Ways to inter-mix factions

[WWHSD]

13 hours ago, LeperColony said:

On the other extreme, the two cards may have absolutely nothing to do with each other, having different stat lines, abilities, attacks, tactical actions, cost, etc...

Most would likely lie in the middle, where the models share similar roles and concepts, but differ in details. 

 

If the model is going to have different stat cards why even bother with making it dual faction instead of just making 2 different single faction models?

[LeperColony]

2 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

If the model is going to have different stat cards why even bother with making it dual faction instead of just making 2 different single faction models?

Because this is a thread about expanding the roster of models available to multiple factions?  Providing a single model with different cards for different factions would be a way of expanding the number of models available to other factions.  In fact, it could even be retro-active, in that you could issue a new faction card of an existing model.

[WWHSD]

1 minute ago, LeperColony said:

Because this is a thread about expanding the roster of models available to multiple factions?  Providing a single model with different cards for different factions would be a way of expanding the number of models available to other factions.  In fact, it could even be retro-active, in that you could issue a new faction card of an existing model.

Once you’ve given it a new stat card is it really a dual faction model?

[LeperColony]

11 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

Once you’ve given it a new stat card is it really a dual faction model?

That's probably a matter of interpretation.  If one model is available to two (or more) factions, I personally would consider it "dual (or multi) faction," whether or not it is available because a single card is Faction A/Faction B or if the model comes with two cards, one A and the other B.

EDIT:  To clarify, I count a faction as "dual faction" if it is available to masters of two factions without other restrictions.  Models that are available due to Characteristics ties like Showgirls (which is actually how I think dual factioning should generally work) I regard differently.

[wafew]

2 hours ago, LeperColony said:

Models that are available due to Characteristics ties like Showgirls (which is actually how I think dual factioning should generally work)

I do think it wouldn't be bad for non-master models to be dual faction through characteristics, however, I think Masters should remain dual factionned.

[Adran]

17 hours ago, LeperColony said:

I think it's useful to keep the various issues in this thread somewhat distinct. 

The last few posts dealt with the contention that somehow making models with multiple cards (rather than simply dual faction) would somehow result in a loss of sales vis-a-vis dual faction, but I think now we should be able to agree that's not likely to be true.  Or, at least, if you still maintain it is, I'd like to hear how you're coming to that conclusion still.

Now, I never advanced any position regarding the relative effort involved in making two cards, as opposed to dual faction.  But I would tend to agree with you that it would involve more work to develop models with multiple cards, if for no other reason than that it is virtually no effort to make something dual faction.

However, it is easy to overstate the degree of effort involved.

For instance, some units may have different cards, but may differ in very minor ways.  One could imagine a marker support model with two cards - one Arcanist based on/generating scrap markers, the other Resser based on/generating corpse markers, but the abilities themselves are identical (excepting, of course, references to the appropriate marker).

On the other extreme, the two cards may have absolutely nothing to do with each other, having different stat lines, abilities, attacks, tactical actions, cost, etc...

Most would likely lie in the middle, where the models share similar roles and concepts, but differ in details. 

 

If you are assuming that if a model wasn't dual faction, there would automatically be a new model in the faction it's not, then it's reducing sales. If just stopping a dual faction meant a faction had one less model to hire, then dual faction increases sales. 

Making scrap in arcanists is much much harder than corpses in ressers but I understand the idea you're trying to get across. 

[LeperColony]

10 hours ago, Adran said:

If you are assuming that if a model wasn't dual faction, there would automatically be a new model in the faction it's not, then it's reducing sales. If just stopping a dual faction meant a faction had one less model to hire, then dual faction increases sales.

This may be a dynamic inherent in making models dual faction.  It doesn't mean making it dual faction by supplying multiple cards reduces sales, which has been the point of the discussion up till now.

This thread presupposes the expansion of cross faction availability, so naturally I've been discussing matters in that context.  If your comparing sales of a single model available to multiple factions (through whatever method) versus the sale of two separate models, to me that's an entirely different conversation.

[Adran]

58 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

This may be a dynamic inherent in making models dual faction.  It doesn't mean making it dual faction by supplying multiple cards reduces sales, which has been the point of the discussion up till now.

But on the assumption that they make models available for all their rules, it does mean fewer sales if you have multiple rules attached to the same sculpt. I haven't seen any reason why it wouldn't.  

Let's say they put oiran rules with performers. They may have sold indivudually 1000 performers, and only 5 oirans, but since I've bought both, a combined sculpt would only have sold 1004 total. That is less total sales. I don't think you would get people to buy the combination sculpt if they weren't going to buy one or the other in the first place. 

Hopefully that explains how I reach my conclusion it would lower sales of the combination model compared to them being 2 different model. 

[LeperColony]

2 minutes ago, Adran said:

But on the assumption that they make models available for all their rules, it does mean fewer sales if you have multiple rules attached to the same sculpt. I haven't seen any reason why it wouldn't.  

Let's say they put oiran rules with performers. They may have sold indivudually 1000 performers, and only 5 oirans, but since I've bought both, a combined sculpt would only have sold 1004 total. That is less total sales. I don't think you would get people to buy the combination sculpt if they weren't going to buy one or the other in the first place. 

Hopefully that explains how I reach my conclusion it would lower sales of the combination model compared to them being 2 different model. 

