Design space : 1 fig, multiple cards?

[SEV]

For my second post in this series (check my experimental GG here), I want to shake the temple columns of miniatures games (OK I might exaggerate things a bit here 😀).

Malifaux, as other miniatures games, has two distinct sets of components : 1) physical stuff (miniatures and terrains); 2) virtual stuff (rules... yes some of those rules are printed on physical cards, but this doesn't matter for this conceptual distinction).

Each physical component is linked to a subset of rules. So the fig representing The Dreamer is linked to her own subset of rules : her card. In Malifaux, this pattern always follows a 1:1 ratio. One fig (or multiple figs representing the same model) : 1 card. Why?

In this thread I want to challenge this. What if we had multiple cars for a model? So we could have The Dreamer, as we know, (little summoning brat as a master) but we could also have another iteration of the dreamer as a master to represent a shif in his story. For example, as a physical teen in Malifaux (note that I have no idea if this follows the story arc, because I don't know the fluff too much). We could also have another iteration of The Dreamer that changes his role on the table : The Dreamer Henchman instead of the Dreamer master. This two incentive to change a card (shift in the story arc or change in the role of the model in the game) can obviously be mixed and match to tell a new story (top-down design).  All in all, you can have multiple cards for a single model (but that doesn't change the fact that you can't field more than 1 of this model, so no The Dreamer V1 and The Dreamer V2 in the same crew obviously).

I think this is a great way to make the game evolve without the high cost of introducing new models. Obviously, you still need to play test the new cards, but that's it. No sculpt, little production delay (especially with the app and print on demand options) and way more flexibility.

This is important : when you create an entire keyword, pay a lot of money in the development and creation process. Then, 3 month after release everyone realized its OP / NPE (hello Nexus), you probably lose some money and got some disappointed players... But, if you do the same with cards only, you will still have a backlash (but people will be more forgiving and it's easier to fix).

Also, I think creating alternative cards is an elegant solution to balance the game. Instead of going for a simple erata, you go for a V2 of a model. This work especially well for models that are underpower. The underpower v1 is still available, but the balanced V2 is also (V1 might be overshadowed in competitive play, but some casual player will still use it AND the model will see more table top play because the power level on its V2 card is better balanced).

It's a bit trickier with overpower models. If overpower v1 is still available, competitive players will still play it instead of playing the balanced V2. There's some fix to this. A hard one : 1) bane V1 from some competitive format. And a soft one : make V2 really different so it can fit a better niche in some matchup. Also don’t forget that all the other power balancing tools (rules change, errata, tournament format, etc.) are still available.

Finally, this can just bring more diversity to the game at a lower cost and for, the player, it gives a lot more bang for their bucks as they have different options attached to a single model (this can be a problem for the company, see below)

Pro

+ Adaptable top-down design to follow the story arc of a character.

+ Allow to give a different role or a different "station" to a model.

+  Good power-balancing tool (especially for subpar models), so a bigger range of mini will see the tabletop (I'm doing this for you my beloved Wrastlers).

+ Increase the diversity of the game and the options available to the player without the need of introducing new models.

+ Potentially help the game to grow.

Cons

- Could increase the game complexity a little.

- Could create power creep if not well done.

- Could result in a drop of sales for specific groups of customers (why bother buying multiple keywords if I can do all the stuff I want between the V1, V2 and V3 of the cards in the only keyword I own).

- Could disappoint a more "conservative" part of your players base (no negative meaning here, just the literal one : people who are attached to the game as it is).

- Increase the resources needed in a well structured design team and a game development team.

