Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

2. Your Units Cost Points but they have no Value

Lemon Knuckles

231 views

Nothing like a provocative title to kick things off.  But sometimes the most important theoretical tool is the sledge-hammer.  Sometimes old ideas have to be dismantled in order to create space for new points of view.

Part of what I’m going to say grew out from the soil of discussions like this one.  At stake in that conversation (which turned surprisingly passionate; so much so, that the mods had to intervene and yellow card the group) is the question of the relationship between a unit’s point cost and its value, and the relationship of that relationship to notions of fairness and balance.  I was sympathetic to some of the assertions being made by both sides, but also deeply unconvinced by their conclusions.  Resolving the problem, I think, requires looking beneath the surface and seeing the flaws in the foundational assumptions upon which the whole thing rests.  The results have relevance to this blog and our efforts here to create a theoretical framework for Age of Sigmar.

"We might say, the colour of the ghost is that which I must mix on the palatte in order to paint it accurately.  But how do we determine what the accurate picture is?"--Wittgenstein

One thing that everyone in the conversation agreed on was the fact that value (i.e. “tabletop value”) is contingent.  Where people disagreed was on the claim that because of the fact that value is contingent, points, which are generalized, can never be “accurate” or “balanced.”   

A good example used in the discussion was the Bloodsecrator.  How does one correctly cost Bloodsecrator given the “overwhelming” number of possible variables that could affect the computation of an ability like Portal of Skulls?  The value of its +1 attacks component would not be the same if used to buff 10 Bloodreavers than if used to buff 80 Bloodreavers, etc., etc.  Taken as is, problems like these seem unsolvable.  But push the contingency of value to its extremes, and the assumptions underlying the problem become untenable.  

 What is the difference in the value of the buff if the 10 Bloodreavers and the 80 Bloodreavers are both used successfully to take out a unit of 10 Skinks in a single combat phase?

Even more to the point, let’s crystalize as many variables as possible to really flush out the contingency of value.  The game is in the second turn of the fifth round and both players are tied on victory points.  Player A has a unit of Skinks remaining.  Player B has a unit of Bloodreavers and a Bloodsecrator remaining.  The Skinks and Reavers are engaged in combat at the start of the turn.

  • If the Skinks are holding an objective and the buff from Portal of Skulls is needed to ensure that the Reavers will inflict enough damage to outnumber the Skinks and take control of the objective, then its value is absolute since it is a decisive element for winning the game.
  • If the Skinks and Reavers are locked in combat 9” away from the objective, then the value of the buff is zero since the Reavers need to retreat from combat past the Skinks and onto the objective in order to win.  The combat itself is irrelevant.
  • If the Bloodscrator is equipped with an artefact and starts the turn 7” away from the objective and the scenario is, say, Places of Arcane Power, then the value of the buff is absolutely negative, since activating it will prevent the hero from moving to claim the objective and win the game. 

There is nothing specifically unique about the Bloodsecrator in this example. The notion of the contignecy of value applies to any unit in the same way, and to the same possible extremes. The issue is not that abilities like Portal of Thrones are “complicated” and produce computational challenges; it is rather that questions of value are theoretical in nature, not computational, and that the domain of value is composed of actions and their consequences, not the units themselves.  It is very often the case that nominal differences in calculated output yield no difference in theoretical value at all.

Unlike value, points represent the investment required to obtain the capacity to do things; they represent a currency used to purchase resources.  Points strive to create balance not through high-fidelity prediction of in-game value, but by creating an economy where access to key resources is restricted by a budget and a rational pricing scheme.  I use points to invest in the capacity to create value in-game through intelligent play, but that capacity is not itself the value.  Value and points are different things and are expressed in different languages.  I consider it a design mistake whenever a battle-plan or a tournament ladder uses kill points as a scoring mechanism.  Not because it isn’t “fair” (i.e. some armies will be better predisposed to offensive tactics than others), but more importantly because it serves as a poor heuristic for good gameplay.  A strategy focused on forcing favorable exchanges of points is better than no strategy at all, but it is nonetheless a flawed strategy.

Once we decouple the concept of value from the concept of points, we are free to rethink the game in a more theoretical way.  My approach here will be to strip away everything down to its absolute foundational principles, and then proceed to slowly rebuild it, bit by bit, blog by blog, using only what flows naturally from these roots.  

So here comes my second provocative statement of the day:

 Age of Sigmar can be reduced to just three essential components.  Everything else (everything!) is derivative.

The first two essential elements are Time and Space.  All notions of what we call Value derive from these two elements. The third essential element is Variability, which is an irreducible characteristic that governs the nature of play in the game.

