Consistency vs. Variance in Ability

[The_X_Marker]

Note: I am not asking for the power rankings to be looked at and reviewed. This is merely a thought experiment, showing my own personal thought process. If you wish, scroll to the very last two sentences, rather than read, as that is more of the issue at hand.

Many tried and true armies do play consistently. Under the right hands, and guide, armies have come about that are near unbeatable by unconventional means. These armies feature units that always perform consistently, as well. Rats do their one job, they do it right, and they rarely deviate from that. Q9 and the stingers do their job with great reliability as well. Raelin is always consistent in her abilities and usage.

Of course, that does show true on paper. The dice gods are fickle, giving and taking good rolls as they please. One whiff from Q9 on a four skull roll by a marro drone with height spells disaster. Isamu can assassinate Raelin within two turns, and always has an escape plan. These power units can almost all function as a self, without the group, however, each is enhanced by the group. These units are completely consistent in what they are to do. There is no game changing planning if a roll goes awry, with the exception of Order Marker dedication. A lost Q9 might mean that stingers become the offensive force, if both are in an army.

When a certain time comes, the cleanup begins. Kaemon Awa is a consistent cleanup figure. He does the job the same way, with little regard to circumstances.

However, a select group of units can change the whole game with a single good die roll. The D20 is the worst invention of the marriage between luck and skill in the game of HeroScape.

Indeed, stories of how a squad of Anubians cleared a map with a single 20, or how a Ke-Mo-Shi mind shackled an opponents Sir Gilbert, do come to the forums then and again. They also tell stories of the 2 on Stinger Drain, the 19 on Eternal Hatred, and the multiple failures of other high variance abilities, these failures that cost the game.

There must be some connection between consistency and variance that is a sweet spot. On its face, HeroScape is a game of luck first. Die roll after die roll decides fates. It is the skill of the player that determines the best use of this luck, or unluck. So, any unit can have high variance, even a Deathwalker 9000, on extreme height, backed by Raelin, with +3 defense in glyphs can whiff. Astronomically small chances happen. Murphy's Law, and all of that.

While one player can say that Q9 mowed down hordes of units, another might say that he died in two rounds. I've seen heavy inconsistencies in many A+ and top tier armies. Perhaps it is only me. Perhaps not.

If a unit could change the whole game with one good roll, why should it be relegated to a lower rank? It's just as capable as any tier 1 unit at changing the game, if not more so. Look at Deadeye Dan. With one good roll, he can destroy any figure. So why is he rated a C+?

Next, look at Cyprien. He's a great standalone figure. Sure Chilling Touch is high variance, with a greater percent of nothing or not enough happening, as opposed to the famed one touch freeze, but he is great. A perfect draft alongside him is Sonya, who boosts his variance ability, by adding two to the roll, effectively adding 10% chances of something rather than nothing, and something more rather than not enough.

This boost, paired with her own ability has gained her a B+ position. Su-Bak-Na, who boosts every one of his brethren, with a boost of just 5%, is placed in the B- rating. On paper, Su-Bak-Na seems like a better unit. More life, more attack, his size is more advantageous, and he boosts 11 figures to Sonya's 1. Sonya only wins on point cost.

Why this slight discrepancy in rankings? It seems that that extra 5% boost Sonya gives to a figure outweighs the boost given by a figure that can beat her in a one on one match.

Is 5% really that much? Apparently so.

So, this means that there must be a sweet spot where variance is trumped by the units consistency. Cyprien is a higher variance unit that does perform consistently. Chilling Touch averages at 1.05 wounds, or one squad kill and one health regenerated. Chill has a 40% chance of at least one wound. So, does that mean the sweet spot is consistency in 4 out of every 10 games? That doesn't feel high enough.

Why then, does the Glyph of Lodin get fought over as much as many other glyphs? That 5% couldn't be that great. Unless it was just a boost to a boost. Adding Lodin to Sonya gives Cyprien a 15% boost to his rolls. 15% is huge, especially when it means an 18-20 is an instant kill, if not heavy damage. If Su-Bak-Na could achieve this extra 5% boost that Sonya has, on top of a glyph of Lodin, would he change from a B- to a B+? I believe so.

This means that the 40% sweet spot might actually be 55%. This means that an army should be more consistent in over half its games, 11 out of every 20 to be exact.

This too, feels low.

Look at the Marro Drones. You always move 50 points worth, unless it is the last one or two. A 3/3 3 member melee squad with 6 movie, at just 50 points, is probably going to be consistent enough to warrant a C+ or B- rating. Even the Einar Imperium netted a C, although they're 140 points with just 5 move.

