Thinking Like a Pro: Value
I was playing a game of Silver Age recently with a new player when he blocked my Bare Fangs (for 8) with a Scar for a Scar. I asked why he had done this, instead of keeping the Scar for a Scar to attack with, and he commented that he thought he shouldn’t take all 8 of the damage I was presenting as it amounted to almost half of his life total. I told him he should view each turn as a puzzle to do the most total damage threatened and prevented and we continued to play, but I contemplated to what extent the advice I gave was an accurate encapsulation of the optimal approach, and what other caveats would need to be given, in time, to help guide my friend to optimal Flesh and Blood gameplay.
What is the Value Framework?
You may have heard people refer to value and been confused about what precisely they mean. Indeed there have been multiple different usages of the term, so I will lay out what I think is the most useful definition and the one I will use for the rest of the article. Value, as it pertains to Flesh and Blood, is a calculation of how much damage is threatened + prevented and is a tool to measure the effectiveness of particular turn cycles or lines of play. This measure gives, as players, an easy way to compare options within the game and, thereby, to decide which to take.
An early piece of advice sometimes offered is to use (or convert) all the cards in your hand each turn cycle such that you always draw 4 new cards at the end of each turn. This is an early allusion to the concept of Value, as by following this advice a player ensures they get at least some value from their hand. But this article will take the next step asking how to get the most value from each hand.
Why use value?
When evaluating how to utilise a card, say the Scar for a Scar mentioned at the start of the article, the player has the option to defend or to attack with it, (or to pitch, but let’s put that to the side along with the rest of their hand for now) so how should they decide which to do? The value framework lets us assign a number to each option–defending with Scar for a Scar prevents 2 damage (and so is worth 2 value) while attacking with it threatens 4 damage (and so is worth 4 value). Thus, we have an answer: it is the higher value play to attack with the Scar for a Scar.
Now, let’s expand this scenario by putting more cards in the player’s hand. We can imagine they have drawn a hand containing: 1 blue Barraging Brawnhide, 1 red Head Jab, 1 red Wounded Blow, and 1 red Raging Onslaught while being attacked for 8. Upon drawing this hand, we should consider the ways of playing it, which involves deciding what combination to play, pitch, and block with the cards and adding up the total value of each play. A newer player must first develop the skill to rule out obviously inefficient plays, assuming each card can be played, pitched or blocked there are 3^4 or 81 different ways to play any hand (though not all are valid i.e. one is pitching all 4 cards, but to what?) so they don’t want to be spending precious time evaluating by rote all the obviously wrong options, but the value maths gives guidance both in eliminating these inefficient lines and in deciding correctly between two compelling ones. Action points are the most typical constraint in a Flesh and Blood turn cycle so it’s good to consider what the best use for your action point will be as an initial filter to narrow the options. In the example hand above, the real decision point for our player is whether to use their action point to play the Wounded Blow or to play the Raging Onslaught (assuming they’ve chosen correctly to attack with the Head Jab).
Option 1: Playing the Wounded Blow converts 2 of their cards on offense for 7 and we must block with the other two cards to get value from them for a total of 5 damage prevented, giving a total value of 12.
Option 2: By contrast, playing the Raging Onslaught converts 3 of their cards on offense for a total of 10 and they block with the Wounded Blow for 3 giving a total value of 13.
This is very over-explained but I wanted to give a robust account of the procedure I describe before I get to evaluating it. I think this is the dominant framework to evaluate what line of play one should take though it as of yet does not have an account of the arsenal.
Arsenal:
When considering lines that involve arsenaling a card you will need to assign a value to having the card in the arsenal. This is less precise than the damage threatened + damage blocked equation, but you should attempt to evaluate the average amount of extra value you will get from a future hand from that card being in your arsenal. With some cards this is easy–a Shelter in arsenal is quite likely to be worth 4 damage (more if it stops an on-hit effect). For other cards it is more complex. Consider Felling of the Crown; its value in the arsenal depends on whether or not you will have the material to decompose with it, if you will have enough earth cards in banish for it to attack for 8, and how much the decompose effect is worth (especially if it will affect you as much as the opponent).
