LeperColony

I'd never be one to claim mathematical perfection, so if you think the math is wrong, perhaps it would be helpful if you demonstrated your own scenario with figures. Except it's not the same relative difference. AV 6 will almost always have an expected advantage over AV 2 of ~ 82% in opposed flips. The only exception is discussed below. But as I've demonstrated, the relative value of AV 6 vs AV 2 is different in different situations. This is actually the next point in my favor. Cards have memory, dice don't. In a fixed TN system, low AVs are particularly vulnerable to having their relative value degraded by card loss. AV 2 vs High TNs TN 16, 1 card TN 15, 5 cards TN 14, 9 cards Once the red joker is gone, TN 16 is impossible. Once the red joker or any king is gone, AV 2 loses 20% of its success range versus TN 15. Once the red joker or any king or queen is gone, AV 2 loses ~ 11% of its success range against TN 14, etc. But AV 6 in these same situations is much less vulnerable. One card gone at TN 16 is only a 6% reduction (1/17), at TN 15 it's 5% (1/21) at 14 it's 4% (1/25) etc. Now, you may say that AV 6 encounters the same high degradation eventually, and that's true, but you have to go up to TN 20. And at TN 20, any AV less than 6 is useless. From a basic mechanical standpoint, do you believe that AVs should ever be worthless? Because I don't. As cards are expended from the deck, lower AVs become increasingly consigned to a death spiral of failure. In opposed flips, with a fresh deck, it takes an AV difference of 14 before a low AV becomes worthless. And as cards are removed, low AVs retain their value because the loss of a single card (except the jokers) impacts both sides equally (the math for this is actually really complicated, which in fact preserves the uncertainty because even astute players will have difficulty keeping track and calculating it). Automatic things you don't test for tend to be either necessary for narrative purposes or trivial. If they are trivial, you often don't even test, so it doesn't matter. And if it's automatic for narrative purposes, then no test should be needed. That's not the same as knowing for a fact you can mathematically accomplish something that is supposed to be uncertain. Again, this is a consequence of cards having memory. If you know you need a TN, and you know for a fact you can hit it (or you know for a fact that you can't), then the action is automatic (or impossible) purely as a mechanical consequence, not a narrative one. You've chosen to identify only trivial or narrative actions, and ridden right past my actual example. And this is an issue opposed flips virtually eliminates (unless AV differences are absurdly stark), because even if the odds are greatly in favor of one side or the other, the random value adds uncertainty.

