Author Topic: Card Design Changes to Some Dual Card Types (Read 27832 times)

The Guardian · « **Reply #75 on:** April 19, 2018, 09:37:07 PM »

This thread.

jesse · « **Reply #76 on:** April 19, 2018, 10:01:37 PM »

Quote from: Kevinthedude on April 19, 2018, 09:30:02 PM

A question to those defending the Curse icon: Why do you want one type of named DAC to have a unique icon while the other two named DAC's (Covenants and Cities) do not? Making the game more consistent has been a huge focus lately and has been the source of several improvements. Do you have any arguments for the icon other than "It's been there a long time"?

For new players it's strictly better and for old players it still has upsides such as a reminder that Curses are no longer evil in Artifact form.

I agree that it makes more sense for there to be consistency regarding Curses, Covenants, and Cities...it's just that curses have been around so long that they feel established and I'm not aware of them ever being a stumbling block to new players. They've always just been one more card type to learn. But now if it's changed, new players will have to know the old and new versions of curses, which seems more likely to be confusing imo. I'm really fine either way, though- definitely not a huge deal.

Daniel · « **Reply #77 on:** April 19, 2018, 10:32:48 PM »

Quote from: ArmedKevin117 on April 19, 2018, 06:32:04 PM

Excuse my hasty photo editing, I just wanted to get this proposal out there:

ArmedKevin117 · « **Reply #78 on:** April 19, 2018, 10:45:12 PM »

Quote from: Daniel on April 19, 2018, 10:32:48 PM

Quote from: ArmedKevin117 on April 19, 2018, 06:32:04 PM
Excuse my hasty photo editing, I just wanted to get this proposal out there:

Yes, yes, I know. Original post updated, and here's a link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/u4kdsnugjzxi7hq/Demo.jpg?dl=0

Reth · « **Reply #79 on:** April 20, 2018, 01:35:39 AM »

Quote from: Kevinthedude on April 19, 2018, 09:30:02 PM

A question to those defending the Curse icon: Why do you want one type of named DAC to have a unique icon while the other two named DAC's (Covenants and Cities) do not? Making the game more consistent has been a huge focus lately and has been the source of several improvements. Do you have any arguments for the icon other than "It's been there a long time"?

Please see my post above. For me here consistency is not the main reason but the topic of getting an idea about what the card's type is when just having a quick glance at it (e.g. when scanning through a deck). Today I am able to identify at first glance whether a card is an artifact, a covenant or a curse.

When it comes to consistency everybody has/might have a different point of view of what consistency means - which is normal and perfectly fine.
For me it looks as if current attempts are a little in excess of getting this goal. For example while brigade icons are split the ones of TC and weapon are combined - for me constency would be having both placed on either side of DA cards which in turn has another benefit (as explained for curses and in my previous thread): Everybody can immediatelly see whether TC and weapon applies for both sides without start reading small identifier lines!

Currently it seems we're starting to move a lot of things into the identifier (e.g. exceptions for TC / weapon) where we might soon get the same space problems we try to avoid at other places ...

Kor · « **Reply #80 on:** April 20, 2018, 08:05:47 AM »

Honestly it always seemed weird to me that curses had the half snake icon instead of a grail, and the more I think about this redesign, the more I think I like it. I do think it would be nice to have identifiers for these however. Of course, they aren't strictly necessary, but it would still be nice to have there as a reminder.

The Guardian · « **Reply #81 on:** April 20, 2018, 12:43:43 PM »

Quote from: Kevinthedude on April 19, 2018, 09:30:02 PM

A question to those defending the Curse icon: Why do you want one type of named DAC to have a unique icon while the other two named DAC's (Covenants and Cities) do not? Making the game more consistent has been a huge focus lately and has been the source of several improvements. Do you have any arguments for the icon other than "It's been there a long time"?

For new players it's strictly better and for old players it still has upsides such as a reminder that Curses are no longer evil in Artifact form.

The main reason I am a proponent of keeping the snake icon is the potential for confusion among both old and new players. If we were to go with the skull/grail combo, yes it's consistent with other card types, but it's not consistent with current Curses. As a result, new players are still going to need to learn what the snake icon means. (Even if set rotation happened someday, we still have several Curses with the snake on the current card face.)
Current players may also have some confusion. Back in the day one of the most commonly asked ruling questions was about the Goshen, Kingdoms of the World and Potter's Field "sites" being able to hold Lost Souls--so common in fact, that the question was added to the FAQ. Even after new versions of those cards were released with the proper Fortress icon, the question still came up. Even today, a new player who pulled a Warriors Goshen (say from a Persecuted Church pack) would likely assume he could use that as a Site access card.

Gabe · « **Reply #82 on:** April 20, 2018, 12:55:37 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on April 20, 2018, 12:43:43 PM

New players are still going to need to learn what the snake icon means. (Even if set rotation happened someday, we still have several Curses with the snake on the current card face.)

With print on demand, future print runs of EC, PC, CoW and RoJ can have "corrected" images to align with our final decision. That means that in the future, new players will open cards that match the exact style of the new cards, be it split, grail, snake, icons on both sides or only one side.

