A theory about points

[gorillanator]

I think that if you are playing in a game where the objective is destroying all the opponent's figures, that no matter what card you pick, if it destroys it's point total in points, it was points well spent.

For example:

I pick the Marro Warriors (50), and my opponent picks Marrden Hounds (90)

If my Warriors kill a Hound they get 30 points(90 points divided by 3 hounds)

So if my Warriors kill 2 Hounds then they have destroyed a total of 60 points which is ten over there total, therefore, the Warriors killed a little over 1x there point total.

An example of not picking a good army card is this:

I pick Sgt. Drake(110) while my opponent takes the Venoc Vipers(40)
My opponent's Vipers land the first turn frenzying like crazy until Sgt. Drake is defeated. The Vipers amazingly killed 2.7x there point total which means they were good points spent while Sgt. Drake was not.


Your thoughts on this theory?

[cbs42]

Well, yeah. If you keep a higher point to point kill ratio than your opponent, you will win the game (assuming it's a last-man-standing affair).

Most of my buddies and I use premade armies, so we rarely use the drafting system. It seems that the point-kill-ratio idea would be best applied in a draft situation where you can respond to your opponent's choices with units to specifically counter his. Of course, he'll be doing the same thing to you...

:D

[Jason]

This isn't always true. Raelin will almost never kill 80 points worth of figures in a game yet she is awesome. Here is another example. Say your Mimring Kills their Alistair and then dies. Point wise you are -40 but by killing him you made all their McDirk Warriors pretty crappy.

[gorillanator]

Aw your right, I thought I had something going.

I'll have to try to develop some kind of point total for synergies and things like Raelin/Taelord/Saylind

[AbducteeLeader]

Thing thing that you have to remember about counter drafting, is that even though all your units may be able to counter specific units in your opponents army to great effect, your opponent could have an army, though while all of his figures are weak to some unit in your army, work better together.

I've actually used this method of thinking to a certain degree for quite a while, but ultimately in the end it always seems to come down to who managed to draft the army that best worked together and/or who had the ungodly rolls that allowed them to take out someones entire army with just one card(<----has happened several times in our games).

So basically, what I'm trying to say is balance between counterdrafting and actually composing an army that works, it's not advisable to draft Taelord in a primarily melee army just to prevent your opponent from using the range + Tae combo, it'll ultimately hurt you in the end.

[spacemonkeymafia]

I agree with your system G'nator though I see the flaws as pointed out by others. I think that it is on the right track as points, whether drafted or premade, determine alot on the field. So a unit like dumetef guard taking out charos (extreme example) is a major blow to the charos player. But, as jason pointed out, this system breaks down when factoring in synergies like raelin (probably the best example in the game). However, this is not as broken as it appears. Raelin, by herself, will get taken down by forces much cheaper point wise. So, unit to unit comparison works surprisingly well on a point basis.

I come from a M:tG background and this is harkens back to similar analysis within that game. Cost comparison is important but only on a basic level. i still think it is a great tool and a good concept to realize. I know its simple but the framework of this argument of point-to-point unit comparison shouldn't end with the draft- it should continue into the gameplay as well as it works on a strategic and psychological level. Marro warriors taking out krug before he has a chance to really get going is a major blow to anyones army and shows inherent flaws in strategy and or die rolling (I just happen to roll 20s).

I'm glad G'nator brought this up, because I've been thinking on this as well and would like to see it advance beyond basic use (ie, the weight of synergy, etc.)

[Captain John Parker]

Florence NightenKelda might be an even better example than Raelin. Assuming she doesn't kill her patient, she is a great multiplier of killing power.

[SyvarrisX]

Yes, you have to take into account auras and stuff. More for support. Of defense.

[Mystyc]

This is confounded not just by auras and such, but diminishing returns on certain units. Killing the first Zettian Guard does more for you than killing the second, as it both removes a figure and negates their special ability. Killing an AE unit before it tosses its grenade is much better than killing it afterwards. There are other examples.

Still, it's not bad as a baseline measurement for simplification, as long as you know there are points where it doesn't quite cover you.