It's possible I wasn't clear enough, but what I am referencing is the difference in AV values relative to each other under fixed TN vs. opposed flips. The AV 6 vs 2 figures were for fixed TN (I've gone back and colored them yellow for clarity in my original post), and my argument is that fixed TN values are not linearly reliable in value. Hence the fact that the red joker makes the "odds change not look so linear" underlines my point. In a fixed TN system, each point of AV advantage is not a flat 7.5% because the TN is a known quantity, and you are simply calculating the math of the number of cards for each AV to hit each TN. This means at low TNs, low AVs will overperform vs high AVs (again, overperform is a metric measuring the relative value of each point of AV), and at high TNs, low AVs become virutally (or actually) worthless, whereas high AVs maintain considerable value. This dynamic, where the value of each individual point of AV fluctuates based on the AV total, simply does not exist in opposed flips. It's also not accurate to say that each AV in the 6 vs 2 does provide the same relative advantage: To hit TN 10, AV 6 has (in a fresh deck) 41 cards. 41/54 = ~ 76% To hit TN 10, AV 2 has (again, fresh deck) 25 cards. 25/54 =46% Each relative point thus provides the higher value ~ 7.5% relative advantage. So AV 6 has a ~30% edge for a 300% value. To hit TN 16, AV 6 has 17 cards. 17/54 = ~ 31% To hit TN 16, AV 2 has 1 card. 1/54 = ~ 2% Each relative point thus provides the higher value ~ 7.3%. So AV 6 has a ~28% edge for a 300% value. Looks similar. Except when you then look at the success chances. AV 6 will succeed only 1/3rd more often than AV 2 at TN 10, despite being 3x the value. But AV 6 will succeed 16x more often than AV 2 at TN 16, despite only being 3x the value. And because the TN is fixed, these numbers will never change. To put it another way, to hit TN 17: AV 2: 0% AV 6: 24% We have an AV value difference of 4. But we have a vast difference in the value of each point of AV. This is why, under a fixed TN system, each point of AV does not operate in a strictly linear fashion, despite providing roughly the same 7.5%. Remember, in a fixed TN system, we are counting the number of remaining cards that gets us to a known number. In opposed flips, we are taking a known value, adding a random value, and contrasting it with another known + random value. Additionally, fixed TN has the added downside of making actions either impossible or automatic, neither of which are desirable from either a mechanical or narrative standpoint. The reason why AV values are a flat 7.5% advantage in opposed flips is because the value of each side's flip is not a known quantity, but lies within a range. AV 6 has a 4 point advantage over AV 2, so it wins about 82% of the time. But AV 2 is never irrelevant, and the relative value of each point for both sides is the same 7.5%. If AV 2 were to go up to 3, then defeat is only ~75% likely and so on. It's true you don't know the value of your control hand, but I count that as an advantage. I see either automatic success or automatic failure as downsides of the fixed TN system, not upsides. If you know you can expose Lucius and the entire Neverborn conspiracy if you can draw a 13, and you have a 13 in your hand, just go expose him. That's not what I want from a game, personally.

I'm at work so I don't have all the immuto stuff to look at, but it wouldn't surprise me if rules as written does permit this. Magic has always been one of the trickier balance points. As for gamin, I'm not sure a creature such as a fire+ice gamin exists, so it may just be impossible to summon. I guess that would be up the Fatemaster to rule on.

This is how we do it too. Though if a paralyzed character is attacked in and someone else later tries to at either the attacker or the paralyzed model, we count that as shooting into an engagement.

I personally am less on the hobbyist and more on the gamer side. I'm not very good at building and painting, and I don't really find them enjoyable, so they're mostly just barriers to overcome. I do appreciate the detailing on Malifaux models, but I wish they were a little less engineered so there were fewer parts.

With The Other Side having been released, we're learning more about Earth. Will Wyrd ever introduce TOS factions into Malifaux? I think Abyssinian or King's Hand units could be interesting.

For the Abyssinian Dreadnought they make a point of saying that it is operated to ensure human control, whereas I don't remember the same description under the King's Hand. Which leads me to agree with the others who say it is probably autonomous.

One thing I'd like to see in a character sheet is a skills section with support for triggers.