Not really though, because what you've done is simply assume that multiple cards means a loss of sales, but multiple factions on one card doesn't, arbitrarily.

Multiple cards is not "combining two models into one."  Functionally what it does is provide two (or more) hiring choices to two (or more) factions, just like a dual faction model.

I fail to see what supports the assumption that if they made a model with two stat cards, that somehow means they didn't make a model the had planned to create anyway.

Just look at how you've had to construct your analogy.  Rather than viewing the dual card model as a multi-faction model, you've assumed it was created to combine two models into one, thereby replacing a model.

But that's not the function of dual faction models.  Dual (or multi, if they go that route) faction models expand the hiring pool by saying "here, Gremlins, you can hire this Neverborn." 

The proper analogy to multi-cards isn't two unrelated models like the Oiran/Performer mash up, it's Yin the Penangalan.

Yin:  One model.  Available to two factions.  Hence, if you play either faction, you may be interested in it. 

Double card Yin:  One model.  Available to two factions.  Hence, if you play either faction, you may be interested in it.

 

Now, where sales reduction may come into play is if buying a multi-faction model crowds out a single faction (in other words, I'd rather have Yin than Shikome).  But this is a dynamic inherent in any dual faction model, regardless of why it's available to other factions.

And, in fact, to the extent that models compete with each other economically, it's actually true of any model from the standpoint of a consumer who only buys what they specifically need, rather than a general collector. 

 

[Adran]

1 hour ago, LeperColony said:

 

The proper analogy to multi-cards isn't two unrelated models like the Oiran/Performer mash up, it's Yin the Penangalan.

Yin:  One model.  Available to two factions.  Hence, if you play either faction, you may be interested in it. 

Double card Yin:  One model.  Available to two factions.  Hence, if you play either faction, you may be interested in it.

 

Sorry, we've diverted the thread, so this is my last post on the division. But I disagree with this point. It  might be me misunderstanding but I still think 2 single faction models with similar rules is what you are trying to combine with your multi card. If we were to split yin into resser yin and tt yin we would have to make different rules for one of them. How is having 2 models with a few similar functions different from my performer oiran example?  

You have taken 1 model available in 2 factions and want to write new rules for 1of those faction. I have taken 2 models and merged the sculpt, getting to the same end result as you suggested, without having to do extra work in terms of game development. 

[LeperColony]

33 minutes ago, Adran said:

Sorry, we've diverted the thread, so this is my last post on the division. But I disagree with this point. It  might be me misunderstanding but I still think 2 single faction models with similar rules is what you are trying to combine with your multi card. If we were to split yin into resser yin and tt yin we would have to make different rules for one of them. How is having 2 models with a few similar functions different from my performer oiran example?  

You have taken 1 model available in 2 factions and want to write new rules for 1of those faction. I have taken 2 models and merged the sculpt, getting to the same end result as you suggested, without having to do extra work in terms of game development. 

I have no idea where this effort fixation arose, but yes, it is more effort to make two cards than one.  That's sort of the point.  In a universe that greatly expands cross faction availability, multiple cards would allow you to tailor the way models act when they are hired out of faction, for balance purposes.  Now, you also get the ability to perhaps reflect changing lore (as @necroon mentioned) or slightly alter mechanics between factions to fit themes, make the two versions very divergent (if you so wanted, like a Jekyll and Hyde thing), etc.  But to whatever extent you develop a multi-card model, obviously it's more effort than simply making a single card available to more than one faction.

I'm really not sure why you keep trying to come back to this, since it's not really anything in contention.

41 minutes ago, Adran said:

 

You have taken 1 model available in 2 factions and want to write new rules for 1of those faction. I have taken 2 models and merged the sculpt, getting to the same end result as you suggested, without having to do extra work in terms of game development. 

You haven't gained any of the "end results" I've suggested, because the only end result I've suggested is another method to make a single model available to more than one faction.

I've then compared the sales implications of a model available to more than one faction through one method (single card) to another (two cards) and noted, in both cases, it's a single model available to two factions.

What you're trying to do is somehow say that if a model has two cards, it must necessarily replace (or merge or whatever) two models, and that's false.  There's almost an unlimited number of ways to design a model (even with two cards), and again, as the goal is to make a model available to multiple factions, that objective is in no way related to "merging" models or whatever situation you've come up with.

I'll notice already twice I've provided the analogy of Yin as a single card vs a two card model and noted in both cases:

Two factions get access to 1 model.  Same sales implications.

And you've declined to try to distinguish the two cases from each other twice now.  Instead, you try to imagine up scenarios where multiple cards are replacing models, or somehow combining them.

For two cards to be worse from a sales standpoint than one card, which has been your contention, you have to demonstrate that somehow two card Yin will sell less (or result in less sales overall) than one card Yin, as an inherent matter of having two cards. 

[Ludvig]

Weird combos usually seem to arise because devs+testers miss interactions. More cards for the same amount of models means you get even more stuff to test so more chances of missing interactions. I'm not sure dual cards for the same models would significantly curb weird combos while it would lead to more time testing and writing rules. Models equal income and rules development is basically just a cost so I think more cards for the same amount of models would be a bad idea from a business point of view. I'm not sure why different stats cards would benefit my dual faction models and if they went that route and then introduced a master like Marcus or Leveticus they would then need to design rules for 50 new models that alread had rules.