[Feng Shui]

So, essentially, if I kill 500 of my opponent's 500 point army and he kills 450 of my 500, I win?

:wink:

Sorry, couldn't resist. I do see how that would make sense. I can also see how I myself loosely follow this tactic. I generally go for game importance based on scenario and mid to late game, based on positioning of mine and my opponent's units. This strategy could be useful though in planning a game out.

[Fallen Templar]

This is confounded.
Wow thats a term i haven't heard in a while :wink:

[K/H_Addict]

my raelon killed 100 points last game i played. she got the final kill. i laughed at my opponent. my raelin killed Gallus, but onlybecause taelord was weaken him while she was moving in...she just happend to give him his final wound...



taelord rarely kills 180 points, but is still in every army i build,


how's this:

Tagawa samurai-120 points
They kill:
2 TVW (25 pts)
2 Legionairres (25)
2 McDirk warriors (40)
1 Alistair McDirk (110)
2 KMA (66.6. lets round to 67)
1 DW9000 (140)


EDIT: Forgot abouy the DW the killed
120 points for 407 points. (3.4x themselves)
We were using 1000 point armies, so about 1/8th of my army took out a little under half of my opponents army.

[maxdemian30]

Considering the point-to-point ratio is one of the mainstream tactics in Warhammer and W40K, but that doesn't count on the visual impact of each figure. Many expensive minis are still used because they are just cool to see in the battlefield.

[Agent Minivann]

As a general rule, I think the points spent vs points killed is a good yard stick, but Jason brings up probably the supreme example of where the general rule falls short. I'd wager in a well played game Raelin will SAVE far more than her 80 points, but she will rarely KILL 80 points. Those 2 extra defense dice are almost enough to average an extra shield.

[reapersaurus]

I agree that similar to Magic: tG, analysing unit costs is important to understanding effective HS gameplay.

Points is a flawed/incomplete way of looking at Heroscape, yet it is the most common.

Most players don't realize the costs involved in using a figure once it is drafted. In other words, drafting is only part of the game. ORDER MARKERS are the fuel that makes the army go.

If you spent 6 Order MArkers to kill 50 points of MArro Warriors with your 40 point Venoc Vipers, and he spent 1 Order MArker to blow up DW7K (100 points) and killed 110 points worth of figures, than he has come out way ahead - those 5 Order MArkers worth of moves are effectively money in the bank, giving him the opportunities of position, glyph capture, etc.

A good example of a unit that is misleading when it comes to point-cost and Order MArker requirements is Ne-Gok-Sa.
Most people look at him like "ooh! If he can do enough points of damage, he's been useful" - well, the problem is, NGS is notoriously ineffective per order marker placed (POMP). He only has a 5% chance of the Mind Control happening, so he just beats on people rather weakly most of the time.

So in a deeper analysis, not only is destroying an opponent's points important, but how many points does your unit kill per activation?

Going one step further, any unit of yours that takes up Order Markers of your opponent (say, by whethering attacks) is doing your force a service, and effectively taking away fuel from your opponent.

I hope this helps get across a deeper look at HS game mechanics - I'm glad this has finally become a discussion thread, after so long....

[CornPuff]

I really like that POMP (per order marker placed) thinking.

You could summarize by saying the winner of heroscape is the player that kills more enemy points POMP. So, by placing the defensive Ne-Gok-Sa in your army, you are reducing the enemies PKPOMP (points killed per order marker placed). On the other hand, you also sacrifice some of your own potential PKPOMP because you didn't draft the Marro Warriors and a squad of Blade Gruts.

I have a strategy article that I've been working on (its 12 pages, and not ready for the forums yet). Its based on expectation values and poker theory. Send me a PM if you are interested on helping or critiqueing.

[reapersaurus]

You could summarize by saying the winner of heroscape is the player that kills more enemy points POMP. So, by placing the defensive Ne-Gok-Sa in your army, you are reducing the enemies PKPOMP (points killed per order marker placed). On the other hand, you also sacrifice some of your own potential PKPOMP because you didn't draft the Marro Warriors and a squad of Blade Gruts.Correct.

