Is that unit worth its points?

[wriggz]

This post was inspired by customs, but because it relates to how armies operate (and it will get very buried in the custom section, I’m putting it here. So I have been lurking around the C3V and SoV threads a while and I noticed the same “concern” arise regarding the competitiveness of some of the new figures. Every time I read “costs too much” or “not enough attack/defence” I cringe. Why is it some people feel every unit has to be a superstar? Well, let’s see if we cannot find out.

The Great Bomb

Let’s try a thought experiment. What if there was a unit (The Great Bomb) that after revealing your X maker you rolled the D20 and cost 10 points. If you roll 1-10 all your opponents figures are destroyed. If you roll 11-20 all your figures are destroyed. Would anyone draft it? A guaranteed win 50% of the time, what could be better? What if I gave you a 25% chance of winning, or even a 5% chance? I doubt anyone really would want this figure floating around, but I bet everyone would draft it so they could activate it if they saw there was no way to win. Everyone would need The Great Bomb “just in case” your opponent had one. The Great Bomb would ruin the game completely and there would be no reason to get better at the game.

What does this have to do with the cost of various units. Well The Great Bomb is just an exaggerated version of all the new units added to the game. It is a very tricky thing adding a unit into the mix without disrupting the current metagame. Think of it like an ecosystem. Sometimes adding one new species can totally disrupt the ecosystem and in some cases making the whole thing collapse (see rabbits in Australia). That’s exactly what The Great Bomb would do to our game leaving a desolate wasteland. It may seem like a long jump from one extra attack dice to the Great Bomb, but it is not as far as one may suppose.

Variable Army Composition

When building an army regardless of method, we are putting together a group of units that is capable of defeating our opponent. That is no small statement. Regardless of the units you choose you always have the potential of defeating your opponents army (except in weird situations like all Arrow Gruts on a flat map versus Warforged). The point is no matter how bad a unit is perceived to be, it is capable of pulling off a win due to the fact that the game mechanics included dice. We have all heard stories of a single Arrow Grut taking out DW9000, heck I once ran through half my opponents army with only Isumu and a bag full of luck. This luck factor is what makes this game so enjoyable (to me at least), since even the best player may lose due to a few bad rolls.

Getting back to the opening question, is a unit worth it points? Designers, playtesters and even players really need to balance more than just the stats on the card. How does a power effect your decisions on how to build your army? Do you include the unit, or include a way to counter that unit? Strong units will be included or countered often, while weak units will be forgotten. But, just because a unit is forgotten doesn’t mean it cannot win, it just may face a more uphill battle when it does. The key is to look at a unit and consider if YOU want to play it and if YOU can win (assuming that matters to you).

So yes some units cost more, but the more competitive a unit is the closer it gets to becoming The Great Bomb neutralizing all the other possible army compositions. So although a unit may seem to cost more than it should, it is important to remember what would happen if that unit was lower costed. There is often a point where a unit is so low costed that competitive players have no choice to either include it or counter draft it “just in case” it comes up against them. Sure there are some units that are already skirting this line, but that does not mean we should add to the problem.

A few great examples are considering 10th or 4th, Romans or Greeks, and Dreadguls or Gladiators. A lot of people consider one a poor mans version of the other. The key is to realize they are just different. One may be slightly better than the other, but there are times you want to play more melee, be more spread out or bring a freaking giant to the battle. Each one has the potential to win against the other, but if the cost is not correctly disbuited (say 20 point romans) than you have no choice but to pick the 'best' one if you want to win.

So the next time you are building your army, don’t only draft based on what a unit normally does, but rather what it has the potential to do. In my experience building an army like that may not garner as many wins, but does generate a lot more enjoyment and develops skills at a much faster rate.

[Heroscaper Guy]

Great post Wriggz. I feel this is what's happened to Deathwalker 7000. People seem to only read the bomb part and miss the 7 dice stealth dodge which gives him pretty much immunity to range. With the Zettian infantry handling melee and him handling range it's a pretty good combo and not worth a F ranking in my opinion. In fact I think I'll run that next tournament.

[Foudzing]

The thing is:
10th is better than 4th Mass against melee.
Greeks are better than Romans on some maps where you can't clump up your units.

But I really don't see a situation where the Raiders are better than the Gladiators.
Unless they roll 4 consecutive charges.

It's same with the skeletons, but, I really don't want to speak about them.

And unfortunately there are not the only VC squads in this case.

[Heroscaper Guy]

Originally Posted by Foudzing

Following your logic, Runa is surely the best unit ever.

My logic or Wriggz? I agree that Runa needs help but I don't think Deathwalker does. I just think he's misplayed mostly.

[Foudzing]

Originally Posted by Heroscaper Guy

My logic or Wriggz? I agree that Runa needs help but I don't think Deathwalker does. I just think he's misplayed mostly.