Those are real risks of implementing such a big change in your game. I still think the pro's offset the cons. The complexity can be kept in check by not going over the top with this (releasing 100 new cards every 3 months). Power creep is harder to handle (as we see with ES) but if you're confident in your game development process, it's possible (and there are a lot of checks and balance mechanisms in this game, GG release being one of them). This is a minis game and it will stay a minis game even if there are several cards for one model. I didn’t do market research but seeing the player around me buying Nightmare boxes of crews they already own just for the cool factor, I wouldn't be too worried about a sale drop. Moreover, you can always have some special / alt sculpt going with one version or another of a card (a lot of people would want the Pirate Molly to go with their V2  Molly card even though they could just use their regular fig)... So that can actually be an opportunity (and you'll sell cards, because everyone and his mother want the real version of the card even though everything is free on the app). I think Malifaux's player base already shows how receptive it is to change as a lot follow from M2 to M3. Actually, I would be more concerned about game stall than fear of change... Finally, Wyrd already has a solid and mature design team as far as I can tell (they might lack a little bit in terms of game development but, I really don't know as an outsider). I think they can handle this and even use this as a stepping stone to make the game grow.

Yep, I'm optimistic (about game design... Pessimistic about everything else :-p).

 

So what do you think?

[Maniacal_cackle]

I think this is basically what people expect of the title system, which would be super cool.

I think you hit the nail on the bad business issue with it - making one crew cover too many niches reduces the need to buy further crews.

Another issue is it sounds like Wyrd is already running itself ragged with new designs (ES, GG2, etc).

Still, would be cool to see this eventually, even if it was like one master (and totem) per faction initially. Would love to see Master Nightmare with Henchkid Dreamer.

[Maniacal_cackle]

Ohhhh, also balancing becomes tough.

Do you errata stitched for balancing  Dreamer 1 or Dreamer 2?

[ooshawn]

I for one would like this idea if they didn't retire the old ones. You ideally would just try a different concept and then any problems that arise are blamed on the new model, not the existing line-up. That  way any odd nail gets hammered into place or tossed out

[Thatguy]

1 hour ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

I think this is basically what people expect of the title system, which would be super cool.

I'd like to see it happen with shifts  between stations. Like how Hamlin has been an "enforcer", Henchman and Master at various points. The same with Misaki, Molly and Dashel shifting between stations. 

It would be a neat way to do something like a throw back or time skip forward. It would be a cool way to bring back DMH models too. Like not tournament legal as a master, but you could pay them as a Henchmen/enforcer/whatever. 

It would also be easier to balance if they're not a crew's focal model like a master and can't be fielded alongside the normal Master and crew. 

[Adran]

This is roughly what M2e did with its upgrade cards. Also misaki and hamlin both had 2 models with different rules sets in first edition ( both started as a minion but later became masters. Hamlin was a different base size but both misaki were same size base. )

 

Also it's probably not a great marketing ploy overall. It's no easier to balance henchmen dreamer than it would be to balance new henchmen, but wyrd doesn't get new sales to pay for that development. You certainly wouldn't want to do many like this. 

[Harlekin]

16 minutes ago, Adran said:

Also it's probably not a great marketing ploy overall. It's no easier to balance henchmen dreamer than it would be to balance new henchmen, but wyrd doesn't get new sales to pay for that development. You certainly wouldn't want to do many like this. 

This. 

I think it overall is a really bad idea. What mainly sells a miniature game is - surprise - the miniatures. What mainly earns the money for a company into miniature games is - surprise - the miniatures. 
In digital gaming, different iteration can easily made distinguishable via skins which won't work for us as gamers. So, it just complicates things without any boon for gaming wise. 

True, it would save us gamers money but that's a non-argument. As saving money results in the company not getting any which results in no more future releases. 
In fact, that's totally the only "advantage" as rules-wise it just is a different unit (thus typically a different model) which is named like an already existing one. So, no gain in design space as Wyrd without much effort already can release Yound Dreamer's Nephew as a stand-alone release, anyways. 

And I am strictly against another layer of confusion at Malifaux as a very slow and rather lazy painter who would definitely save a lot of time on painting. But the disadvantages by far outdo the advantages, imho. 

My solution for cheap-ish gaming if you can't afford more models: proxying. Works just fine. 

[Thatguy]

1 hour ago, Adran said:

It's no easier to balance henchmen dreamer than it would be to balance new henchmen

That's true. But it's easier than balancing a new Master Dreamer. 

1 hour ago, Adran said:

wyrd doesn't get new sales to pay for that development

I don't know. Seems like a good excuse to do some limited release/alt models. 

