Dwarf racial vs Elf racial (calculations included)

OK so explain... Run is a -1 in your calculations. So are you trying to equate the difference in steps (Run has 3 steps/Dash has 4 steps) to the difference in HP? I mean, are you just trying to go straight across from steps to HP? I don't think that Card Hunter is that simple. I mean, you are basically saying if someone has Sprint in their racial skill somehow that they have just lost 2 2/3 HP. I think that if you are trying to explain the HP difference by using the number of steps each character gets in a game, you are inevitably going to find a problem. The number of steps is fixed but the HP is based on level, so are the cards available.
It's an interesting idea though.

 

Thanks!
Yup, it is not that easy to equate movements to hps.... but it is required if we want to compare how much better traits are compared to moves....
That is the main problem as people are saying how much better blind rage is (or any other dwarven traits are), than a movement.
I made blind rage a 0 hp trait and movement negative hp. (if you don't like my values, you can change the values around)
Because the possibility of drawing both cards are too low blind rage is not much better than run.

 

I think my biggest issue with this math is that the numbers that you are hypothesizing would fluctuate heavily with the meta. On maps where characters start far away from both each other and the victory points, moves become more important. On maps with lots of impassible terrain separating players, moves become more important. On maps with vast open areas, where characters always have LoS, moves become less important. On maps with large amounts of difficult terrain, moves become less important. On maps where starting positions tend to be 2, 3, or 4 spaces away from strong strategic locations - good cover or good LoS - the corresponding move card becomes stronger. I know that I enjoyed playing elves on Barrel Battle because of their ability to hop straight into several good cover points on the first turn in one move, regardless of starting position. Conversely, one of the reasons 3DC worked so well is because you're about 1/2 as likely to get hit with an attack from a warrior once you get out of range 2, which a dwarf can potentially do in a single move.

The HP swing influence by moves could probably be calculated, but, as you mentioned, the math would be insanely complex. It would also be rapidly changing, as we switch from mapset to mapset, meaning elves could be better one month, and dwarves better the next. Trying to argue that dwarves are universally better regardless of the current mapset seems a bit off to me.

The more that I think about it, though, I don't know if your numbers for HP swings on moves is anywhere near correct. You don't lose hp swing by having move cards - rather, you lose potential cards with higher hp swing values. Think of it in terms of averaging the HP swing values of each card in your deck - Walk doesn't lose you HP, but it will lower the average HP swing of all the cards in your deck.

If you are going to use this math, though, I would be curious to see you run the numbers on Escapist as well - Slippery is a card which makes you immune to terrain attachments, guarantees a move free of encumber effects (and could potentially push one off), and has strong tactical value (potentially allowing vampire priests to start turns adjacent to enemies, re-positioning behind foes to avoid blocks, or forcing enemies to chase down wounded characters). Because, on top of all that, it is also a trait, I would think that it would not only add positive value by it's own right, but also increase the value of the other cards in the deck via deck-thinning.

Finally, an interesting, but self-serving, thought experiment: Two human characters have ten card decks. One contains 3 Parry, 3 Vicious Thrust and 4 Walk. The other contains 3 Parry, 3 Dancing Cut, and 4 Run. They fight on an open field. Which would you rather play?

 

This thread is very entertaining. While all your math based on hypothetical numbers is shaky at best, the assertion that elves have better skills is a very difficult one to defend. Faux math aside, the best Dwarven skills are better than the best Elven skills. I know I confront your faux math with faux facts (opinions), but here is my best explanation of why Elven skills have nothing on Dwarven skills:

I stubbornly play an Elf warrior in MP, even though I know a Dwarf would probably be better. For me it's a personal flair/role-playing thing. I feel like I have figured out a way to make an Elf pretty good and am very familiar with their skills. Although there are some great Elven cards on those skills (Slippery is superb, Elvish Insight is excellent, and Pathfinding can fetch you two Nimble Strikes) and Elven skills have many good movement abilities (I adore Dodge, and Quick Run is pretty nice), no Elven skill bundles three great cards together the way Dwarven skills do. Apprentice Ferocity and Raging Battler are ridiculously good tokenless skills that pack 3 amazing cards for no cost. I use an Elf wizard in SP that plays no Elven skill at all rather than play one of the terrible tokenless ones available to me. Elves get black cards with hard drawbacks to get past (good thing you have all the extra moves to run away when you dump your attacks to Coward), while Dwarves get "drawback" traits like Blind Rage. Even what is perhaps the best Elven skill, Escapist, comes with a crummy Walk. Contrast that with Advanced Ferocity, probably the best blue token Dwarven Trait. There is not a mediocre card on it!

Also, your maths are all created in a vacuum and do not take into consideration the current Nimble Strike-dominated Metagame we have. This is probably the most significant reason Dwarves are preferable to Elves. The move cards that come with most Elf abilities are unnecessary in a deck that plays Vibrant Pain and/or Lochaber Axe. The stubby-legged dwarf equipped with these items need not lament his sluggishness any longer. He has absurd mobility. Why would a similarly equipped elf want the extra move cards that accompany nearly all his choices for racial skill?

Any math you bring in to the picture is going to be questioned when it fails to jive with assessments any good insightful player is going to make about the cards in question. If your point is that 8 extra hit points is more of a reason to play Dwarves than the skills, I might be with you, but the fact is that they are both good reasons to shop at the Short and Small clothing store.

