road and Largest Army cards from Catan). If I had to name it, I'd pick something like "Must Overtake the Leader" I guess?
ConMan
<terminology><mechanics>
What is the general name for this particular game mechanic?
Greg Martin
# What is the general name for this particular game mechanic?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-01-25)

I'm hoping to find a common general terminology for a mechanic I have encountered in several board games.

As an example, here's an excerpt from the rules for [The King's Dilemma](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/245655/kings-dilemma):

> At the end of your voting turn, if you are now the player with the **most Power [tokens] on your Vote** (no matter which side you chose), you **immediately** take the **Leader token**. Do **not** take the Leader token if you only **equal the highest bidder**’s amount of Power [tokens].

The general idea is that, if you have (say) 3 tokens on the space I want to control, it's not enough for me to put 3 of my own tokens on it; I have to put 4 or more to be in control. And if I do put 4 tokens on it (thereby gaining control), it's not enough for you to then add a 4th token of your own—you'd need to bring your total number of tokens up to 5 or more to regain control.

Is there a general term for this mechanic?

**Tags:** terminology, mechanics

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I had a look around and couldn't find a name for the mechanism. I agree that it shows up in plenty of places (e.g. the Longest Road and Largest Army cards from Catan). If I had to name it, I'd pick something like "Must Overtake the Leader" I guess?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2021-01-25. Score: 5 | Accepted answer

This is called **first in wins**.

See for example [this article on game design](https://kevingnunn.com/2014/05/16/bottom-up-scoring/)

> **First in wins.** Markers placed later are considered to fall behind those placed earlier. The only way a later player can get ahead is to exceed the previous count. This is generally best if the game has a start player disadvantage.

This is in a broader class of tie-breakers favoring efficiency, which one author categorizes as [epsilon tie-breakers](https://kanga.nu/%7Eclaw/blog/categories/game-design/index-1.html):

> The efficiency argument and even the game balance factor are a restatement of the epsilon argument addressed above. The game balance point is perhaps a little more subtle, but in essence is the same as the many majority/plurality games which state that the first one in is the default winner of the contest (eg Medieval Merchant, Die Neuen Entdecker, etc): another phrasing of epsilon.

(which I found interesting because of the default formulation of this rule: "first one in", a form of "first in wins")

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks, that's great! Is there any other source that confirms that this phrase is used by others as well?  
> **username_2**: Not that I could find. The term (and its opposite) are also used in concurrency programs like signal passing and databases -- that's where the rest of the hits go. But really, it seems like a relatively obvious/shallow mechanic, at least as far as needing a name goes (obviously it can lead to deep strategic choices), so (re)using a straightforward descriptive tag seems logical. It was the term that came to mind when I entered my search (so I searched for it in quotes).  
> **username_3**: @GregMartin A similar mechanic that is regularly used in a lot of other games (usually in things like attack systems) is known as "Defender Wins".  

---