[Thatguy]

45 minutes ago, Harlekin said:

no gain in design space

I think that's sort of a bonus. You get to try new things without adding more interactions and design bloat.

If I release three Dreamer models with three rules I don't have to come up with fluff for two new models and have them balanced on the table together without creating unwanted interactions like you would if you made two new characters for a keyword.

[SEV]

@Harlekin. I disagree (respectfully 😀 ) with most of your points. Some of you seems to think this is a bad business model for Wyrd, but I adress this in my pro and cons. 

I do think it's a possible risk (but honestly without a decent market analysis your guess is a s good as mine). But I honestly think that : a) that would not impact the sale (and maybe increase them) ; 2) could open a new market for cards and fluff (since you're reinforcing the story arc); 3) it can be the corner stone of campaign / legacy games (I'll come back to this one in a future design space), an other unexploited market by Wyrd; 4) the development cost is lower than creating a new range of mini.

As for the game play, this is not exactly as creating new models. First of all there should be a continuation between all iteration. Than you have strategic choices to do (V1 can't be play at the same time of V2). This also allow minor tweak (bigger than a simple errata, but still relatively simple) that would be disappointing on a new model because to similar to an existing one. Finally, the top-down desig is way easier with an established character than with a new one (when you introduce a new model it have to fit in an existing keyword, but also in the overarching Malifaux story; this is not the case here).

[Adran]

I think you are making a few assumptions that I'm not sure I agree with. 

Firstly, that making changes to an existing model is a lot easier than making a new model. I'm not sure that I agree with that based on looking at the beta work when they change editions. Making new rules based on an existing model does have some basis to start with, but several models have had a drastic change in emphasis as they cross editions that even that isn't automatic. Creating a new version of an existing model means you need it to be something different from want already exists, otherwise you are just creating "Perdita with the better gun".   Creating Dreamer 2 will have you starting with a base idea of what you want from that dreamer, but I don't see how that is very different from creating a new model with basically the same concept in terms of model design and development. 

Secondly that this is a good way to semi-errata models. It is not. If anything its worse than an errata, because it will only work 1 way. If you put out 2 different rules sets for a wrastler, and one is poor and one is good, you will almost always just see the good one. The new rules might as well be an errata. 

Thirdly that it is less to develop. I guess strictly it is true, you don't have to pay for the artist to sculpt the model and you don't have to pay for the molds to be made, but you still need to pay for all the rule development, and you don't get much income from just the rules. (I think Wyrd had said previously that things like the faction decks to change edition come with basically no profit for them on the manufacturing costs). I don't have any confirmed numbers to back these things up, but I'm not sure quite how this could drive up sales enough to cover the extra development costs. If you talk about making alternative sculpts for these new rules, then that may well work, but that's not really multiple rules for 1 model as suggested in the initial post. 

Fourthly that this doesn't add to the complexity of the game a lot. I am assuming you didn't play Second edition. That edition had a much stronger emphasis placed on upgrades. There were lots of faction specific upgrades, there were keyword specific upgrades and there were character specific upgrades. Each Master had a potential pool of about 20 upgrades they could put on themselves and they were allowed to select up to 3. This lead to quite a lot of mental drain on an opponent, especially at the end of a long day of playing at a tournement because when you face a figure on the table, you don't actually know what it does, you need to be remembering all the upgrades as well.  

 

I played Guildball for a while, and they tried doing veteran versions of existing characters. It sort of worked, but I'm not convinced that it was better, and that had a much smaller number of models in the game world. 

 

I would list the pros 

-Provides story arc continuation

-short term value for players. 

 

And the cons

-Drives up price

-Adds mental confusion. 

 

(On a small note, Hamlin has never been an Enforcer or a Henchman, just a Minion and a Master)

[ooshawn]

Teen dreamer sucks. We need a avengers time ...thing. make that make sense on your own somehow. I'm going to bed 🛌

[MrPieChee]

I think using it as a way to balance characters is terrible - if a character is op or weak, just errata it. Don't make an alternative that you can optionally play, fix the one that currently exists!