New players will definitely have to be told at some point what the snake icon means regardless of which direction we go. There's no avoiding that since we have cards in circulation with that icon.

I/J is a great teaching tool and purposefully omits card types (icons) not necessary to learn the game. As a result Artifacts, Sites, Fortress, Covenants and Curses all have to be explained to players later. I've had many kids that were confused by the "Site" icon on the original Fortresses (which they find in my massive 'free box'), the snake icon on Curses and had multiple questions about whether the "shield" on Abijam, Saul and Joab applies to both sides. From comments I read earlier it seems that probably comes as a surprise to some of you, but it's not uncommon for new and casual players to be confused by these things. But they are all very simple questions to answer and always quickly and easily understood once explained.

NathanW · « **Reply #83 on:** April 20, 2018, 01:00:48 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on April 20, 2018, 12:43:43 PM

Quote from: Kevinthedude on April 19, 2018, 09:30:02 PM
A question to those defending the Curse icon: Why do you want one type of named DAC to have a unique icon while the other two named DAC's (Covenants and Cities) do not? Making the game more consistent has been a huge focus lately and has been the source of several improvements. Do you have any arguments for the icon other than "It's been there a long time"?

For new players it's strictly better and for old players it still has upsides such as a reminder that Curses are no longer evil in Artifact form.

The main reason I am a proponent of keeping the snake icon is the potential for confusion among both old and new players. If we were to go with the skull/grail combo, yes it's consistent with other card types, but it's not consistent with current Curses. As a result, new players are still going to need to learn what the snake icon means. (Even if set rotation happened someday, we still have several Curses with the snake on the current card face.)
Current players may also have some confusion. Back in the day one of the most commonly asked ruling questions was about the Goshen, Kingdoms of the World and Potter's Field "sites" being able to hold Lost Souls--so common in fact, that the question was added to the FAQ. Even after new versions of those cards were released with the proper Fortress icon, the question still came up. Even today, a new player who pulled a Warriors Goshen (say from a Persecuted Church pack) would likely assume he could use that as a Site access card.

After thinking about Curses specifically some more and staring at the EE + grail my opinion is the same as The Guardian. The only change I could see being good for curses and artifacts at this point is simply the splitting of the boxes. If it is deemed necessary curses can have their icon changed in the future fairly easily. (compared to splitting Dual Alignment Enhancements in the future). If the decision is to keep the grail icon it would also be my opinion that similar to the priests set (which introduced curses) the new curse layout cards are printed with "curse" in the identifier for at least this set.

Master Q · « **Reply #84 on:** April 20, 2018, 01:41:30 PM »

Did Fall of Man curse purposely lose its Genesis 3 curse activation identifier? Also, the artist is listed as "Artist Unknown" on that.

Gabe · « **Reply #85 on:** April 20, 2018, 01:51:23 PM »

Quote from: Master Q on April 20, 2018, 01:41:30 PM

Did Fall of Man curse purposely lose its Genesis 3 curse activation identifier? Also, the artist is listed as "Artist Unknown" on that.

Unintentional from rebuilding the card with the changes. Thank you for catching those!

egilkinc · « **Reply #86 on:** April 21, 2018, 12:04:58 AM »

Quote from: YeshuaIsLord on April 19, 2018, 07:18:31 PM

To me it's very odd that cards like "The Serpent's Curse" or "The Fall of Man" show a holy Grail icon (containing the blood of our savior??) despite being a Curse. TBH that's just irritating to me.

I agree and think this is a good point. Surely there's a better artifact icon out there that would identify Artifacts, Covenants, & Curses as a neutral Biblical item.

Daniel · « **Reply #87 on:** April 21, 2018, 02:44:21 AM »

Quote from: egilkinc on April 21, 2018, 12:04:58 AM

Quote from: YeshuaIsLord on April 19, 2018, 07:18:31 PM
To me it's very odd that cards like "The Serpent's Curse" or "The Fall of Man" show a holy Grail icon (containing the blood of our savior??) despite being a Curse. TBH that's just irritating to me.

I agree and think this is a good point. Surely there's a better artifact icon out there that would identify Artifacts, Covenants, & Curses as a neutral Biblical item.

The artifact symbol is depicting a holy grail yes, but artifacts are not good or evil in and of themselves. A curse gets its "evilness" from the fact that it's part evil enhancement. This is a totally unnecessary nitpick, and is akin to saying that Sites must be evil since they are represented by pyramids.

why are redemption players so nitpicky

egilkinc · « **Reply #88 on:** April 21, 2018, 09:10:47 AM »

Quote from: Daniel on April 21, 2018, 02:44:21 AM

The artifact symbol is depicting a holy grail yes, but artifacts are not good or evil in and of themselves. A curse gets its "evilness" from the fact that it's part evil enhancement. This is a totally unnecessary nitpick, and is akin to saying that Sites must be evil since they are represented by pyramids.

I must disagree on theological grounds. The Holy Grail has traditionally been viewed of as heroic. In fact, it has been documented that the quest for the grail is not "archeology", it's a race against evil. And consider Guy de Lobard who thought so positively of it, he already had one!