Another way to ensure actual uncertainty and still maintain expectations in AV values is to use opposed flips rather than single flips against a static, known TN. We've run the math on these forums before, and the figures are undisputed. If you want every point of AV to have an equal significance, the easiest and clearest way to achieve that is to have both sides flip. If you have an AV of 6, TNs of 10 or so have a 77% success rate, without counting Twist Decks, Talents or anything else that might improve the Fated's chances. Someone with a lower AV, say a 2, is far from useless against low TNs. They'd have around a 46% chance of hitting TN 10. Against low TNs, low AVs seem to compare a little unfairly with higher AVs, given what it takes to get higher values. AV 6 is three times the value of AV 2, but it doesn't have three times the success rate.  But at the higher TNs, low AVs have very little value, if not being virtually worthless. Against the same TN 16 that is 31% for AV 6, an AV 2 has a 1.8% chance (that Red Joker). So 1/3rd the value (AV 2 vs AV 6) has around 1/16th the chance of succeeding. Does that seem to scale well? Then there's the fact that anything beyond 16 is impossible, which renders the AV useless. And more than that, anyone with AV 2 knows that anything 16 or higher is impossible, removing any sense of dramatic tension. In an opposing TN system, every point of AV advantage ends up being roughly a 7.5% edge. This is a straight linear progression. In fixed TN, the value of AV 2 vs AV 6 can range from: AV6 / AV2 vs TN 10: 77% v 46% AV6 / AV2 vs TN 16: 31% v 1.8% And all of this is before you consider that a deck of cards, unlike dice, has memory. That is, the odds change based on the cards that remain in the deck. Astute players know this, and will factor it in. But of even greater concern is that it means actions can become impossible (or automatic) depending on the remaining cards. For instance, once the Red Joker is flipped, anyone with AV 2 knows they will automatically fail any TN 16. TtB is a terrific setting, but its underlying mechanics are inconsistent and very gamey. If you want to preserve dramatic tension and instill every point of AV with the same value, I suggest doing opposed flips (it also fixed some of the issues with magic, where the cast TN is less than the target's defense, and vice versa, you might as well always use immuto because you always know what you need). Fated can use AV, whereas for NPCs you can either add their AV to the flip or their Rank Modifier, whichever you prefer as a GM (likely you'll use both at different times. Less important NPCs you'll probably just use a generic rank modifier, whereas named NPCs you've compiled full stats for can use AV).

In my current campaign, I am designing adventures to fit one of three general molds: A Coincidence is a session designed mostly tangential to a Destiny Step. In D&D terms, they are the run-of-the-mill adventures, not necessarily designed to focus on or advance any of the Fated's Destiny Steps. These are good for setting up plots, following side quests or blowing off some steam. Wyrd's Penny Dreadfuls fit well into a Coincidence session. The standard award for these games is an Experience Point or points, depending on the length and significance of the session. If multiple XP are warranted, I will typically offer players the option of a pursuit step instead of XP. A Foreshadow is a session that involves a Fated's destiny, but does not necessarily resolve it. These are more clearly custom tailored to the specifics of the current campaign and the Fated (singular or plural) being Spotlighted, but the events are more preliminary in nature. The standard reward for a Foreshadow session is an advance along the Pursuit track (and an XP). A Destiny is a session that resolves a Fated's Destiny Step. As the culmination of several game sessions, an existing plot line typically be resolved. This allows for another to be introduced, either as a follow up to the last or as an entirely new dilemma. The standard reward for a Destiny is the same as resolving a Destiny Step (and an advance, and an XP). The three session types are, to a certain extent, interchangeable. The Fate Master could have planned and prepared for a lighter Coincidence, only to have what he thought was a diversion turn out to have serious implications, as a result of the Fated's choices. It is then an easy matter to award the session on the basis of a Foreshadow or a Destiny. And vice versa. Ultimately, I feel that a Through the Breach campaign should grow in a more organic manner than originally foreseen in the printed materials.

The issue with the public and fixed TN system has been debated on the forums before. Some people, like myself, prefer variable TN by turning them into contested duels (both sides flip). This actually used to be an optional rule in 1st ed, not sure if it still technically an optional rule in 2nd (not that it really matters).