You seem to grok the concept perfectly.

I'd look over and give an analysis article my feedback, if you wanna send it. reapersaurus @ comcast

And there's one other major area where custom creators (like OzmanStrange and recently endpawn) simply don;t realize the impact on the game of having high values on a unit.

For example, the amount of attacks it would take to kill a 8 Life, 8 Defense figure is so much larger than a 4 Life, 4 Defense figure it's not even funny.
There is a mathematical reality of Average Skulls Per Roll (ASkPR) and AShPR (Average Shields Per Roll) - this is what should be analyzed when figuring point costs, and compared to official units.
There are very few official units that have 6 or more attack dice - this is for a reason - because the attacks get too powerful in that rareified air.

For example - if I have 4 attack dice, my on-average 2 skulls per roll will bash against your shields a lot of the time. However, if I have 8 attack dice, my 4 ASkPR will effectively not have shields to work against, and basically transfer straight to Life being lost.

Heroscape is VERY, VERY balanced - it is a precious balance, that some custom designers either don;t appreciate, or are ignorant of, and therefore make blatant costing mistakes time and time again by breaking the critical threshold of too-high of attack/defense values.

With range, it just gets sicker to the extreme..... (since then you'd want to estimate how many shots they can get off on an advancing melee unit).
That's a whole other aspect of determining a unit's power - is the effect of Range.
Movement is tied in with that, too.

[shakey_snake]

Order markers a certianly a consideration when it comes to units, and a lot of people certianly don't take them into consideration, but I don't think they're the end all be all of theoryscape.

I guess because I've played a lot of chess in my day, I always see the heroscape board in chess nomenclature.
"Time" "space" "tactics" "positioning". Order markers are Heroscape's measure of time.


Plus, If I draft Ne-gok-sa, I also have Su-bak-na and 2 or more packs of hounds.

[maxdemian30]

Reapersaurus, your reflection on the trascendence of order markers was brilliant. I had never seen them from that point of view. Thanx!

[Captain John Parker]

You could summarize by saying the winner of heroscape is the player that kills more enemy points POMP.


uh..... since both sides will place the same number of order markers, doesn't your equation basically boil down to the winner of heroscape is the player that kills more enemy points? (Marro Warriors not withstanding?). I am going to dig out an old algebra book and check this out.... :D

[Captain John Parker]

I agree that similar to Magic: tG, analysing unit costs is important to understanding effective HS gameplay.

If you spent 6 Order MArkers to kill 50 points of MArro Warriors with your 40 point Venoc Vipers, and he spent 1 Order MArker to blow up DW7K (100 points) and killed 110 points worth of figures, than he has come out way ahead - those 5 Order MArkers worth of moves are effectively money in the bank, giving him the opportunities of position, glyph capture, etc.


I think I get what you are driving at but not sure I agree with your example. In your example, I am down 110 points and you are down 150 points (i.e. while my venocs were killing your marro's your DW killed some of my guys and you moved around a bit capturing stuff). Your current POMP is less than mine and unless your manuevering has put you in a position to recoup those 40 points you are down you future POMP will be less as well.

If I interpreted your example wrong and you assumed my venocs fell to your marros simultaneously and we are both down 150 points then our POMP is the same.

Since markers placed will always be equal, all roads ultimately lead back to points killed..... The flaw in the original post was that an individual unit does not need to kill it own weight in points; however the army does.

I think the point you are making is valid (i.e. the player who wrings the maximum advantage from his moves will usually be victorious); I just don't agree with POMP metric.

[shakey_snake]

Since markers placed will always be equal
Bonding?
Frenzy?
Order Markers lost to Death?
Lost Markers wasted maneuvering ineffective units?

Time is an essential part of any strategy game.
The tachometer of time in Heroscape is the Order markers.