It is important to realise that not all cards in arsenal are worth the same, I have sometimes heard people attempt to account for the arsenal in value frameworks as being worth 3, but this is inaccurate as some cards are worth more than others. For cards that don’t require an action point to use their value should be simpler to understand, as it is the value of playing them (a blue Sigil of Solace is worth 1, a blue Buckwild is worth approximately 2 as it requires a blue, likely coming at an opportunity cost of 3 value as the blue could have blocked 3, and does 5). Where it is more complicated is for cards that cost an action point and thus come at the opportunity cost of playing another action point costing card. Typically, a card similar in quality to the rest of your deck will be worth 3 as it will let you block with (or otherwise convert) an extra card than in a similar turn cycle without an arsenal (e.g. normally to play a Burn Bare from hand Verdance will block with 2 cards but with a Burn Bare in arsenal they can block with 3 cards). But when considering the value of arsenaling a card better than most of your deck it allows you to not only convert an extra card but also your turn is likely to be higher value than it would have been otherwise, so that arsenal can be estimated to be worth 3 + the amount of extra value playing the arsenal is than the average card in deck. By contrast, arsenaling bad cards (such as blues) is worth 3 - the amount worse the card is than the average play of your deck.
Win Rate Expected Value:
Now that I have sketched the rough account of what I mean by the value framework, I will briefly defend its merit. In truth, your goal in any game of Flesh and Blood should be to make whatever play gives the best chance to win, properly described as maximising win rate EV (expected value), but this can be incredibly hard to quantify. By comparison, the value maximising action is quite easy to find so the concern instead becomes how good of a proxy for win rate EV turn cycle value is. I contend that it can be quite good, or more precisely that it is a strong foundation, and the challenge is to understand the additional factors that contribute to a win and be able to combine them with the value maximising action to decide what play to make. For example, in a dual axis game in which both players are worried about losing by death or by fatigue, if you identify two lines which trade off between value and cards in deck, understanding value gives an accurate description of how much you give up to keep those extra threats in deck.
In this way, Value serves as a measure of how much it costs (in turn-by-turn efficiency) to gain an advantage not represented by the value framework. By understanding how much efficiency is given up, players may better evaluate mitigating factors and whether or not they are worth prioritising. In the subsequent sections I will breakdown some of the factors that ought to be considered in addition to the Value Framework.
Life Total Thresholds:
One (and perhaps the most common) caveat to impact value maths is when you approach certain life total thresholds. These tend to be matchup specific (e.g. you don’t want to let your life total dip to 9 when your opponent is piloting Verdance), though there is a general principle at play that transcends matchups. The damage your opponent presents will not all be efficiently preventable. By going below a certain threshold, you will be committed to start blocking inefficiently if you don’t end the game in sufficient time. To give an example, consider the game state colloquially known as Kodachi lock, though it is almost never value maximising to block Kodachi swings, you are forced to just so you don’t lose the game. Decks that present breakpoints (like Harmonized Kodachis) give your last few points of life more value because they allow you to remain efficient and respectful of your Value Framework. To put this concept to practice: suppose you are playing a Katsu mirror in WTR limited. You are at 5 life when your opponent sends a red Wounding Blow and you have three red Head Jabs and a red Wounding Blow while your opponent is at 7 life. If you choose the value-maximising play (take 4 from the Wounding Blow and attack with all three Head Jabs and the Wounding Blow), you likely lose as you go to 1. At that point, any zero cost pitch card (or 4-power attack) kept by the opponent forces you to block two cards. That’s Value speak for: they can grind you down. By contrast, you can instead take a line just one point of value worse by blocking with the red Wounding Blow. This play gives you soo much more future flexibility because it leaves you at 4 life, meaning you aren’t soft to breakpoints.
Life thresholds can also apply in other ways, particularly when facing combo decks. Take Oscilio, as an example, into a deck like Cindra. She has little armour and doesn’t block well. If you are in the Oscilio seat, you can be reasonably confident that if you manage to execute a Gone in a Flash + Lightning Greaves combo turn with an arcane source, you will kill them if they start the turn at or below 30. This isn’t necessarily because they will die during the combo turn, but rather that it will do enough damage to force them to block with a majority of their cards to avoid going into Shock range. At such a point, you should have enough space to kill them with your next hand. On the flip side of this particular case, you are incredibly unlikely to win the game without executing such a combo turn. Therefore, for the Oscilio player, damage threatened past the point Cindra is below 30 has less conversion to Win Rate EV than damage prevented, meaning it’s correct to prefer blocking even to a reduction in total value.
On-hits:
On-hit effects are another element external to the Value Framework of damage presented plus damage prevented, although it’s not completely divorced from it. Your opponents’ on-hit effects are comparatively easier to account for as you, as the defender, have the ultimate say on whether they end up occurring or not. So, you need to consider how much value they will produce on average and subtract that from the calculated value of any line that lets it hit. For example, on an opponent’s attack with a red Infect, letting Infect hit will create a Bloodrot Pox token which will usually do 2 damage (because it’s usually more efficient to take the 2 than pay 3 resources). Thus, lines that let the Infect hit ought to be 2 or more value better than an alternative line that blocks out the Infect to account for the on-hit.