Derivative from Time and Space are the three essential capacities available to players as a means of generating value.  The first is Presence, which represents a scalar investment in Space.  The second is Pressure, which represents a scalar investment in Time.  The third, Projection, is really a component dimension of Presence and Pressure by virtue of which these capabilities can be mobilized to contest an opponent’s Time (in the instance of Presence) or Space (in the instance of Pressure).  We can say in purely abstract terms that Pressure attacks Presence, and Presence attacks Projection.  In practice, our access to these capabilities is mediated through units (and the abilities, spells, effects that these units can mobilize), and all units necessarily contain some magnitude of Presence, Pressure and Projection.  There is no such thing in actual game terms as “pure” presence, pressure or projection, although theoretically it is sometimes useful to think of them in pure terms in order to better understand their nature.

Time, Space, Variability, Presence, Pressure and Projection.  Six essential building blocks from which we hope to construct concepts useful for better understanding the game, and from which we hope to derive strategies to help better evaluate between the different choices that present themselves to us in game.  



5 Comments


Recommended Comments

Great post. I particularly like the concepts outlined at the end of Presence, Pressure and Projection. As true in the real world, if you can't project, you cannot maintain pressure or presence and thus unlikely to achieve your aims. Sometimes it is the feeling of Pressure and Presence through the means of Projection that can be enough to generate a favourable outcome. 

Keep up the great work.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I disagree: capacity is value. And Points are the resource  you invest to generate value. Without capacity there is no value, so there is no reason to invest points.

a unit without value can never generate value no matter how intelligent you play. Also comparative value rises or falls if two mostly identical units have the same value for less resources.

Also value expotentionally rises with sinking points.

 

decoupling points from value is a mistake imo.

 

 

overall the only thing I mind about your blog-posts is the length. Shorter is better 🙂

also a Short and clear definition of used variables like „projection“ and what you mean by it in this context would be favorable. For example: I don‘t know what you mean by presence in this case. The way I see presence the entire argument you are making is wrong, also you cannot invest in time. Also time cannot be contested.

maybe I think too practical but the second half of your post does not seems logical and therefor diesn‘t Make sense to me. You seem to be trying to combine two distinctive elements: the player and the game and then you try to break them down to it‘s essential components - this approach is wrong imo. You can either break down the game or the player and afterwards combine the essential components of both.

Edited by JackStreicher

Share this comment


Link to comment

I feel that your view on points vs value is missleading in so much as you're not actually arguing against that concept. What you are proposing is that the "value" of a model within the game is not a simplistic concept and is made up of more than one component. So I feel that you're agreeing with people in that there is a "value" for a unit and that points aim to represent that, but that you're disagreeing with their interpretation of what that value is and the components that comprise that value. 

Now I'd agree with that. One can sit down and use probability theory to get a general idea of unit performance, but even when that is done at a simplistic level its very clear that performance can be related to so many elements during the game. Position, relative position to other elements (eg auras and terrain types); stat modifiers etc... There's a huge amount that can affect the resulting outcome of a units performance.

Heck just leave wargames and go to computer games and compare real time battling with auto resolve in something like Total War. The pure number crunching without tactics, (ergo position etc..) clearly shows that a stark contrast in results can be achieved; with a heavy bias that good playing can typically result in improved results. 

 

I'd caution you against provocative approaches. They can be attention grabbing, but at the same time sometimes can confuse the issue as you say one thing, mean another and then end up half doubling back to almost what you were saying to start with. Ergo you can leave someone (esp a newbie) more confused at the end than educated. Though I appreciate that this article is more an introduction and filler than the meat of the discussion. 

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

@JackStreicher, @Overread

Capacity is capacity.  It is the potential to generate value.  The string of a bow is capacity.  If I notch an arrow, pull back on the string, aim at my neighbor and then release the string, it may or may not have generated value, depending on how you feel about my neighbor.


Look, I am painfully aware that I am swimming upstream here.  But the sledge-hammer metaphor is sincere.  Words are not the things they refer to; words only define what we are allowed to think about the things they refer to.  Creating the possibility of thinking about things in a different way necessarily involves reframing the meaning of certain words.  For example, if you understand time as what’s on your watch, what I said about presence, pressure or projection is not going to make much sense.  It would be hard to even understand how that kind of time could ever be an essential principle of AoS.  But what is time in the context of the game?  Allowing yourself to understand it differently, opens up the possibility of seeing the game differently.


I don't promise anyone that the effort will be worth it.  This may fizzle out, or run head-first into a wall.  I don’t know yet where the implications of these concepts will lead.  I will try to unfold them better and more clearly each time, and count on people like you to keep me honest.  Appreciate the feedback!
 

Share this comment


Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×