[reapersaurus]

If I interpreted your example wrong and you assumed my venocs fell to your marros simultaneously and we are both down 150 points then our POMP is the same.You assumed wrong - the 40 point Venocs died while taking down 50 points of Marro Warriors (superficially netting 10 points) while the DW7000 netted 10 points also, but using only one order maker instead of 6.

The DW7K player is at 10 points netted POMP, while the Venoc player is at 1.66 POMP.
This completely-made-up statistic shows that the DW player is more efficient with his order markers, and therefore is probably going to win, because he has more moves to do other things (positioning, glyph capture, etc) instead of wasting them on futile abilities like Ne-Gok-Sa's Mindshackle. :roll:

[Captain John Parker]

Since markers placed will always be equal
Bonding?
Frenzy?
Order Markers lost to Death?
Lost Markers wasted maneuvering ineffective units?

Time is an essential part of any strategy game.
The tachometer of time in Heroscape is the Order markers.

Each player places three order markers per round. Unit activations may vary but order markers do not.

I understand that you can squeeze more use out of an order marker, but the PLACEMENT of markers will be equal.

[shakey_snake]

I understand that you can squeeze more use out of an order marker, but the PLACEMENT of markers will be equal.Yes, just like in chess how each player alternates. This is the sort of thing that goes without saying, unless you happen to think you're talking to Forrest Gump.
Myself and (i would assume) Reaper are talking about this very "squeezing process."


instead of wasting them on futile abilities like Ne-Gok-Sa's Mindshackle. Ne-gok-sa is himself a Melee tank. I certianly wouldn't build my army around Mind Shackle, but I consider it a plesant bonus when it does work. If I draft Su-bak-na, I almost always draft Ne-Gok-sa.

The potential that Mind Shackle has, regardless of the probability, creates enough bother in an opponent to usually distract them for a little bit.

Ne-Gok-Sa is great for free-for-all 1-on-1-on-1 battles where only strong survive.

I'm not so sure he's as weak as you play him up to be.

[Captain John Parker]

If I interpreted your example wrong and you assumed my venocs fell to your marros simultaneously and we are both down 150 points then our POMP is the same.You assumed wrong - the 40 point Venocs died while taking down 50 points of Marro Warriors (superficially netting 10 points) while the DW7000 netted 10 points also, but using only one order maker instead of 6.

The DW7K player is at 10 points netted POMP, while the Venoc player is at 1.66 POMP.
This completely-made-up statistic shows that the DW player is more efficient with his order markers, and therefore is probably going to win, because he has more moves to do other things (positioning, glyph capture, etc) instead of wasting them on futile abilities like Ne-Gok-Sa's Mindshackle. :roll:

No.... we each killed 150 points and each placed 6 markers; that is 25 POMP each side. What is missing from the example is what did you do with the other five markers. If you just randomly shuffled guys around, then we are dead even. If you got some sort of advantage, then your future POMP may be higher.

I guess where I am coming from is POMP and efficency are correlated but POMP is not causal. Efficiency is; POMP is the end result.

[Captain John Parker]

[quote=Captain John Parker]
I understand that you can squeeze more use out of an order marker, but the PLACEMENT of markers will be equal.Yes, just like in chess how each player alternates. This is the sort of thing that goes without saying, unless you happen to think you're talking to Forrest Gump.
Myself and (i would assume) Reaper are talking about this very "squeezing process."



Life is like a box of heroscape figures....

As I said in the post, I get what you are trying to do; what I am saying is that points killed per activation is not the metric which describes said effect. I don't know what the term is. Maybe it is velocity, power, efficiency, effectiveness. Maybe it is a simple twist and it is value per order marker placed. Where value could include bonding, gaining height advantage, capturing a glyph etc. I just think that saying points killed per activation oversimplifies the concept and is somewhat misleading.

[Agent Minivann]

Reaper, I like the thinking on the order markers. It's really something to think about when it comes time to draft. POMP is kind of an efficiency rating. I like Shakey's mention of lost order markers, kind of like runners left on base in baseball. I'm a sports fan, and I like reading box scores. This is right up my alley.

