There doesn't currently seem to be any way of identifying units in your collection that have alternate starting lines (or other variations, "child" units, etc.).

Just as a random example, FFFF005 Spider-Man has a lower point value version labeled as FFFF005v in the database. Because it's a "child" unit of FFFF005, I can't add it to my collection, and as a result it doesn't show up in my collection or any advanced searching using "Keep" values. There also isn't anything in FFFF005's unit info to indicate that it has an alternate starting line. The only way I would know would be if a unit comment mentioned it, if I look at the FFFF set as a whole, or look at the physical unit. None of these options is great if I'm trying to build a team on the site.

My ideal solution would be for the alternate/variation/"child" unit entries to show up in my collection if the main unit entry is in my collection (and maybe just for Keep units as it doesn't really make sense for Haves or Wants), or to have an additional search filter option to include them. At the very least, though, I think there should be some indication on the unit page that, hey, this unit can be played at a different point cost, or has subunits that might add to your point total, etc.

Sorry if this is already a thing or is already being addressed... I tried to be thorough in looking through all the units section options and poking through the forum, but it's possible I missed something.

Hi SlowDrip,

I get what you're saying, but the "child" dials not appearing in your collection is by design. They are literally not things that one could collect separately from the "parent" item, and those dials get coded that way specifically to keep duplicate items from clogging up one's collection listings. Yes, that makes it so you don't see "child" dials when using the Advanced Search function to search one's own collection, but I for one have gotten used to that.

Also, split dials used to get coded with their lower point line included on the "parent" dial, but we stopped doing that because it's duplicative information. By looking at the Units section, you can tell very well when a dial has a lower point value because it's listed directly below or near the "parent" dial, so that is another easy way to tell when a figure has multiple starting lines. I personally like the current aesthetic much better, where you can view a higher-point dial without the "distraction" of the lower point line getting in the way.

Thanks for your feedback!

Sure, I can see how removing child units from inventory management makes sense for collection clarity and decluttering, and it makes sense that you wouldn't want to see child unit info within a parent unit's entry if there's already a separate entry for the child unit info. I believe those are good design choices.

However, for how intrinsically linked parent and child units are, their relationships are surprisingly difficult to ascertain. Yes, if you're looking through a full set list, it's easy to see when a unit has a child unit because it's probably right below it on the list (like you said). When looking at units in other contexts though, like your collection or a search, any connected child entries might as well not exist.

My main frustration with this is how many extra steps I have to take if I want to do comprehensive team-building. For example, say I'm trying to build a Modern team online and I need to find a unit from my collection to fill my last 40 points. As far as I can tell, there is literally no way for me to know that I have this lower-cost Spider-Man available to me without doing a search for all applicable Modern units (100+ results just for Marvel units that cost exactly 40 points) and then cross-referencing any child units that show up in that search against my collection list (open in a separate tab) to figure out if I own the parent unit. Even just including a hyperlink on the child entry linking to the parent entry would save a load of time in that process.

Anyway, it sounds like parent-child relationships aren't really on the table right now, but I do hope that they'll be reconsidered at some point.

On paper, I like the idea you've expressed in the bolded text above. However, in practice, creating a link to every "child" dial from their "parent" dials would introduce a large amount of backend work that I don't think we'll have the bandwidth for any time soon.

I've been frustrated by this in the past as well, so believe me when I say your feedback is appreciated. I'll bring this up to the site owner and see if we can brainstorm something that fixes this issue without introducing a large amount of extra coding to our workflow, and if anything comes of it I'll get back to you.

Thanks again!