Author Topic: Card Design Changes to Some Dual Card Types (Read 28405 times)

Noah · « **Reply #25 on:** April 18, 2018, 10:48:13 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on April 18, 2018, 07:46:54 PM

One drawback is that King Abijam, The Roman Jailer, Joab and King Saul would take a hit if we made the change now. There are also feelings that it clutters up the card face too much.

If those are the only 4 cards that would be impacted, I would be all for changing it NOW rather that later. With FoM alone Forbidden Fruit, Two by Two, Confused Languages, Lingering in Sodom, Pillar of Salt, Hiding Joseph's Cup, Pharaoh's Daughter, Avenged, Lost Anointing, Jehu's Sword, and King Jehu can be added to the list of cards that would be impacted by changing class symbols to refer to the icon they are under, with the last two being warrior/weapon class. Even if only Jehu and his sword were being printed, it would increase the pool of "cards that would take a hit" by 50%.

I think it would be easier and more intuitive to split class symbols with this set, and if it turns out people are still frustrated with them taking up too much space they can be shrunk slightly in the future. As people have already said, identifier space is too valuable to be forced to use it for something that can easily be understood intuitively. With FoM alone the pool of impacted cards will increase by 300%, so its kind of now or never.

NathanW · « **Reply #26 on:** April 18, 2018, 10:48:52 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on April 18, 2018, 10:44:26 PM

For TC enhancements I can understand (somewhat), but has anyone ever been confused about the DAC who are Warrior Class?

As far as we know there could be somebody out there playing the dual alignment characters as if only one side was warrior class that they didn't even think it would apply to both sides. IMO it's simply as watchman stated, having a general rule that's not clearly stated on the card.

When creating cards like Death why weren't the warrior class and territory class icons placed on the left side? I'd guess because it was intuitive to place the class icons on the side which they applied even though it would be equally valid if they were both placed on the left side.

EDIT: This is literally putting the icons below the side to which they apply and then stating in the identifier line that they apply to that side because otherwise the general rule is that they would apply to both sides. HOW is that not unintuitive?

An exception is created by putting the class icons on the right side and then valuable real-estate in the identifier line is used to explain the exception, even though it should be intuitive.

Gabe · « **Reply #27 on:** April 18, 2018, 10:52:58 PM »

Quote from: GreatGray on April 18, 2018, 09:02:27 PM

This is a pretty good change to see; however, should the word "Curse" be put in the identifier for immediate simplicity going forward?

Not unless we're also going to start naming every other card type in the identifier - Artifact, Enhancement, Hero, Site, Fortress...

But those are identified by the icon box you say? So are Curses, Covenants and Cities, only those instances it involves a specific pairings of icons. That is just as teachable as any other card type. I don't think we need to take up space in the identifier for what is essentially "reminder text".

Watchman · « **Reply #28 on:** April 18, 2018, 10:55:23 PM »

Quote from: Noah on April 18, 2018, 10:48:13 PM

Quote from: Gabe on April 18, 2018, 07:46:54 PM
One drawback is that King Abijam, The Roman Jailer, Joab and King Saul would take a hit if we made the change now. There are also feelings that it clutters up the card face too much.

If those are the only 4 cards that would be impacted, I would be all for changing it NOW rather that later.

Watchman · « **Reply #29 on:** April 18, 2018, 11:01:05 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on April 18, 2018, 10:52:58 PM

Quote from: GreatGray on April 18, 2018, 09:02:27 PM
This is a pretty good change to see; however, should the word "Curse" be put in the identifier for immediate simplicity going forward?

Not unless we're also going to start naming every other card type in the identifier - Artifact, Enhancement, Hero, Site, Fortress...

But those are identified by the icon box you say? So are Curses, Covenants and Cities, only those instances it involves a specific pairings of icons. That is just as teachable as any other card type. I don't think we need to take up space in the identifier for what is essentially "reminder text".

If we want newer players to differentiate that a Curse and Covenant is something specific when compared with cards like Magicians Staves / Magicians Snakes, then adding one word (“Curse” or “Covenant”) somewhere on the card I’m sure won’t be a significant problem but will prevent many inevitable questions on the forum and at tournaments.