If I'm getting what Reaper and Captain are saying:

Reaper is talking about a placing order markers on a unit and the bang for the buck on placing those order markers. Maybe another way of saying it is unit X killed Y points in Z order markers. If the unit is very effective Y is high and Z is low.

In contrast I think Captain is looking at a whole army perspective. In a given scenario all players will place the same number of order markers. In this case order markers are a measure of time.

If I'm reading this all correctly I think this might explain where you are "disagreeing".

[reapersaurus]

No.... we each killed 150 points and each placed 6 markers; that is 25 POMP each side. What is missing from the example is what did you do with the other five markers. If you just randomly shuffled guys around, then we are dead even. If you got some sort of advantage, then your future POMP may be higher. You REALLY like to needlessly argue, don't you?

I never imagined someone would take my simplistic example, and simply because I didn;t detail what the other guy DID with those extra 5 Turns, they'd imagine that units were just randomly shuffled around. :roll:


In this example, the DW7K player would have probably attacked with his other Order Markers, therefore would surely have a higher 6-turn POMP.
Or be in a superior position, with height or glyphs, etc.

If you dont like the POMP idea, realize it is just one indicator of effectiveness. One that goes beyond the superficial "points killed" approach, that doesn;t take into account the "fuel" of HS ; the Order Markers.

The understanding of Order MArkers as fuel leads you to understand the power of Bonding, the dominance of custom abilities that grant a free turn or take away someone else's turns, etc.
Just like in Magic:tG, if someone is drawing 3 cards per turn, they WILL beat someone who only draws 1.
Similarly, if someone is taking 4 turns per round in HS, and the other guy is taking 2, the former will win.

[TheRealQ]

POMP? :lol: Don't forget circumstance. You can't have POMP w/o circumstance! :lol:

Seriously though, I think all of you are on the right track. In all situations there will be a set of variables that may be overlooked or simply not quantified. Just as the argument against a points killed per cost argument is thrown off kilter by auras, positioning, etc., the order marker thing has variables that alter the basic formula. If you simply look at the use of order markers to determine the effectiveness of the kill then you have missed half the equation. Besides killing the opponent's figures you need to move into better strategic position, claim useful glyphs, or lure the opponent. You chess players out there should understand the usefulness of positioning or a good sacrifice.

I taught my son chess before we bought Heroscape to give him a good foundation in strategy. HS has far more variables than chess therefore far more strategy. Has anyone here ever read a book on chess strategy from a grand master? Yech. How can they possibly stretch this out to 300 pages? Yet they do. And if you do read the entire thing it makes sense. If it takes 300 pages to explain chess how many will it take to expain HS...600...900? I personally wouldn't take up the challenge, but good luck to anyone who is willing to try.

As I said in the beginning, I see something right in what everyone here has said so listen and add to it rather than defy it.

[maxdemian30]

I don't think reapersaurus meant that order markers are the SINGLE strategical element of HS. Just that they are a essential part of the equation, which is absolutely correct, IMO. At least, that's how I interpreted it. Am I right?

[Agent Minivann]

Q, I think that the comparison to chess is interesting, but I think that the 300 page chess book doesn't equate to a 600/900 page HS book. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to argue with you. I just think that it is an apples and oranges kind of example. I can see how chess would take a long time to elaborate on strategy due to the complexity, but I think that HS is basically a set of basic strategic principles. Sure there are more variables, but when you break the game down it is very simple. I think a HS strategy book could be fairly short and cover everything essential very easily. Utilizing all of the elements correctly can mean the difference between finishing first and last at a tourney. The place where HS strategy would get big is if it went into example after example pounding the basic principles into you. A few would be helpful, but a lot would just kill trees. Take The Art of War, by Sun Tzu, for example. It is a very short text, but it usually comes packaged with a translator's commentary and a plethora of historical examples. Someone could use Sun Tzu's work as the framework for a HS strategy guide. The one that I have that fits in a shirt pocket is 114 pages and I could read it in about an hour (and I am a slow reader).

[CornPuff]

The real difference between heroscape and Chess is that chess is deterministic. That actually makes it easier to think ahead. Of course it doesn't make chess easier, becuase your opponent can always think ahead further.