The same principle applies to on hits with harder to account values like Snatch where it must be considered how much the card drawn is likely to convert for, based on questions like if the attacking player still has an action point, or do they have an empty hand and arsenal zone letting them arsenal the draw, or do they have Snapdragon Scalers and will be able to give Snatch go again in the case it’s going to hit. Despite the added complication it’s usually relatively simple to consider the net effect of the card they draw (Cindra for example is very likely to draw a 0 cost 3 or 4 power attack due to the composition of their deck so the snatch on hit is usually worth between 3 and 4 provided they can convert it with an open arsenal or go again of their boots).
Harder to account for is the Value of the on-hits you present as you don’t know if they will be blocked out or not. An easier case to consider is the effects of Felling of the Crown or Plow Under, both of which have effects that could easily be on-hits (Command and Conquer, Boulder Drop) but trigger on play instead. This means that, to account for their value, all one needs to do is come up with an expected value of the trigger, considering the amount it will worsen your opponent’s turn (on average) and the chance they can ‘dodge’ the effect (e.g. having a Sigil of Solace in arsenal vs Plow Under). While dependent on more factors, a good shorthand might be to expect the value of Felling to be 3 as it will take the worst card in their hand and Plow to be 4 (when they have an arsenal) as the defending player doesn't get a choice.
It’s even harder to account for the value of on-hits when you consider the possibility of being blocked out. That goes double when you consider that,even if an on-hit is blocked out, it may still have gotten value if it induced your opponent to take a line that’s worse for them. For example, attacking with a Command and Conquer when your opponent has an Everbloom/Life and an Autumns Touch (red) in hand and a Sink Below (red) in arsenal still results in the on-hit being worth 1– all other things being equal, your opponent would have preferred to take 6 and attack with those cards for 1 additional point of value, but instead is compelled to block with them to prevent the destruction of the Sink.
Thus, we can see that the value of on-hits presented is not binary but, rather, a spectrum. It’s not always about whether or not you can get them to connect. Sometimes, constraining your opponents’ play can be enough to assign value.. The optimal approach to factoring on-hits presented would be to correctly evaluate the full range of outcomes (the probability distribution of the amount of value the on-hit will be worth), but this can be impractical. So, a good estimation of this process is to consider the profile of the opposing deck and how it’s likely to interact with your card. For example, if the damage presented is in the form of a breakpoint for your opponent, they are likely to have to overblock or take it, so it is very likely to end up extracting value by presenting it. Breakpoint in this context is subject to your opponent’s deck composition. 4 may not function as a breakpoint against decks with lots of 4-block defense reactions, like Fate Foreseen. Additionally, we must consider the opponent’s armour. Do they have armour that will let them cleanly cover the attack and further, do they have enough armour that using some here is unlikely to have an opportunity cost, or do they have little enough such that, if they give it here, it will make your future on-hits better?
Another question to ask yourself is: how much better, typically, are your opponent’s cards when converted on offense rather than defense? Some decks, like Cindra and (dagger) Mario, have many 2-block cards that attack for 4. Decks like Verdance and Florian, on the other hand, often already need to block with two cards each turn cycle as they have good two card plays, but typically run many 3 block cards (like Everbloom//Life) that are worth less than 3 value if forced to play them as part of a large hand. By having a good understanding of your opponents decks you will be able to evaluate if it is correct to prioritise presenting on hits over absolute value, which helps guide sideboard and gameplay decisions.
How to Block: Unknown Information
The amount it is possible to efficiently block is dependent on what the opposing hero attacks with. To complicate matters even more, oftentimes one must start to make blocking decisions before they have full information about their opponent's hand. This is one of the really tricky situations in FAB as it requires knowledge about what the opponent is likely to do. Take for example a Florian who has two Germinates, an Enlightened Strike and a red Cadaverous Tilling in hand, and a Felling of the Crown in arsenal (with 3 Earth cards in Graveyard, and no Earth cards in banish). They are facing a Cindra who started their turn with only two cards and who’s first attack is a Ronin Renegade for 3. If the Cindra has another attack they intend to play then the Florian’s best line is to block the Ronin and the other attack with a Germinate and the Enlightened Strike and attack with the Tilling, but if the Florian attempts to do this by blocking the Ronin with a card they risk the Cindra arsenaling their last card and leaving the Florian with an additional card in their hand they cannot utilise.