However, alternative cards for different play styles or stations seems like a great idea. Wizard beater pandora? That sounds awesome! Master lord chompy bits even better! Master Georgy and Olaf with enforcer Somer, hilarious!

It adds a lot more effort to balancing crews, but it feels like there is enough tournament data about to support more cards. You could just restrict the alternatives to friendly games, much like DMH.

I'd like to think it wouldn't cause issues with sales - players who like limited play styles will end up with more masters in those styles so it could actually drive sales. Also, hard to play masters could have easy to play alternative cards so that everyone is accessible to players of all skill levels.

[Thatguy]

On 4/5/2021 at 7:25 AM, MrPieChee said:

Master Georgy and Olaf with enforcer Somer, hilarious!

I like this idea. Some sort of Hung Over Somer as a totem.

On 4/5/2021 at 7:25 AM, MrPieChee said:

You could just restrict the alternatives to friendly games, much like DMH.

I feel like it would be a great reason to bring back some wacky stuff with Avatar models too.

[SEV]

I agree with you... probably not the best way to balance the game, but I like the @MrPieChee way of seeing things. It could open a lot of space (it was also kind of my point about the story ark)...

And now I want a Somer totem 😋.

[regleant]

I’m a fan of 1 Model, 1 card.  I want to be able to look across the table and know exactly what I’m looking at. This is one reason I don’t play Warhammer systems. Once you start using the same model but could be version 1 or version 2, it gets confusing.  

[Greatfrito]

On 3/23/2021 at 4:07 PM, Adran said:

This is roughly what M2e did with its upgrade cards.

This was my immediate thought after reading the original post.

I'm all for interesting weird things.  I think it's a terrible idea for "patching" the game - just update the existing cards if you need to do that.

I think it would probably be more reasonable to have alternate cards... come with alternate models.  Another take on Dreamer?  Sure!  Here's the alternate card and the alternate model that goes with it.  Isn't that the actual plan with titles?

Though like the idea of "generic upgrades", having full alternate takes for a single model could be fun to include in a campaign ruleset, or like optional rules or something.

[solkan]

And it's still the same problem as with the M2E upgrade system.

The other player looks at the table, sees Misaki's model, and has to ask" That's Misaki over there, but which Misaki card is it?"

For aesthetic reasons (no one wants to have three completely identical minion models) and practical reasons (the metal model era and then the plastic model era, and Wyrd's numerous popular alt sculpts) people are used to the idea that there are multiple different sculpts.  But "What model is that?"  "Oh, that's Misaki." is a lot less burden than "Which card is she using?"

 

[touchdown]

8 hours ago, Greatfrito said:

I think it would probably be more reasonable to have alternate cards... come with alternate models.  Another take on Dreamer?  Sure!  Here's the alternate card and the alternate model that goes with it.  Isn't that the actual plan with titles?

We don't know for sure but the first 2 masters with alternate titles announcers are going to have pre-assembled models in the TOS starter box iirc. So there is a good chance they'll be new sculpts. However, I would expect all sculpts to be valid for all titles just like previous edition versions or alternate sculpts.

[Math Mathonwy]

I think that it would be a good idea from a business perspective to have a totally distinct sculpt for each Master profile and require it for the profile (as is usual with minis). It would allow for some really unique interpretations of the Masters possibly with different base sizes (a Zipp with a mini Zeppelin instead of a rocket pack or the old classic Mr. Hyde Seamus or whatever). I mean, it's a new profile - when Wyrd releases a new profile you kinda expect to need to buy a new mini to use it.

(Proxying is naturally fine and dandy when both players agree).

It's all in all a super interesting idea to have differing interpretations of Masters since they are such central character gameplay-wise and are so tied to their keywords. It might even breathe new life to less-used profiles if they suddenly become more synergistic with the new Master profile.

You could even consider new Totems (or just new profiles and sculpts for the old ones) for the new Masters. It would also allow you to fill out keywords by what's needed if you included some third profile in there if not a whole new Master starter.