Gabe · « **Reply #30 on:** April 18, 2018, 11:03:56 PM »

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on April 18, 2018, 10:46:44 PM

Quote from: The Guardian on April 18, 2018, 10:30:39 PM
IMO putting class icons on both sides would be a step backwards after getting the special ability off the artwork.

I disagree, the icons are already directly below the stat box, and they only sit on part of the image and part of the border

You're both partially right. The icons don't take up much of the artwork realestate but they do cover enough to make some of the art placement and cropping tricky. There were a handful of cards this year where the image had to be flipped, or something had to be cropped out, because of the icons. Given that we already have challenges finding free, quality art, the need to work around icons on both sides of some cards will only make that trickier.

But there will always be limitations to what we can do. The smaller title space for dual icon cards is an example. I'm sure people have noticed that a few card titles changed from what was originally previewed. Putting icons on both sides to clearly communicate what they apply to seems like a good move, especially considering the other changes. If we downsize the icons slightly it will help with some of the drawbacks, which are offset by the benefits.

Gabe · « **Reply #31 on:** April 18, 2018, 11:05:19 PM »

Quote from: Watchman492 on April 18, 2018, 11:01:05 PM

If we want newer players to differentiate that a Curse and Covenant is something specific when compared with cards like Magicians Staves / Magicians Snakes, then adding one word (“Curse” or “Covenant”) somewhere on the card I’m sure won’t be a significant problem but will prevent many inevitable questions on the forum and at tournaments.

We can't teach the entire game from the card text alone. Following this logic we should also explain what every keyword on a card in the special ability box, like the reminder text on MTG. This is not a direction Redemption is headed. At a certain point player will need to learn card types and keywords.

NathanW · « **Reply #32 on:** April 18, 2018, 11:08:17 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on April 18, 2018, 11:03:56 PM

Putting icons on both sides to clearly communicate what they apply to seems like a good move, especially considering the other changes. If we downsize the icons slightly it will help with some of the drawbacks, which are offset by the benefits.

I totally agree and would add that IMO it would greatly offset the downsides if only because gameplay is valued over cosmetics (which can be changed later on MUCH easier than gameplay related things).

NathanW · « **Reply #33 on:** April 19, 2018, 01:25:17 AM »

I would like to point out something that I think needs to be shown. There is a reason only 4 cards would be in the "pool of 'cards that would take a hit'".

Over the last 2 sets if a card had a class icon that only applied to one side they were printed with the icon on that side. Even The Leviathan and Hope have the icon on the side they apply to (happens to be the right side). Despite the fact that they could have been placed on the left side because the identifier line said where they applied they were placed on the side they apply to. Whether this placement was intentional or not there is no doubt (at least to me) that it is the intuitive way to treat class icons.

Everything has aligned so perfectly that at this point in the game this change could be made with very little if even any actual confusion. It also happens to be the case that all 29 Dual Alignment Enhancements printed up to this point wouldn't be affected because the territory and/or weapon class icons are technically below both boxes anyways.

As Noah stated earlier "With FoM alone the pool of impacted cards will increase by 300%, so its kind of now or never." This is indeed a now or never opportunity to remove this unnecessary and redundant general rule about class icons that is unintuitive and uses valuable identifier space. This change has already been anticipated by previous releases. Changing it now would make it consistent across the board and simplify class icons going forward.

Watchman · « **Reply #34 on:** April 19, 2018, 06:57:41 AM »

Quote from: Gabe on April 18, 2018, 11:05:19 PM

Quote from: Watchman492 on April 18, 2018, 11:01:05 PM
If we want newer players to differentiate that a Curse and Covenant is something specific when compared with cards like Magicians Staves / Magicians Snakes, then adding one word (“Curse” or “Covenant”) somewhere on the card I’m sure won’t be a significant problem but will prevent many inevitable questions on the forum and at tournaments.

We can't teach the entire game from the card text alone. Following this logic we should also explain what every keyword on a card in the special ability box, like the reminder text on MTG. This is not a direction Redemption is headed. At a certain point player will need to learn card types and keywords.