The Venoc Vipers are a higher variance unit that sees much play, at least where I've played. With a 25% chance of Frenzy, they have been known to carve swaths of destruction into armies with 5 or 6 frenzies in a row. They also make great bomb and area damage fodder, as their variance can cause more harm than good.

Could it be said that there is no sweet spot in, variance, that gives enough consistency, and it is more so, a figures ability? Is that the reason that the highest variance figures, with the most game changing abilities, see the dusty shelves more than the figures that can consistently power through a game?

At what point do you figure for yourself that a unit that is consistent outweighs a unit of high variance? When does this variance really start to affect how consistent an army is?

[Agent Minivann]

I think a lot of it has to do with determining how good of a unit it is without the power that has high variance. Some of it is just a matter of perspective. Look at the unit as a consistent unit, but every once in a blue moon it has some bonus ability that you don't have to count on. For example Ne Gok Sa could be seen as a meat shield with no powers. That odd time he hits on a mind shackle is an extra you don't rely on.

[The_X_Marker]

But does that stand for every figure?

There are units of high variance that are drafted regularly, which do perform consistently. Cyprien comes to mind. He has a higher chance of doing less than he does of doing more, especially when facing another hero.

Sure, he is able without Chill, but that is one of the most used D20 abilities, competitively.

Ne-Gok-Sa is more than able without Mindshackle, however, Deadeye Dan is seen as a lesser unit, even though their d20 abilities are the same. So, it does seem to come to stats first, then move to variance, just as you stated.

For other people, as well, when is a unit of high variance too high variance, and under what conditions does that unit outperform units of high consistency, at least for yourself?

I enjoy units of high variance. Anubian Wolves are a favorite of mine, and three armies that I am testing for IslandScape all use a d20 power, that may or may not swing the battle in my favor.

For me, the ability to destroy the best laid plans of your opponent, with that 5% chance or 10% chance of it happening, is the greatest feeling.

My favorite glyphs, though, interestingly enough, are ones that increase consistency. Attack Glyphs and Defense Glyphs, both of which help a unit survive and deal damage better trump Lodin, in my book, even though Lodin gives me a 5% better chance at doing what I enjoy best.

[kolakoski]

Well met!

From the Power Rankings OP:

EDIT: Rankings are based upon usefulness in 400-600 point games against what someone might expect to play in a tournament setting. At this moment, units that can deal with lots of squads and huge heroes have a bias toward higher rankings. The meta-game might (and probably will) change some day, but this is the way it is currently. Furthermore, rankings are based upon the fact that everything works in averages. For example, Ne-Gok-Sa's Mind Shackle doesn't "never work," it works 5% (barring Su-Bak-Na, Lodin glyph) of the time. Similarly, Dund's crippling gaze isn't worthless, it just doesn't work 70% of the time. Lastly, rankings are also based on competent players playing competent opponents. For example, a good player won't let me march Sudema right into her starting zone to stone Raelin to death. Rather, she will shoot Sudema, tie her up with rats, or just do something that's generally counter-productive to what I'm trying to do.

I understand that, over time, low variance wins. If winning were all, you'd see Q9/Hydra/Rats x 3, or variants thereof a lot more often. I like to include units that are a bit more swingy, like Sonlen, for example. And it's such a joy to watch your opponent squirm to avoid Kee-Mo-Shi. Now we have Elaria the Pale and Myrddin to mitigate "swinginess" a bit. The fun for me is to field an army that is competitive (containing a preponderance of consistent units), plus one or two less predictable units, whose opportunities to get lucky at the right time I maneuver to maximize.

[MegaSilver]

Cyprien's way up on the list because of 8 move + Stealth Flying. Chilling Touch before attacking is just icing on the cake. He is also priced perfectly at 150 points.

[The_X_Marker]

Perhaps he was a bad example. Or a good one, that also Illustrates Minivans point.

Cyprien is a great example for high variance unit comparisons.

What would it take for a unit like Deadeye Dan to see as much play as Cyprien? Would people prefer he gets stat boosts to make him more standalone, or a d20 boost, so he is guaranteed to kill one unit per activation?

I know that I am asking a lot of questions, but this is a thought experiment.

For me, DED would need higher defense, 3 maybe, and deadly shot.

If I was just boosting his D20, I'd change it to be more like Grimnaks Chomp ability, while keeping it a special attack.

Of course, these would probably increase his points to near 100.

[MegaSilver]

Or you could just have him costed at 30 points. He would certainly see more play. Points also has a great play in usefulness; if a unit has a good point value it is sometimes worth the risk to put them in there, even if they don't necessarily perform well that game, they would still most likely be worth near their points.

