Cactus Game Design Message Boards

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.

Cities are old things with a new way to combine them. Curses are an old thing that isn't broken and don't need fixing by removing a fixture

Speaking of cities, since that does fall into this discussion.. They probably do need an identifier.

Cities don't have an icon which has been used for over a decade. They don't even have an identifier

I'm just going to say that I'm incredibly disappointed. Between Tuesday and yesterday we had 6 amazing cards spoiled (Daniel and JD's winner cards plus the remaining 4 that hadn't been shown yet), and while there was some discussion on a couple of those, this thread about a game detail (icons applying to the whole card) that literally takes 5 seconds to explain to a new player has been what everyone wants to talk about, and oh my gosh, if a change isn't made then it's going to be the end of the world.

 

Obviously this has been interpreted to be blown out of proportion. I don't have control over how you emotionally react to my responses regarding a miniscule game change I disagree with.

Unless specified the weapon class icon applies to the whole card just like the territory class symbol

Thank you, that answered my question.

It will only create unnecessary confusion and continual questions by players on the forum (as seen, yet again, at the top of this thread by embeejay, who is a seasoned player).

Having not played over the past three cycles now, I think this is overstating my experience by a lot. I would be newb-level for anything dealing with recent additions to the game like DAC.

I think Xonathon showed that this is not a major stumbling block. He not only answered my question, but forestalled a question I did not even ask (about territory class) in one easy to understand sentence.

I wouldn't go to the extreme and believe that anyone here feels that this issue is detrimental to the game or the end of the world. Everyone here has expressed there opinion (and a majority have done so respectfully) on the matter and I don't think anyone is insisting that this rollout is fundamentally wrong or trying to be intellectually superior. We are all processing this change and that processing looks different for each person. Let's just give everyone here a bit of grace here because if this matter was spoken in person, I'm sure it would have been a lot easier to hear the other person's heart and it would not had led to anyone being frustrated. 

After reading through the thread, I apologize for the kind of responses my post caused. I could not have possibly imagined what would happen, and I see that there was a lot of frustration. I do love the changes that have been made, and I trust that the Elders and Play-testers are able reason out the changes more than I am able to. Sorry again, and thank you guys so much for all that you do for this game and community!

Sincerely, Nathan L

Have there been dual alignment enhancements with different numbers before this? Or is having each side have different numbers something new because this is now allowing for it?

As for the icons on both sides issue, after looking at the examples of warrior cards where this is already in place, I'm fine with it. I do worry a little about a card that would only have the icon apply to the left side, but hopefully that feeling would go away quick enough after actually seeing one. (Are there any?)

I must admit I am somewhat disappointed and cannot understand why curses should loose the snake symbol and also shall get the grail!
This is not very intuitive. IMHO fastest recognition is one unique symbol but not the combination of 2 symbols or a written identifier!

While I am a strong advocate of the SA text being taken off of the images I also would vote for having the icons for warrior and territory class being availabe at both sides of DA-Cards! One reason is that I like them being printed on top of the images - the other reason is that this gives a intuitive possibility to get the information at a glance which side of the DA cards has which possibilities. This intuitiv possibility is not given by a written identifier explaining which alignment of the card has which possibilities/has restricted possibilities.

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

So hasty you forgot the image

I suggest to distinguish a Curse from a Artifact by doing something similar to the Fortresses (different background for good and evil), split the boxes but keep the snake icon and/or put "Curse" in the identifier consistently

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.

Consistency:
1. I just realized that "King Saul" DAC has the Hero icon on the left and the EC icon on the right side and with "King Abijam" it is reversed. I see how "The Roman Jailer" has to have the EC icon on the left side since he defaults to being played as a EC but I suggest deciding on a consistent way of how those boxes will be placed now.
2. Why do people want to split the DAC icon boxes but print WC/TC only on one side? Wouldn't it make sense to split either both or none of them consistently? I suggest splitting both. Why save space on the card for art by printing WC/TC only on one side but then split the DAC icons?
3. If the TC applies to the whole card even if only printed on the left side why was it printed on both sides on "Fifth Seal, Justice Seekers"?
4. Also I don't understand why "Sixth Seal, Terror" has the TC only beneath the EC and has "Character is teritory class" in the identifier. I would assume an EC that has a TC icon beneath it would be TC. Tom e the identifier only makes sense if the TC icon was on the left side but it isn't.
5. I don't understand how "Jehu's sword" becomes stronger as an EE if compared to a GE. I see how different numbers for EE and GE can be a good thing but I suggest keeping them the same if it’s something neutral like a sword.

The conclusion I come to is:
1. The TC icon should be only printed on the side it applies to (hence both if it applies to both) because that's intuitive and easy to explain..
2. If people are concerned about the icons taking up to much space I suggest shrinking them but still printing them on the side they apply to.

I suggest to distinguish a Curse from a Artifact by doing something similar to the Fortresses (different background for good and evil), split the boxes but keep the snake icon and/or put "Curse" in the identifier consistently

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.

Consistency:
1. I just realized that "King Saul" DAC has the Hero icon on the left and the EC icon on the right side and with "King Abijam" it is reversed. I see how "The Roman Jailer" has to have the EC icon on the left side since he defaults to being played as a EC but I suggest deciding on a consistent way of how those boxes will be placed now.
2. Why do people want to split the DAC icon boxes but print WC/TC only on one side? Wouldn't it make sense to split either both or none of them consistently? I suggest splitting both. Why save space on the card for art by printing WC/TC only on one side but then split the DAC icons?
3. If the TC applies to the whole card even if only printed on the left side why was it printed on both sides on "Fifth Seal, Justice Seekers"?
4. Also I don't understand why "Sixth Seal, Terror" has the TC only beneath the EC and has "Character is teritory class" in the identifier. I would assume an EC that has a TC icon beneath it would be TC. Tom e the identifier only makes sense if the TC icon was on the left side but it isn't.
5. I don't understand how "Jehu's sword" becomes stronger as an EE if compared to a GE. I see how different numbers for EE and GE can be a good thing but I suggest keeping them the same if it’s something neutral like a sword.

The conclusion I come to is:
1. The TC icon should be only printed on the side it applies to (hence both if it applies to both) because that's intuitive and easy to explain..
2. If people are concerned about the icons taking up to much space I suggest shrinking them but still printing them on the side they apply to.

Actually come to think of it after reading a few of peoples posts ,I have completely changed my mind about the Curse cards having the artifact icon on them.  I very strongly disagree with the idea of having the Curse cards as artifact icons on them. (The covenant cards I have no issues with)

I think the curse cards should keep the snake icon on them instead of the artifact icon.


I don't see any problems with that.

Most of the other questions you asked have already been answered, but I don't think this one has been addressed.

I'm not aware of that. Please help me out if you know the threads where those things have been mentioned.
Thanks