I’m not advocating teaching the entire game on text alone. Adding Covenant or Curse to the card doesn’t have to be done on every card for every future set. It could, however, be done on this set only since this is the first set that the change is being made, especially with the snake icon for Curses being changed to a grail symbol, which all of us experienced players aren’t used to. It is for clarification for new (and perhaps some seasoned) players and would serve as a reminder in general as it will help reinforce the change our brains have to make with how these two cards types look now.

Sometimes I feel the elders are so concerned and afraid to add just a little clarifying text that it’s a knee-jerk reaction to automatically write off any such suggestion to it when it could greatly benefit players, especially newer players (who I keep in mind with this game). Many questions that are asked on the forum could have been prevented by adding even one or two words to cards. There’s already way too many rules, keywords, abilities, etc to remember, so adding one small reminder word about the card type (especially when those cards have looked one way for well over 10 years) won’t hurt anything but will only help.

Watchman · « **Reply #35 on:** April 19, 2018, 07:11:38 AM »

Quote from: The Guardian on April 18, 2018, 10:44:26 PM

For TC enhancements I can understand (somewhat), but has anyone ever been confused about the DAC who are Warrior Class?

I’ve always understood the character to be WC by either alignment. I think it’s intuitive in the case of WC characters because the player understands he’s a warrior no matter his alignment. So I could go with an exception for WC symbol being on one side only. However, TC is different because of the precendent set with Fifth Seal and other similar cards in which TC symbol applies to one side or the other, or both sides. Because of this, and for uniformity, I only suggested adding WC symbol to both sides.

Something to think about is a future dual alignment character who is WC and TC. How will this look and will it be recognizable that the TC applies to both alignments? Food for thought concerning this debate about adding symbols to both sides.

sepjazzwarrior · « **Reply #36 on:** April 19, 2018, 07:15:33 AM »

I know we don't like to Errata cards but wouldn't it be possible to just make it so that the symbols do not apply to the whole card and only to the alignment they are put under and just Errata the four cards to make them fully warrior class and then in future printings add the symbol to both sides? I think that would be better for the game in the long run because we will eventually want to have characters that are warrior class on one side territory class on the other and with an x equals ability in the middle and there will be no room to make such cards

kariusvega · « **Reply #37 on:** April 19, 2018, 07:18:42 AM »

After sleeping on it and considering veteran and new players alike:

It seems very counter intuitive to change a foundational and years in print Curse icon.. It's an established card type. Probably best to keep it for consistency. It's easier to explain a curse based on the icon at this point than "they decided to change it after a while". I understand it may seem more streamlined to have them with grail icons, but they are already a well established card type..
Ps
"Covenant of" is significant title text.

thejambi · « **Reply #38 on:** April 19, 2018, 07:23:28 AM »

If you want the icon only once to apply to both sides, it should be moved to be at the bottom of the artwork instead (or otherwise not clearly attached to one side only). But that doesn't sound as good as putting it on both sides and shrinking it when there's two. I'd hate to see confusion being added to the game.

I'm someone who's interested in the game and wants to have time to learn/play, but seeing stuff like this makes me wonder if I should try to cancel the pre-order I made. Just want to honestly say that so you can hear it from a perspective like mine. Let me know if you have any questions for a person interested/new to the game if that would ever be helpful.

Xonathan · « **Reply #39 on:** April 19, 2018, 07:26:55 AM »

Quote from: kariusvega on April 19, 2018, 07:18:42 AM

After sleeping on it and considering veteran and new players alike:

It seems very counter intuitive to change a foundational and years in print Curse icon.. It's an established card type. Probably best to keep it for consistency. It's easier to explain a curse based on the icon at this point than "they decided to change it after a while". I understand it may seem more streamlined to have them with grail icons, but they are already a well established card type..
Ps
"Covenant of" is significant title text.

I agree with JD here. It would be cool to have covenants have there own icons (like curses) and have good alignment no matter how there played, and visa versa with curses.

kariusvega · « **Reply #40 on:** April 19, 2018, 07:45:52 AM »

Quote from: Xonathan on April 19, 2018, 07:26:55 AM

Quote from: kariusvega on April 19, 2018, 07:18:42 AM
After sleeping on it and considering veteran and new players alike:

It seems very counter intuitive to change a foundational and years in print Curse icon.. It's an established card type. Probably best to keep it for consistency. It's easier to explain a curse based on the icon at this point than "they decided to change it after a while". I understand it may seem more streamlined to have them with grail icons, but they are already a well established card type..
Ps
"Covenant of" is significant title text.