Noah · « **Reply #89 on:** April 21, 2018, 09:20:31 AM »

Based on how DAC's have evolved over the years, I'm beginning to understand why it is helpful and consistent to emphasize that the "artifact" side of a curse/covenant is neutral, even though it's been the other way for so long.

A compromise might be to create a new "dove" icon which, along with the current "snake" icon, could be imposed over the backdrop of the "grail" icon. That way all three cards would share the woody/velvety background denoting that they are in the artifact pile, but they retain/gain something to more clearly identify their card type.

The "snake" icon for a curse always made sense to me, but I never understood why a covenant would have a "grail" icon when very few if any covenants where physical things similar to the dictionary definition of an artifact. Because "snakes" and "grails" have peacefully coexisted in the artifact pile for well over a decade, I see no reason why this option wouldn't be possibility.

Quote from: egilkinc on April 21, 2018, 09:10:47 AM

Quote from: Daniel on April 21, 2018, 02:44:21 AM
The artifact symbol is depicting a holy grail yes, but artifacts are not good or evil in and of themselves. A curse gets its "evilness" from the fact that it's part evil enhancement. This is a totally unnecessary nitpick, and is akin to saying that Sites must be evil since they are represented by pyramids.

I must disagree on theological grounds. The Holy Grail has traditionally been viewed of as heroic. In fact, it has been documented that the quest for the grail is not "archeology", it's a race against evil. And consider Guy de Lobard who thought so positively of it, he already had one!

I must disagree on grammatical grounds. Daniel never said that The Holy Grail was "neutral" or "evil", I understood him to use the term "artifacts" to refer to the card type, not the literal piece of antiquity.

sepjazzwarrior · « **Reply #90 on:** April 21, 2018, 09:49:17 AM »

I like the fact that Covenant are now considered neutral and played as artifacts. Is more in line with how other DA cards are played so I like splitting up the boxes and removing the serpent for curses. I do wish we would put warrior class and territory class symbols on both sides for clarity. It is clear and leaves more identifier space. Clarity is more important than the picture

Daniel · « **Reply #91 on:** April 21, 2018, 12:44:52 PM »

Quote from: egilkinc on April 21, 2018, 09:10:47 AM

Quote from: Daniel on April 21, 2018, 02:44:21 AM
The artifact symbol is depicting a holy grail yes, but artifacts are not good or evil in and of themselves. A curse gets its "evilness" from the fact that it's part evil enhancement. This is a totally unnecessary nitpick, and is akin to saying that Sites must be evil since they are represented by pyramids.

I must disagree on theological grounds. The Holy Grail has traditionally been viewed of as heroic. In fact, it has been documented that the quest for the grail is not "archeology", it's a race against evil. And consider Guy de Lobard who thought so positively of it, he already had one!

I wasn’t aware that Indiana Jones counts as “theological grounds.”

YeshuaIsLord · « **Reply #92 on:** April 21, 2018, 05:29:36 PM »

Quote from: egilkinc on April 21, 2018, 12:04:58 AM

The artifact symbol is depicting a holy grail yes, but artifacts are not good or evil in and of themselves. A curse gets its "evilness" from the fact that it's part evil enhancement. This is a totally unnecessary nitpick, and is akin to saying that Sites must be evil since they are represented by pyramids.

why are redemption players so nitpicky

Ha ha Sites are officially evil now. #IlluminatiConfirmed!
Jokes aside I think paying attention to details can be important because truth matters and when dealing with the bible we do deal with truth so I think that can be potentially good even though I agree we shouldn't be fighting over trivial matters. I think everyone wants what's best for the game and since opinions on what exactly that looks like differ it's not always easy to maintain unity.
I hope I didn't help escalating the whole thing!
Blessings from Germany - love you guys - hopefully we will meet someday soon!

Reth · « **Reply #93 on:** April 21, 2018, 05:38:05 PM »

Indeed, meeting each other one day would really be great!

Gabe · « **Reply #94 on:** April 21, 2018, 07:01:10 PM »

First post updated

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #95 on:** April 21, 2018, 07:12:43 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on April 21, 2018, 07:01:10 PM

First post updated

Glad to see that class icons will be appearing on both sides!

The Guardian · « **Reply #96 on:** April 21, 2018, 07:35:12 PM »

As someone who initially opposed double icons, I think the "doubled & downsized" concept is a great compromise

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #97 on:** April 21, 2018, 07:36:33 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on April 21, 2018, 07:35:12 PM

As someone who initially opposed double icons, I think the "doubled & downsized" concept is a great compromise

Are they supposed to be as far off to the sides as they are in the new pictures?

The Guardian · « **Reply #98 on:** April 21, 2018, 07:40:43 PM »

Yes, that was intended so that there would be very little chance of them interfering with artwork (i.e. not being able to use a great piece of art because the icon covered something relevant in the image).

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #99 on:** April 21, 2018, 07:41:44 PM »

Yes. They're left, (or right) justified with the edge of the icon box. We also looked at centering them, both ways look a little odd because we're not used to it, but the left justified looks slightly better and exposes more art which was our goal

News:

Author Topic: Card Design Changes to Some Dual Card Types (Read 27832 times)

Daniel

Daniel

Daniel