Last night I managed to get my first game in, it was a single-commander King's Empire v. Burning Man. I taught, two other people played. One with Malifaux experience, one without. My overall impression is highly positive, and in a lot of ways it reminds me of how I felt when first encountering Malifaux. Game play was fast, easy to to teach, and the fact that all models can only take a single point of damage really adds a lot of tension to Penetration flips, even when Assets are involved to be flipped or scrapped. Part of this was that, unlike Malifaux, there were far fewer DF/WP triggers (in fact, we didn't encounter any). I'm sure rules bloat will change that in the future, but for now it works. Titans are visually impressive, but they don't (or didn't) dominate the game. And in fact, by pricing, they're not supposed to. So I found their dynamic different from large models in other games (like Knights in 40k), and I liked how they worked. The two factions had different play styles, and the balance seemed decent (though again, these were only single commander, and I built both armies to be pretty basic). Of course, we also did a few things incorrectly. Most significantly, we didn't notice the limit of spending one token of each type per activation. My biggest complaint was that the rulebook was not as clear or helpful as it could have been. There is a consistent failure to provide consolidated information. To give one example, I had known that Reinforcement tokens could be used to flip assets. But I was having trouble finding it, because it isn't mentioned in the Reinforcement part of the Upkeep, or in the Reinforcement entry in the token's section. This is just one of several similar organizational/consolidation issues. The lack of clarity regarding the Modification step of duels is problematic. When do you spend tactics tokens to flip additional cards? Is it during the Flip step? I thought maybe it would be, but the Flip step specifically says "flip one card," and it's the Modification section where it says tokens are spent. But did they mean non-tactics tokens? Again, a little clarity would have been appreciated. Malifaux has a very detailed set of rules governing flips, cheating, triggers, etc. TOS needs it too. Along similar lines, TOS only provides detailed rules for flips as part of duels. But what about flips that aren't duels? We had an asset where a player could flip two cards, and if either was a Ram, damage was reduced to 0, but it was unclear to us if TOS allowed you to cheat. We decided you could, but we may have been wrong. I'm personally not a fan of having made the black joker less impactful. True, you can't cheat it, but if you are flipping multiple cards, you can select something else. If you really can spend tactics cards to flip during Modification, that means you can just ignore the black joker for a single tactics tokens? Seems anti-climactic. There were a few component quibbles too. We would have liked if the tactics tokens had "Activated" printed on the other side, so you could use them to track activated models. Seems more efficient and elegant than repeating "tactics" on both sides. We also thought it was a little irksome that TOS fate decks, which after all are advertised as being useful for Malifaux or TOS, didn't have wound pips. I mean, why? But taken as a whole, and with due allowances for the fact that we played a small learning game, TOS was a good experience, and we're all looking forward to more in the future!

The Knick is excellent just to get a sense of what 1900 was like. The Alienist is a little before Malifaux, but still applicable. Neither have supernatural elements, but both are good shows. The Knick especially.

I think a lot depends on how much of it is the player, and how much the game. Some people are just slow, and there's not really anything you can do about it (also, some players may have medical or psychological conditions that makes play a little more challenging). And it becomes more about either accepting the timing realities or not playing with them. Even things like playing smaller games doesn't generally help that much in such circumstances. Also, some slow players are sensitive to that status, and may not appreciate even kind-hearted attempts to move things along. Then there's the game. Malifaux is an easy enough game to teach. I find the basic concepts pretty intuitive, the use of suits and flips, action points, all fairly basic. But, where things become complicated is in the units. Every model has its own card with its own special abilites, then there are upgrades and the strategies and schemes... It adds up fast. Smaller games may help. 25ss, henchmen crews, etc. If they're new to Malifaux, maybe try to steer them towards the more straight-forward masters. In my experience, the beaters tend to be easier for new players than support or control types. Themed crews may be another time saver, because often they have overlap in terms of abilities, so there's a little less to learn. Restricting the pool of strategies and schemes may be helpful or, if your local group is really just about killing stuff (and I've encountered more than a few like that), there's nothing wrong with junking them entirely and just doing TDM. Keeping terrain rules simple is another way to cut down on potential time sinks. Now, I admit, I'm a player who does find dragging games a little annoying. I don't play games to save time, so I don't mind lengthy games, but I do tend to find dead time annoying. So I try to be a good example. When I host games, I make sure there's plenty of markers, tape measures, rules and errata, etc., so that searching for incidentals doesn't take time. When it's not my turn, I try to figure out what I want to do when it will be. This is one of my major pet peeves. I understand circumstances change, and so sometimes you need to re-evaluate or spend a little more thought on your turn, but in general I find you can often have a good sense of what you want to do while the other player is acting, so that you can just do it. This doesn't help so much if your opponent is the slow player, but it does reduce the overall length and it may subtly encourage your companion to speed up.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I don't think dual faction masters are as much of a problem, from a balance oversight point of view, because I think Wyrd probably invests a good deal more effort on masters than other models (but then again, there's still Sandeep...). Again, this is not to say that dual factioning is bad or that I'm somehow opposed to it. But this is a thread that presupposes the increase in the mechanic. Given a meta where cross faction hiring is more common, I would want preferably to anchor it through Characteristic ties, which does limit the possibilities and I think would encourage/support theme, but another option would be to make multiple stat lines for different factions.