Another place where HS is clearly different than chess is in terrain. It would be so much easier to write strategy for "The forsaken waters" then for any map anyone thinks up.

Anything with risk is not simple. Just read a good book on Hold'em.

Just my $.02

[Agent Minivann]

CornPuff, I read this line "Anything with risk..." like this "Anything with Risk..." and I'm thinking "No, I think Risk is pretty simple."

I like the mention of Hold 'em. I haven't read any books, but there is a strategy to that game that is very complex and difficult to implement. It isn't just the probabilities and the chance of the game, it is the ability to read opponents. I would imagine there are poker players that could not look at their cards and beat the average joe.

Also about chess, the thinking ahead that you mention is what separates the men from the boys.

[CornPuff]

Heh, did you ever see rounders? I would imagine there are poker players that could not look at their cards and beat the average joe. Your quote perfectly describes Matt Damon's character. Good movie.

Anyway, at lower levels, holdem is hard. You can calclulate card rank, probability to get your straight , and pot odds all day, and still be faced with a very tough choice between call, raise, or fold. Even at basic levels, you have to be able to guess what your opponent wil do. I agree the analogy to Heroscape isn't perfect, but in both games you have to maximise the expectation value of your actions, or you can't hope to win in the long run.

Remember when Kasparov beat Deep Blue? crazy. Maybe its more crazy that nobody can beat Deep Blue anymore. At least computers still suck at Go and hold'em :-).

[Agent Minivann]

Never saw Rounders.

You just reminded me that I've had Go on my list of games to learn for as long as I can remember. My dad had Go, but he didn't know how to play. Talk about missed opportunity.

[UranusPChicago]

I will just add my two cents to the equation by supporting Reap's high level assessment of Order Markers.

There have been plenty of discussions on this site (and HQ, and .NET...) of how one unit matches up against another. There has even been debate on how terrain strategies affect the outcome of a game (to the point that some people try to eliminate that element by creating totally symmetrical maps, sorry, I had to get that jab in :D ) But what gets lost in a lot of the discussions is how important Order Markers and Order Marker placement is to the outcome of a game.

Essentially Order Marker placement should be dependant on "how can I get the biggest bang for the buck per Order Marker". And this is of course assisted by out guessing what your opponent thinks will give him or her the biggest bang for the buck on their Order Markers.

I have won many games with possibly inferior armies, but with better Order Marker management. One simple way to look at it is that a unit's point value increases and decreases per round by how many Order Markers are placed on it. If a unit has 3 Order Markers placed on it in a round, that equates to a minimum of 2 activations that round. That unit's value to the game has increased for that round. It also decreases the value of the units in the same army that don't have Order Markers on them.

At this point, your attack strategy can go one of two ways. Either eliminate the unit with the most OM to effectively remove some opportunities for the enemy army to attack or go after the "defenseless" units that have no OM on them knowing they won't be able to attack back that round.

Of course, all of this strategy comes into place "after" everyone has placed their OM. Nothing bugs me more than when an opponent sits and waits to see where I have placed my OM before they place theirs. (I ususally pay them back by killing their army quicker. :wink: :twisted: )Sportsmanship, people!

So, without getting into the point per Order Marker stuff, you must understand the importance and strategy of the Order Marker in order to be consistantly successful at Heroscape.

[TheRealQ]

I haven't denounced the value of order markers but attempted to point out that it is still only one little variable in a sea of variables when you play HS. Off the top of my head I probably come-up with a dozen variables with a dozen subvariables per. I am all for exploring all these avenues in order to better educate all players, including myself, but I can't help but think of it as a daunting task. Even though I may have sounded negative in an earlier post it wasn't meant to prevent someone from taking on the task as much as it was to commensurate with the future headaches and mental anguish they will surely suffer...and a little bit of it was me trying to avoid helping. :oops:

But thats what pharmaceuticals are for. Right! If you guys really really want to pursue a strategy guide I would be willing to help. Albeit, someone would have to double-check anything I do to make sure I don't look like this :footinmouth: ; not to mention a translator to simplify anything I say. (can't help it, this is the way I think)...(yes, yes, this means I argue with myself and sometimes lose) I would happily limit myself to whatever secondary role you may need. (I'm a very good proof-reader) But I wouldn't be able to take on more than a few hours output a week. It might be best to not have me suggest material though if you want to keep it down to the size of a handout. I mean, just look at this stupid post it just goes on...and on...and on... See what I mean, who would want to read that.