I agree with JD here. It would be cool to have covenants have there own icons (like curses) and have good alignment no matter how there played, and visa versa with curses.

They already do. You register exactly what a covenant is by the orientation of the symbol in the box or the card text which says "covenant of" Curses are the same way and the most concise and comprehensive in print educational documents show this (of which the one sheet in my signature which is on the front page of tlg does as well)

There is also only one covenant and a handful of Curses in the document Gabe posted so they would become new and extreme outliers in a box which includes the previously consistent covenants and curses. I vote consistency here, which is sticking to the establishment.

jesse · « **Reply #41 on:** April 19, 2018, 07:53:38 AM »

Quote from: kariusvega on April 19, 2018, 07:45:52 AM

I vote consistency here, which is sticking to the establishment.

I agree. Also something to consider - when holding cards in your hand during a game, it's the left side you can see (except for the top card, obviously).

NathanW · « **Reply #42 on:** April 19, 2018, 09:28:10 AM »

Quote from: kariusvega on April 19, 2018, 07:45:52 AM

Quote from: Xonathan on April 19, 2018, 07:26:55 AM
Quote from: kariusvega on April 19, 2018, 07:18:42 AM
After sleeping on it and considering veteran and new players alike:

It seems very counter intuitive to change a foundational and years in print Curse icon.. It's an established card type. Probably best to keep it for consistency. It's easier to explain a curse based on the icon at this point than "they decided to change it after a while". I understand it may seem more streamlined to have them with grail icons, but they are already a well established card type..
Ps
"Covenant of" is significant title text.

I agree with JD here. It would be cool to have covenants have there own icons (like curses) and have good alignment no matter how there played, and visa versa with curses.

They already do. You register exactly what a covenant is by the orientation of the symbol in the box or the card text which says "covenant of" Curses are the same way and the most concise and comprehensive in print educational documents show this (of which the one sheet in my signature which is on the front page of tlg does as well)

There is also only one covenant and a handful of Curses in the document Gabe posted so they would become new and extreme outliers in a box which includes the previously consistent covenants and curses. I vote consistency here, which is sticking to the establishment.

I thought it would be very unlikely that covenants and curses would be changed because the number of new ones amounted to a to a 10% increase (there are currently 51 curses/covenants and 5 being added) compared to 21 Dual Alignment Enhancements being added to the existing 29 (a 72% increase). I wouldn't be the right person to explain why curses and covenants were changed now but I assume it had something to do with consistency going forward with dual alignment cards generally. IMO it is not hard at all to remember what a curse/covenant is the same as what a city is. I think in the long run it makes sense to split them now. Yes, they might be outliers in the view of just previous coves/curses but how much more would coves/curses be outliers when considering all dual alignment/split box cards in the future? I could really go either way with my opinion, personally, I think coves and curses could also stay the same with the boxes on one side mostly because the box is twice as wide. I would be all for changing the snake to the artifact symbol either way, however.

Xonathan · « **Reply #43 on:** April 19, 2018, 09:32:26 AM »

To me I liked the fact that curses had their own symbol because they reflected an evil alignment (usually because the ability empowers your defense). I didn't like that they were neutral as artifacts. That caused confusion for me. If the change in the symbols happens then it makes sense because they are viewed as neutral as artifacts.

kariusvega · « **Reply #44 on:** April 19, 2018, 09:36:46 AM »

Quote from: tripleplayNa1 on April 19, 2018, 09:28:10 AM

Quote from: kariusvega on April 19, 2018, 07:45:52 AM
Quote from: Xonathan on April 19, 2018, 07:26:55 AM
Quote from: kariusvega on April 19, 2018, 07:18:42 AM
After sleeping on it and considering veteran and new players alike:

It seems very counter intuitive to change a foundational and years in print Curse icon.. It's an established card type. Probably best to keep it for consistency. It's easier to explain a curse based on the icon at this point than "they decided to change it after a while". I understand it may seem more streamlined to have them with grail icons, but they are already a well established card type..
Ps
"Covenant of" is significant title text.