To find the right line, a blocker must always ask themselves: how do I insulate myself from being stuck with unwanted cards? The first step is to ensure that each time a 3 block is defended with it is the one that leaves the best hand if the opponent were to stop attacking. In the example above, it is easy to realise that both cards in question should block, but the order in which they block is vital to prevent losing value to carelessness. In the above case, this is done by blocking with the Enlightened Strike first so that if the Cindra does pass, the extra Germinate can be pitched to Grasp of the Arknight to at least generate some damage. Instead, if the Germinate is blocked with first, the Enlightened Strike would not contribute any damage to Florian's turn.
Another way to handle these types of situations is to, in cases where it is reasonably likely you will not be able to block with all the cards that optimally convert on defence, factor that in and find ways to play which are not overly dependent on blocking. In the given example (assuming Cindra attacks with both of their cards), if the Florian does not block and plays the E-strike (choosing the go again mode) into the Tilling, it is only 1 point worse than blocking with the other two cards, and it is 1 point better than blocking with the E-strike and being forced to pitch Germinate to Grasp. All things considered, blocking the Ronin risks being -1 if Cindra arsenals for the reward of being +1 if Cindra attacks. So, if the probability of Cindra attacking is greater than 50%, blocking is better expected value. Vice versa if Cindra is greater than 50% to arsenal. The game of Flesh and Blood is made all the more interesting because the Value Framework, while useful as a guide, does not always point to the correct play on its own.
Making your Opponent Convert:
Believe it or not, sometimes the best thing you can do in FAB is absolutely nothing. Some decks are very good at utilising their full hand without needing to block and others struggle considerably. Therefore, in certain matchups there is additional value in taking lines which do not give your opponent the opportunity to block. Take Verdance as an example, not many of their cards are able to be used for value without costing an action point, meaning while they have very high value plays they can only do one each turn. Therefore, Verdance often needs to block with their remaining cards to achieve their maximum efficiency. In addition, Verdance runs many defence reactions which further compounds the issue of not being able to effectively utilise their hand on offence. This means that when deciding between a line that presents damage and one which does not, the one that does not offer the Verdance the chance to block ought to be given some additional weighting beyond its baseline value.
One typical play pattern where this can come up is when Verdance attacks with a Felling of the Crown for 8 and decomposes it. Especially if the defending player did not have an arsenal, and the attacking one does, it can be quite appealing to bottom a card to Felling, block with 2 cards, and arsenal whichever was the best card in the defending player's hand passing turn without attacking at all. Although this is likely to be a couple of points worse than taking all 8 damage and attacking back with the cards you have left consider the likely outcome of each possibility: if we send back an attack Verdance is likely to defend it with (at least) 2 cards, taking little to no damage and send back their best 2 card hand. Alternatively, blocking and arsenaling gives the defending player 6 extra life and there is a high chance the Verdance does the same amount of damage in their next turn. Even if they have an Everbloom//Life or Fruits of the Forest the 1-3 extra points of life the Verdance now has because their opponent did not attack is still less than the 6 extra health their opponent has due to blocking.
On the flip side there are also considerations that can be made from the perspective of the deck that may struggle to convert: they can try to avoid plays which give the opponent the opportunity to block out, or try to set up an arsenal that will make it possible to convert. This can be done by choosing to block down to a 2 card hand, even on the occasions it’s possible to fully attack (e.g. better to block with your Enlightened Strike and extra 2 block for 5 rather than attack for 5 go again so your opponent doesn't simply block out). It can also be done by choosing to defend for an extra 4 with a Sink Below in arsenal the turn cycle you play a Felling despite usually preferring to wait for the Sink to have extra value denying an on hit or sculpting the hand, by having an empty arsenal the turn Felling is played if the opposing player does block out and pass then it’s easier to get value from the next hand by gaining an arsenal.
Decks with this problem often sit on the other side of the spectrum to decks that struggle with on hits, by taking these two points in connection it is possible to conceive of decks as sitting on a spectrum between struggling when forced to block, and when forced not to block. I prefer this framing to the classic, but ill-suited to Flesh and Blood) aggro,midrange,control labels as in reality most flesh and blood decks are just attempting to maximise turn cycle value, but there are substantive differences between decks based on if they want to block or not in order to achieve that value. Understanding this can be the key to successfully exploiting the opposing deck's weakness.