I think I might need sleep.

[Agent Minivann]

UranusPChicago I can't help but think of your profile avatar from HQ whenever I see your posts. Then Jeff Foxworthy comes to mind. After exorcising those thoughts I agree with your post. Thankfully I can't relate to the schmo waiting until I've placed my order markers, as I mostly play my son, and he places markers without looking up. I think there are lessons from chess in strategy relating to markers. Be very aware of opponent's order marker placement and use that consideration to your advantage, like you outlined. Use the strategy, or the strategy uses (and abuses) you.

[Bannister]

On a bit of a side note, we alternate the placement of our order markers after a D20 roll. This way everyone has a chance to observe what everyone else is doing, without that one guy waiting.

Now back to your normally scheduled thread.

Bannister

[reapersaurus]

I think there should be something that blocks your view of the opponent's order markers until after initiative is rolled.
I know I'll now let the Tournament (Kublacon) players know they have this option.

[reapersaurus]

bump. :D

[netherspirit]

Thats one heck of a bump! Almost 2 months!

[MartinDWhite]

The underlying point of the original post (IMHO) was to allow for that player to make better draft decisions in the future.

I think that to evaluate the usefulness (relative value) of one unit vs another unit, one needs to keep a record (a long record) of the success or failure of that unit and who it has killed and who has killed it on a per player basis (any the rest of the contents of the army).

By keeping the log over many games on many boards it would relagate the effects of height, bonding, and other bonuses to those that are usually achived the character and should thus be considered part of the character for evaluation purposes.

By keeping it by player you elimiate the variance that is introduced when trying to evaluate a character as used by anyone.

This simplifies the "equation" to one of historical evaluation rather than prediction based on qualities of chacters.

With nothing more that the "kill who/who killed" log for all characters one could rank them, in manner simial to the original post, by points killed per points spent. This would result in showing which characters were (for a given player and that players skill) the best use of the points spent.

This ranking would tell the player several things about the characters they have used (and the way in which they have used them).

This ranking would point out which units were under utilized and which were best.
This ranking would point out which characters were shyed away from an should be tried more.

If the list were cross ranked based on known synergies between characters it would show which synergies were most effective and which were not as effective. (ie if the zettian were fielded in a game with DW9K was the player good enough to keep them together or did the zettians do as well without DW9K?)

If these logs were compiled for a large group of players (ie heroscapers.com players that all choose to keep this info) then all the info could be compiled and a realistic look at the cost success ratio of characters over a larger player group would give a good idea of the usefulness of characters in a much more general sense. It would also allow a player to compare thier individual usefullness of a character to the 'average' usefullness of that character.

My point is that to truely study the character usefullness (or effectiveness, or whatever word you want to use) it takes a lot of data about past play.


On the other hand....unless one is willing to go to all of this trouble of logging games and actions, it seems the simple post game "my XXX points in unit YYY killed you ZZZ points in unit AAA. hahahah." is the most time effective solution.

Martin D. White

[MegadeV]

Your theory is basically sound, but as pointed out by others, doesn't work for everything. I typically judge the more attack oriented units in my armies by how many points they kill per battle. If I draft Jotun or Braxas, I know they need to kill at least their points worth to justify the pick. It's their job to destroy the enemies. But if I draft Taelord, he doesn't have to kill 180 points worth of armies to be worth the pick.

There are some units that I would probably draft more, but historically, they just haven't killed enough to make me want to use them. For example, I will rarely use the orcs because the few times I've tried out an orc-based army, I got slaughtered without coming close to killing their points worth.