[vegietarian18]

Me-Burq-Sa and Zetacron are good example of a high variance, low cost figures that see plenty of play. They both can fall to a single strike from nearly every figure, but the potential assassinating capability that both of them possess makes them worth it. They also have tons of synergy (especially Me-Burq-Sa), so they can serve as filler that fits into your army as a normal component.

[happyjosiah]

Originally Posted by The_X_Marker

This boost, paired with her own ability has gained her a B+ position. Su-Bak-Na, who boosts every one of his brethren, with a boost of just 5%, is placed in the B- rating. On paper, Su-Bak-Na seems like a better unit. More life, more attack, his size is more advantageous, and he boosts 11 figures to Sonya's 1. Sonya only wins on point cost.

You say "only on point cost" as if it's such a minor thing, but we are talking about a difference of 115 points! That is the real reason for their different power rankings.

Originally Posted by The_X_Marker

So, this means that there must be a sweet spot where variance is trumped by the units consistency. Cyprien is a higher variance unit that does perform consistently. Chilling Touch averages at 1.05 wounds, or one squad kill and one health regenerated. Chill has a 40% chance of at least one wound. So, does that mean the sweet spot is consistency in 4 out of every 10 games? That doesn't feel high enough.

This is a serious logical error. Chilling touch has a 40% chance, yes. But that does not translate to "4 in every 10 games" unless Cyprien only rolls for Chilling Touch once per game! With his stealth flying, he can gain the high ground in almost every attack, probably deal at least a wound, and have a 40% chance to deal another. And every time he deals a wound, he heals!

Originally Posted by The_X_Marker

At what point do you figure for yourself that a unit that is consistent outweighs a unit of high variance? When does this variance really start to affect how consistent an army is?

We discussed this topic quite a bit in the "What is Balanced?" thread. I think one of the most interesting concepts was the "God Ball". It is a theoretical unit with no attack, no move, no defense, no range, and 1 life. It's special power is to roll a d20. On an 11+, you win the game, otherwise you lose the game. The point was made that this unit is technically "balanced". It gives a 50% chance to win the game. But how would you put a point value on it? Essentially, Heroscape figures are costed by the POTENTIAL they have to be game-changing. Sudema, Morsbane, Ke-Mo-Shi, etc. are "feast-or-famine." This is why they will never be at the top of the rankings. Yet, if their point costs were lower, in certain games they would be completely broken. This is why tournament armies tend to favor units that are low on d20 powers and high on synergy. More bang for your buck, in terms of points.

[Rÿchean]

In addition to the other replies the phrase "in a tournament setting" should not be overlooked.

Units that are considered consistent usually show that consistency over a 4-5 round event; units with high variance usually show that over 4-5 rounds. Since most events require you to win all the games you play to become the overall winner, high variance units lose out. Over the course of 4-5 games they will usually fail you at some point, and that failure often means a loss which prohibits you from being the overall winner.

Lastly, power rankings are someone's opinion. I have never fully agreed with the rankings, and I never will. Yes, they do have some value but I have always felt the rankings by spider and now jexik carry far too much weight around here. (don't kid yourself into thinking it is the community's opinion and that the discussion creates a consensus, it doesn't; if it did DED would have a slightly higher rating but spider/jexik feel strongly about their assessment of DED and have been unswayed by the debate.)

[kolakoski]

Originally Posted by Rÿchean

In addition to the other replies the phrase "in a tournament setting" should not be overlooked.

Units that are considered consistent usually show that consistency over a 4-5 round event; units with high variance usually show that over 4-5 rounds. Since most events require you to win all the games you play to become the overall winner, high variance units lose out. Over the course of 4-5 games they will usually fail you at some point, and that failure often means a loss which prohibits you from being the overall winner.

Well met!

That might be perceived as a reason for my going 4-1 and/or finishing second in every tournament I've entered, given that I always play something requiring a little D20 luck. But Heroscape would be just another wargame without a little such action.

[happyjosiah]

Originally Posted by Rÿchean

In addition to the other replies the phrase "in a tournament setting" should not be overlooked.

Units that are considered consistent usually show that consistency over a 4-5 round event; units with high variance usually show that over 4-5 rounds. Since most events require you to win all the games you play to become the overall winner, high variance units lose out. Over the course of 4-5 games they will usually fail you at some point, and that failure often means a loss which prohibits you from being the overall winner.

Lastly, power rankings are someone's opinion. I have never fully agreed with the rankings, and I never will. Yes, they do have some value but I have always felt the rankings by spider and now jexik carry far too much weight around here. (don't kid yourself into thinking it is the community's opinion and that the discussion creates a consensus, it doesn't; if it did DED would have a slightly higher rating but spider/jexik feel strongly about their assessment of DED and have been unswayed by the debate.)

I guess I need to give ol' deadeye another chance.