Teamfight Tactics

Power is a conversion, not a single resource.

I read Teamfight Tactics as a system of exchanges. Gold buys units, experience, and search opportunities. Health buys time to delay those purchases. Items turn a suitable board into more effective combat power. Traits change what a composition needs—and what it can afford to remove.

The useful question is not simply “How much gold do I have?” It is “What can this resource become, over the time I still have?”

A strong economy has little value if the player dies before using it. A powerful board can also be expensive if buying it removes the option to reach a stronger late-game position.

The price on the button is only the beginning.

Income arrives with different levels of certainty. Base income and interest are comparatively predictable. Win and streak income depend on performance. Loot, augments, and economy traits can be random or conditional. Free rerolls and experience still have an economic value even when they do not arrive as gold.

The early income ramp in the studied model gives players time to collect information before large commitments become possible. That is a pacing function as well as an economy rule.

Effective cost = the purchase price + lost interest + the alternative forgone + the cost of commitment.

An interest threshold is a decision boundary, not a universal prohibition. With 38 gold, spending 8 preserves the 30-gold threshold; the next gold crosses it. Whether crossing is correct depends on the board upgrade and the health it may protect.

Saving has a time horizon.

Interest is attractive because it compounds. The following simplified model isolates that effect: five gold of base income per round, one interest per ten gold, capped at five, and no spending or other income.

The missing variable is survival. Six rounds of theoretically good saving may be impossible on a weak board. As health falls, the value of immediate power rises and the value of distant returns falls.

Stabilizing, leveling aggressively, and rerolling are different exchange patterns. They should not be reduced to fixed round instructions: the board, opponents, available upgrades, and survival window determine when the exchange makes sense.

Scouting changes the value of a roll.

Rolling is not an isolated lottery. Other players’ units affect the available pool, so a contested target changes the expected efficiency of searching for it. Scouting connects economy decisions to information.

Holding a unit to deny an opponent has its own cost. It freezes gold, takes a bench slot, and may sacrifice interest. The relevant comparison is the disruption created versus the flexibility lost.

This suggests a broader principle: an option is valuable only when the player can still afford to exercise it.

A composition is a structure of dependencies.

A trait can create a long-term direction, a shared combat rule, or a local interaction. The report uses Set 11 examples to distinguish those functions: Storyweaver as a vertical commitment, Duelist as a shared attack-speed logic, and Lovers as an identity shaped by stance and placement.

Unit cost tiers also perform different jobs. Low-cost units open routes and bridge the early game. Mid-cost units can anchor reroll strategies. Higher-cost units may supply a carry, a frontline, or utility that changes how the entire composition operates. Cost is not just a larger stat budget.

What an emblem really saves

An emblem can reduce the unit-slot cost of a trait. It can replace a weak filler, introduce a stronger unit, or put a trait’s effect on an unusual beneficiary. Its design risk is also structural: if one holder converts it far better than everyone else, apparent flexibility can collapse into a single correct answer.

The same item can be worth very different amounts.

I define item conversion as the expected extra strength an item gives the lineup, after accounting for alternative holders and the options lost by committing it. This separates three ideas that are often confused: needing an item, using it efficiently, and fitting it flexibly.

A unit may depend heavily on a particular item but still be a poor choice for the current board. Another unit may have a lower maximum payoff while preserving several possible transitions.

Eight questions for an item–unit pairing

1. Scaling: Which stats does the ability actually turn into impact?
2. Frequency: How often does the relevant attack, cast, or effect trigger?
3. Survival: Will the holder live long enough to realize that value?
4. Reliability: Does the effect reach the target that matters?
5. Complementarity: Does it solve a weakness or repeat an existing strength?
6. Role and star level: Does the unit’s current job justify the investment?
7. Special interaction: Does the pairing change how the unit operates?
8. Opportunity cost: Who else could use it, and which pivot becomes harder?

The most interesting interactions change operation: a casting loop, an extra-hit trigger, a different effective range, or a survival state that enables another ability. Those effects cannot always be understood by adding up raw stats.

Judge the payoff and the failure floor.

Artifacts can have narrower conditions and sharper payoffs than standard equipment. Their value may jump when a specific carrier or interaction appears, instead of growing smoothly with general board strength.

A useful evaluation distinguishes the best holder, acceptable holders, and misleading holders. It asks when the effect activates, what must be paid to support it, how poorly it performs without the intended combination, and whether one interaction creates an outlier.

Average performance can hide those extremes. A design may look balanced overall while offering one oppressive combination and many disappointing ones.

Turn the framework into testable comparisons.

The next step is to put numbers behind the conversion model: estimate roll efficiency under different levels of contest, model survival windows at different stages, and compare item combinations across realistic board states.

Economy curves also need to be compared by archetype. A reroll board, a fast-level strategy, and an emergency stabilization spend should not be evaluated against the same timing assumptions.