I was referring to a game I wrote about 18 years ago that noone ever played.
Also, if your referring video-game theory, i've seen it used
very loosly in games, but usually in games where magic, ranged, and melee are involved, they tend to break the FAM paradigm.
The standard FAM setup is Fighter kills Archer because he armor stops the arrows. Archer kills Mage because he can hit the mage before he can cast a spell. and finally, the Mage kills the Fighter because he can't hit the mage from a distance.
For example, according to FAM (Fighter-Archer-Mage), a mage should never lose to a fighter, however, in many games, fighters can absorb the damage and run upto and kill a mage (especially since mages "stand still" when casting). The problem, is that it's no fun for anyone if the mage can fire a single spell and defeat a fighter, or die from a single shot from an arrow.
Thus, most games lean into a different paradigm. In fact, typically, the closest is what I call the FMA (fighter-mage-archer). The Fighter beats the mage, the mage beats the archer, the archer beats the fighter.
This can be justified by the Fighter just taking the damage from the mage and killing him while he stands there casting. The Mage deflecting the archers attacks and killing the archer, and the Archer killing a fighter by shooting and running.
If you want to discuss video-game theory ever, let me know. I has a degree in it.