 

Illkill, you are basically trying to prove that, based on the 4HP and racial move differences between races being equivalent at the current Level 18 MP, that one set of racial skills is better than the next. You can't do that. I'm sorry. It won't stick at different levels, and it doesn't prove anything (factual) for racial skills. It's interesting.

Also, let's consider two dwarf skills: Charging Battler VS Raging Rock. Let's ignore the Toughness and focus on the Blind Rage. If you put these skills on a dwarf warrior where there are, for example, 18 desirable attacks cards (where 50% or higher are step attacks) out of a 30 card deck (let's use a 2-trait martial skill and a trait from Crusty Helm) then we have: 18/34 cards that are desirable to draw with blind rage; also those 18 cards now deal 2 extra damage; VS 18/36 cards. The latter is a smaller % but must be taken with a grain of salt because it doesn't count if you don't actually draw the trait first. Effectively, it is only 18/35 (not 18/31!) unless you draw more than 1 trait. That being said, it really isn't that unlikely to draw traits, even on your first turn.

If you sample games where on a given turn the Blind Rage is drawn, it immediately: Draws you a card. Now, that right there is important no matter what. Your racial move (Walk) doesn't actually accomplish much. You need cards from your own deck to win. Secondly, after attaching Blind Rage, for the remainder of the turn you deal more damage, and with a >50% chance of drawing an attack card each turn (or more) the effect amplifies. Also, if you can draw concurrent traits like Immovable or Impaler, each one is increasing your odds of drawing an attack card (in general) by a very small amount, but that's not even really significant.
Can I prove that drawing cards is better? Yes, I can. Anyone can. But can you prove that drawing cards (due to traits) increases or decreases your character's HP somehow? That is a lot harder, and despite your effort I don't think that your method is perfected yet. It's complicated.
Lastly, you should consider that despite your Dashing that you could end up only moving 1-3 squares due to enemies or difficult terrain. Sometimes that 4 squares is irrelevant.

@inkfingers, that is an interesting thought experiment. It seems like the advantage lies with the Dancing Cut and Run. That being said, I think with so many movement and so few attacks, it would all come down to HP and who attacks first. Either character can perform a back attack if they meet on an angle. Otherwise, if one character has no parry/attacks, they are going to have to run or fakeout to survive. I think that this is why there are Victory locations on MP maps. If the game was more focused on killing your opponents, we would see a few more elves.

Agreed.

 

Squishiness - You can run, but you'll just die tired.

 

I think my first issue with the math is that (I feel) the interlocking "values" of the cards should be geometrically related, not combined with simple multiplication. Similar to Runs Created (Wikipedia link, baseball).

Another, more serious issue of course, is that the values selected for the individual cards are basically arbitrary. In reality, the value of every card is dependent upon every other card with which it could be drawn in combination. The cards do not have a fixed value.

To use a baseball analogy, a Home Run is more valuable in a high batting-average environment. A Home Run on its own is worth one run. If there exists a high probability that there will be one or more runners on base, then a Home Run is likely worth more than just one run. The Home Run becomes a more valuable event than if it existed in isolation. It's the same basic event, but it's weighted differently depending upon the context.

 

Thanks, I agree that run shouldn't be negative in terms of strength. I'll adjust all values, making run a positive effect, and also increasing the average of the whole deck.
For the second problem, it depends on the court size and what your opponent is playing. If the opponet is playing warriors, I will definitely choose Vicious Thrust as it deals more damage. We are both close range and whoever has more damage wins. If the opponet is playing mages however, I will consider dancing cut if I can't reach him, because 4 damage > no damage.

 

Ok guys.... I edited everything to remove bias you say I'm making. Now I'm not even comparing specific items but 1 skill with 2 average skill 1 positive trait(with the same advantage as using run, which means it is pretty good). Also, I removed the 1/3 difference between steps and just use run.

 

I think elves have some of the best individual skills (slippery, pathfinding) are both amazing (particularly in nimble strike builds where you get rid of extra moves and cycle), but dwarves have the best items for their racials AND they have the most hp. I think generally the extra HP > the extra movement because Nimble Strike is so overpowered. I'm not sure elves need an HP change IF nimble strikes would be fixed.

 

OK, good job Illkkill. Your OP makes a lot more sense now.
I agree that the HP increase between races is worth much more than the default racial move card and I don't see that changing; but overall I believe that Dwarves has access to very well-rounded Racial Skill items whilst every Elf Skill is plagued by excessive movement, and most human skills have some iffy cards as well. Currently there is enough movement through Nimble Strike and Winds of War that other races can get around just fine.

 

The OP may make more sense, but he's deleted the post that the comments refer to.

The "right" way to do it is to leave the OP alone and make a new "OP" down in the comments.

 

Sorry I already deleted my data and can't put them back.... Plus, my original post basically have around the same calculated difference between elf and dwarf.... Around 0.8 Something difference.... The reason why people don't like the post is because I try to equate hp increase of specific cards.... And I say run gives -1 hp increase when in fact it is still a positive effect.
The end result of both is around the same.... My new post just instead removed bias by not using specific cards...

 

What you have done is a little obscure, but it is an interesting exercise and it does show that HP>movement for the races, and also that Trait>Move cards. Again, good job.