I agree with JD here. It would be cool to have covenants have there own icons (like curses) and have good alignment no matter how there played, and visa versa with curses.

They already do. You register exactly what a covenant is by the orientation of the symbol in the box or the card text which says "covenant of" Curses are the same way and the most concise and comprehensive in print educational documents show this (of which the one sheet in my signature which is on the front page of tlg does as well)

There is also only one covenant and a handful of Curses in the document Gabe posted so they would become new and extreme outliers in a box which includes the previously consistent covenants and curses. I vote consistency here, which is sticking to the establishment.

I thought it would be very unlikely that covenants and curses would be changed because the number of new ones amounted to a to a 10% increase (there are currently 51 curses/covenants and 5 being added) compared to 21 Dual Alignment Enhancements being added to the existing 29 (a 72% increase). I wouldn't be the right person to explain why curses and covenants were changed now but I assume it had something to do with consistency going forward with dual alignment cards generally. IMO it is not hard at all to remember what a curse/covenant is the same as what a city is. I think in the long run it makes sense to split them now. Yes, they might be outliers in the view of just previous coves/curses but how much more would coves/curses be outliers when considering all dual alignment/split box cards in the future? I could really go either way with my opinion, personally, I think coves and curses could also stay the same with the boxes on one side mostly because the box is twice as wide. I would be all for changing the snake to the artifact symbol either way, however.

You could make the same argument with any icon..

Lamb is a good dom
Reaper is a evil dom
Snake is a curse

Removing these removes their unique identifications, especially without identifiers. Consistency generates intuition. We need that across the board and to remain fixed to printed material..

Taking the text off of an image increases clarity. Removing the icon distinguishing an established card type is just confusing.

Covenants were good, curses were evil until the latest reg. This is honestly a relatively arbitrary rule change that people have mixed feelings on.

Gabe · « **Reply #45 on:** April 19, 2018, 09:53:13 AM »

There's a lot of misinformation and skewed facts in this thread...

kariusvega · « **Reply #46 on:** April 19, 2018, 10:00:49 AM »

Quote from: Gabe on April 19, 2018, 09:53:13 AM

There's a lot of misinformation and skewed facts in this thread...

Fall of Man in the document posted looks like an evil enhancement or an artifact..

Nothing on the card immediately indicates to me it is a curse, which I only know from its previous version. All I'm saying is keep the snake icon and some way to continue to indicate a covenant is a covenant due to the actual icon used to indicate covenants is now being proposed to change, along with the actual icon indicating a curse removed..

Gabe · « **Reply #47 on:** April 19, 2018, 10:06:06 AM »

That’s not a skewed fact or misinformation, it’s your opinion which we want to hear. But repeating it again isn’t necessary and doesn’t make us hear it more.

kariusvega · « **Reply #48 on:** April 19, 2018, 10:10:34 AM »

Quote from: Gabe on April 19, 2018, 10:06:06 AM

That’s not a skewed fact or misinformation, it’s your opinion which we want to hear. But repeating it again isn’t necessary and doesn’t make us hear it more.

Is there anything besides the assumption that new players and old would know curses are an evil enhancement or artifact that would immediately indicate to them the proposed FoM curses are a curse?

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #49 on:** April 19, 2018, 10:11:10 AM »

Quote from: kariusvega on April 19, 2018, 10:00:49 AM

Quote from: Gabe on April 19, 2018, 09:53:13 AM
There's a lot of misinformation and skewed facts in this thread...

Fall of Man in the document posted looks like an evil enhancement or an artifact..

Nothing on the card immediately indicates to me it is a curse, which I only know from its previous version. All I'm saying is keep the snake icon and some way to continue to indicate a covenant is a covenant due to the actual icon used to indicate covenants is now being proposed to change, along with the actual icon indicating a curse removed..

There’s no specific icon for cities either, it simply has to be learned that a DAC with a fort and a site is a city. Learning that a curse is a DAC with an EE and artifact is exactly the same.

News:

Author Topic: Card Design Changes to Some Dual Card Types (Read 28405 times)

kariusvega

kariusvega

kariusvega

kariusvega

kariusvega