Head Jabs vs Sigil of Solace: Game Speed
Which deck, in a game of Flesh and Blood, wants to extend the game, and which wants to expedite it? One way to consider this question is to ask which deck has higher value turn cycles on average and which deck starts with more initial Value. A deck’s equipment suite, hero ability, and weapon(s) are all factors that can contribute to turn over turn Value (for example: Cindra’s Flick Knives is likely to do 1 damage each turn, and her Mask of Momentum is likely to get value each turn either by drawing a card or by constraining opponents’ hands with the on-hit). Initial Value, by contrast, should include things like the total block value of all their armour, and if they have any ability to push damage turn 0 or force damage at the end of games, meaning opponents have functionally less health to play with (Storm Striders, Dominate from Bravo, Overpower in Marlyn).
This dynamic gives a guide to which deck in any matchup should be seeking to prioritise trading damage to end the game faster and which deck should look to prioritise defending in an attempt to extend the game. Interestingly, Cindra registers as a deck looking to extend the game as it has multiple sources of additional value each turn, and very little starting value. This means that despite it usually being correct for Cindra not to block due to many other factors (cards attacking for more than they block, keeping a density of cards to make her hero ability free, having enough density of threats to maximise Mask threat) Cindra pilots still ought to be looking out for opportunities to block as they (usually) ought to prefer a longer game.
Here’s a simple heuristic that makes this process a little simpler: if the deck in question is trying to accomplish a quest which, upon completion, improves their turn cycles. Examples include Earth heroes, Fang’s 3 fealty prerequisite, and Kassai getting yellows and reds in discard to start activating her ability. This gives all these heroes a reason to extend the game.
How to Apply All of This:
At this point I’ve thrown a hefty block of theory at you, so allow me to close by providing some real world examples from my very own career.. I had a game (on stream) at Calling Hamburg where I was playing Verdance against Gravy Bones. Before the game even started I thought about how Gravy has multiple pieces of equipment which get value turn over turn while the vast majority of my value is in the form of one-time usage equipment (I have 7 armour in fridge to his 2 but also my armour all have one-time abilities like Balance of Justice’s card draw and Storm Strider’s ability to functionally start my opponent at around 33). Therefore, despite the fact that my hero has a quest to get online, I actually decided that I needed to expedite the game. Otherwise, my opponent would accrue more and more value from their armour. Additionally, I knew that since the (at the time recent) Tipple banning the Gravy decks had become considerably more bricky and often relied on defending with excess cards. Based on all of this I entered the game planning on prioritising arcane damage as to force him to trade damage with me and convert larger hands. I even spent two turn cycles just playing a Healing Potion and passing on the gamble that he would not fully utilise his hand if I didn’t give him the chance to block. Furthermore, the potions would let me set up one big push with my Rampant Growth. Notably, not everything worked perfectly; one of the turns I played a potion he was able to play a Conqueror of the High Seas, but still I was happy I had made a good decision based on the information available. It is important to understand that a bad outcome does not always mean you made a bad decision (and vice versa: good outcomes occasionally result from bad decisions as a matter of luck).
Another example of a gameplan that came about as a result of some of the theory discussed in this article was my approach as Gravy against a Prism I played at Calling Hong Kong. I knew that Prism has a limited number of figments and chose to deliberately prioritise blocking both in gameplay over multiple turns and in sideboarding as I brought in my defence reactions to let me block out heralds when I didn’t draw poppers. I sided in my Remembrance and Wailer to ensure I would have better longevity than them and was able to drag the game out to reach a state where they no longer had access to figments to avoid losing during the portion of the game in which they out-value me. Prism gets to take advantage of Gravy in that her meaningful on-hits trigger on connection with any target (allies included), but I robbed them of that edge simply by prioritising blocking.
A final example is my approach as Arakni Marionnete at worlds against Cindra. Due to the uncertainty of their remaining cards (and high chance they have either Ancestral Empowerment, Throw Daggers, or even just more breakpoints), I would decide to simply give them their Mask of Momentum draw on turns in which I had not disrupted them as the fail case of committing cards on defence only to still let them draw was too punishing. Instead, I noted the incredibly high value of presenting on-hits myself. If I forced Cindra to block, they would jeopardize their own Mask trigger while not even having a guarantee they stop my on hit due to my suite of attack reactions. As such, while it might have appeared logical to add more defending cards, I leant towards running additional on-hits with Mark of the Black Widow and Art of Desire Body to combat Cindra. Instead of committing to a strategy that tried to answer Cindra’s strengths, I identified a way to leverage strengths of my deck not included in the Value Framework to achieve a positive Win Rate Expected Value.
With the theory outlined above and these practical applications as your guide, you too can think like a pro and turn Value into victories.