It was Wriggz logic but I misunderstood Wriggz point (bad read ) and edited my post.

Also I don't think trying to put back bad units in the game is not a good way to create new units.
It does fail very often and when it works it leads to very specialized army and very blocked builds.

And even if this last two squads are not very good, this is not their balance that saddens me so much.
It's the fact that their powers consists only of bonding and subtracting/adding dices (and a existing power).

I hope next release will show something more "sexy".

[greygnarl]

Overall good post wriggz, but arguing against competitive units isn't right. Some units are better than others but making units to be a nonthreat isn't the way to go. Sure Isamu can beat Hulk, but there's a reason 1 costs 370 pts and the other only 10.

As for Foudzing, you can't think of any situation where you'd take Dreadguls over Gladiators? If the Steamroller is a good build I'd say Raelin, Guilty, and Raiders could best it one on one.

[ZBeeblebrox]

Great post Wriggz!

[wriggz]

from Peter Olotka creator of cosmic encounter:

One thing that emerged from the design was that it created situations that WERE NOT FAIR. So I have added that to the list. It would not be fair.

FAIR IS BORING.
NOT FAIR IS FUNNY AND SURPRISING.

Chess is fair, this is Heroscape

[Heroscaper Guy]

Originally Posted by Foudzing

It was Wriggz logic but I misunderstood Wriggz point (bad read ) and edited my post.

Also I don't think trying to put back bad units in the game is not a good way to create new units.
It does fail very often and when it works it leads to very specialized army and very blocked builds.

And even if this last two squads are not very good, this is not their balance that saddens me so much.
It's the fact that their powers consists only of bonding and subtracting/adding dices (and a existing power).

I hope next release will show something more "sexy".

Except that was done all the time in the original Heroscape releases. Krug and swogs helped arrow gruts, Capuan Gladiators helped the gladiators, blastatrons helped gladiatrons, etc.. I'm not seeing your point about it failing. The game will never be perfect in every unit is in one power ranking group I believe. We can try and get it close though by making it at least C or higher though.

[Dad_Scaper]

Wriggz, you're exactly right, of course.

I'm very, very happy you're back, and interested in the C3V and SoV.

[Fi Skirata]

Good post Wriggz!

I can say (with experience, having to balance figures cost with HoSS) that it is hard to make sure you don't disrupt the meta-game.

What most people don't seem to realize (or just seem to ignore it) is that point costs are generally best determined through averaging.

If a figure gets an X average after Y (Y>3 at least) amount of tests then you are going to base your points somewhere around X. Depending on the figure, you will make them lower then by 10 or so points (mainly if their big power/use involves some risk taking) or 10 or so points higher then X.

Also, without C and D units there would be no fun. How many times have the good moments in scape come from a win with the underdog? I myself remember playing a game and having Dund win. He was the only figure left my opponenet (my younger sister) had against six Heavy Gruts. She rolled a 16 for Crippling Gaze and managed to kill three Gruts at once. She then rolled a 20 the next round and cleared out the rest of the Gruts, winning with only one wound (caused by Tornak earlier if I'm remembering correctly).

I would like to end with this; Heroscape is a game that is meant to be fun. If you go to tournaments, you don't want to bring a randomly thrown together army and of course you want to win. However, sometimes it can be more worth it to just build a fun army, with some synergy but also that mixing of units that no one would expect. Sometimes this can become an unpredictable concoction of awesome sauce that throws your enemy off and allows you to claim a shining victory!

[Kroc]

Originally Posted by Fi Skirata

... If a figure gets an X average after Y (Y>3 at least) amount of tests then you are going to base your points somewhere around X. Depending on the figure, you will make them lower then by 10 or so points (mainly if their big power/use involves some risk taking) or 10 or so points higher then X. ...

First of all, great post wriggz, and thanks for the insight.

I do want to clarify Fi Skirata's point carefully. These Y tests should be in the best environment for this unit. For example a hero like Shurrak should be tested on a lava map (Knockback + Lava Resistant). A squad like the Greenscale Warriors should be tested with all the best dragons. This is what makes it particularly hard to cost units, and the reason that custom designers should shoot for developing B units at best.

This is the basic problem with customscape. A unit can't be measured on its ability alone, like wriggz says it needs to be costed for the best environment for that unit. That best environment will often depend on the other units out there--the great fullness of customscape.

So you develop a unit that's a C in the current environment. Then someone comes along and develops a complimentary unit and now your unit is A. For example, imagine a unit that would make every other unit in your army have a valiant personality. 4th Mass Amok! We can't have that, and gosh. What if they just didn't think about the 4th Mass? I know, that would be particularly hard, but just a while ago I was looking at a custom that added +2 to every undead dice roll. He was thinking about the skeletons but what about the Shades? This is one reason I don't use customs. (I also can't get the sculpts). Why all of these projects are so wraught with peril.

Be careful out there you guys.