I'm not sure I would either. As I indicated in my original comment, I think these kind of cross faction options should be funneled through the Characteristics. I am concerned about proliferating otherwise unrestrained dual (or even multi) faction models, because I think they hold the potential for balance issues. So if I had to choose between a universe where there were many more cross faction options otherwise unrestrained (by Characteristic requirements, for instance) or a universe where models had different versions tailored to multiple factions, I'd choose the latter.

It certainly applies to dual faction. I buy Yin, the Penangalan. Sometimes I use him as Resser, sometime as TT, but it's still one model. Now, suppose I buy "double card" Yin (for which we are assuming the simple dual faction version doesn't exist), with one card version Resser, the other TT. And yet, still, one model. Where's the lost sale? The "advantage" I'm highlighting with potentially making different versions of the same model for multiple factions is the ability to balance that model vis-a-vis the options within the particular factions to which it is made available. One potential headache with expanding availability of models over multiple factions is the potential of handling balance of abilities, given the vast number of potential permutations. It's what makes me hesitant of increasing the availability of multi-faction options without some kind of planning constraints that help with balance (for instance, Characteristics to a certain extend side-step this, because when you set a model's Characteristics, you're narrowing the field of potential combinations). And sure, if you want to imagine a possible convoluted scenario like you described just to attempt to confuse yourself, you certainly can. But you can equally ensure the model operates under strict enough hiring conditions to preclude them. Like most things, it's a matter of execution. At any rate, my preferred method of cross faciton availability is to base it such opportunities Characteristics, because I think it's potentially more thematic that way, and also by restricting the hiring pool to a known condition, I think it will help with balance. My comment on the possibility of offering different cards for the same model regards the prospect of a universe where more unrestrained dual faction exist. Not that dual faction models are necessarily overpowered in any way. But rather, I tend to think the potential for balance issues increases when you expand the number of possible crew combinations.

It doesn't necessarily lead to fewer sales overall, unless you believe all dual faction options lead to reduced sales, because two different stat cards on the same model for two different factions would have the exact same impact as one model being available to two factions. In either case, the "alternate" faction has access to an additional model from another faction. And even then, you'd have to show that the double card model were crowding out other sales (as a substitution good, in economic terms) rather than simply being another model picked up. In fact, I think if you look at miniature wargaming over all, historically, "alliance mechanics" seem popular to gaming companies in part because they allow players to dabble in other factions, potentially increasing sales by exposing already committed customers to new segments of the product line. It could potentially add to confusion since it would increase the overall unit count in the game, and it would also associate two stat lines with the same model. However, it wouldn't prevent you from telling what was hired "just by looking" since the faction of the controlling master would clearly define which version it was.

Dual faction is attractive from a certain point of view, but expanding the model pool further (in terms of availability to masters) brings even more balance headaches, because you can get combinations that were potentially never intended. I'm wondering if instead there may be some value in multiple cards for the same model. One card for Faction A, and one for Faction B. So the model is the same (which coincidentally may increase sales of a model by enlarging the potential uses, and at the same time may save players money, because they may be able to use the model in more ways/games), but it is essentially two different units. I think dual faction should be funneled through Characteristics instead. I think it's more harmonious from a thematic point of view, and probably easier to handle balance if you can narrow the range of possibilities during design.