Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Quote from: Bobbert on April 24, 2018, 11:28:28 AM

Babylon/The Harlot IS the reprint of Babylon the Great. The game has changed a lot in the last twenty years; it's referencing the same thing, but now that character/event is printed in a way that is relevant to both the story and the game.

If it is the Reprint, why does it have a different name?

Quote from: SEB on April 24, 2018, 11:22:26 AM

Quote from: SEB on April 24, 2018, 11:18:55 AM

Quote from: Crashfach2002 on April 24, 2018, 10:56:19 AM

Also every other example you gave is a character and enhancement with the same picture.  I don't know how you can confuse these given the fact they have different symbols on them and they have to be played (during games) at different times.

Yes the information is there, but Think of my point like this: if you reorder the positions of a stoplight, people will still stop when it is Red no matter if it's the top or the bottom. People are visually driven.

You may not purchase the Old "Babylon the Great." But if there was an updated version (like many cards have had), you would buy that I think? My point is the art for Babylon the Great, needs to stay with that title.

(Note: im not trying to troll, im genuinely interested)

I did, and as was previously stated, Babylon / The Harlot is the updated version of Babylon the Great. The name was modified to fit the new type of card it was.

I guess they could have left it Babylon the Great, then people would have complained that it being a site, it should be Babylon the Great (city, place, whatever).  Then when it gets converted to a character Babylon the Great city?!?!?!  Is she just really fat or something?  Why do you have to call someone a city?!?!?!  Obviously this wouldn't work, so the name was modified to fit the new card type.

It's referring to the same character, so it is considered the same card in Redemption

To be real you have 7 posts and are complaining about something I haven't seen anyone complain about and giving people -1 on encouraging replies. Seems like you are compromising yourself more than what you are suggesting the reuse of good art would.

I was not meaning to be disrespectful. I am genuinely trying to understand this philosophy; it was "culture-shock" to me.

In redemption, the name and the art are in some ways the least important part of the card because of how unique cards are treated. In redemption there are 4 versions of David (David, King David, David, the Shepard, David, the Psalmist) that each have different names, art, brigades, and abilities, but they are all treated as the same unique character "David". So any card that refers to "David" refers to all of these characters, not just the one who's title is simply "David".

Spoiler (hover to show)

There is also

http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/David_(Green)_(Ki)?file=David_(Green)_(Ki).jpg

I want to take this time to express how much I love the Davids in Redemption.  David (the real man) has helped me stick close to the Lord during my life, and I love how many iterations there are of him in the game.

Also, I personally love seeing old cards get revived in this game.  I do not mind changes of title or types.  Not trying to make you feel bad though SEB.

In redemption, the name and the art are in some ways the least important part of the card because of how unique cards are treated. In redemption there are 4 versions of David (David, King David, David, the Shepard, David, the Psalmist) that each have different names, art, brigades, and abilities, but they are all treated as the same unique character "David". So any card that refers to "David" refers to all of these characters, not just the one who's title is simply "David".

Spoiler (hover to show)

Thanks Noah, this is helpful.
I understand that all of those 4 unique cards are referring to the same single character: David. But even in your examples: They have unique names in the card and unique artwork to distinguish them. Cards can be both unique and refer to the same "person/character." Your example seems to emphasize the point on which I have been confused. I would have assumed that they are all examples of the character David while remaining unique cards.

I guess I expected the artwork to be like the titled card's mascot, you know a fluffy pink bear with a jersey that has the school name on it. It would be strange to see another team use someone else's mascot down to the name on the jersey.

I think part of the confusion could be the loosely defined, and probably misunderstood, use of the word "reprint". In most other card games, a "reprint" of a card is made primarily to keep the card in the current rotation of the game without altering it's original ability/intent. In Redemption, however, because of how the game has progressed over the years, we use the term "reprint" to refer to a card that has been, in most cases, redesigned to work in the current meta with the old art, and sometimes the original name, as more of an homage to the original, often unplayable, card. In recent sets, whenever a unique card that is already playable is given a contemporary with a different ability, different art has been used. Examples of this include, Samuel, Jacob, Moses, Michael, the Archangel, and the list goes on and on.

Also, whenever I use the word "unique", I am referring to the game definition of unique found in the REG,

Many cards have the identifier unique. A character is unique if any of the following is true. if none of the following are true, the character is considered generic for all gameplay and deckbuilding rules: 1. The card has a Unique identifier, or has been given errata to make it unique. 2. The card title is a name or names of specific person(s) or being(s). 3. The card represents a specific person(s) or being(s), or a specified quantity of persons or beings, who is related to person(s) or being(s) whose name is in the card title. 4. The card title begins with “The”. 5. The card represents a supernatural leader or ruler of an army or realm (physical or spiritual). 6. A reprinted version of the card is Unique per any of the above definitions.
 
All Dominants, Fortresses and Artifacts are unique. Curses and Covenants when used as an Artifact are also considered unique cards. Players may only control one of each unique card in his territory, set-aside area, or his side of battle. Different cards that represent the same character are also considered unique with each other, even if aspects such as the title, brigade, numbers, special ability, card art or reference are different. See Duplicate Cards.

Additionally, here is a complete list of all cards in Redemption that meet this definition of being "unique" but have different names,
 
• Abram (Pa) or Abraham (Pa, CW)
• Ahab (B, C, Or) or King Ahab (RA2)
• Ahaziah (Pr) or King Ahaziah (PC)
• Amram & Jochebed (CW-Alt) or Jochebed (Wo) or Moses’ Parents (CW-Main)
• Angel of Might (Ki) or The Angel of Might (RJ)
• Antonius Felix (EC) or Governor Felix (Ap)
• Bartholomew (Di) or Bartholomew (Nathaniel) (Ap)
• Bear (D) or The Bear (RA)
• Belshazzar (Pr) or King Belshazzar (FF2)
• Chief Captain Lysias (Ap) or Claudius Lysias (PC)
• David  (Wa, Ki) or David  (Wa, Ki) or David, the Psalmist (CW) or David, the Shepherd (CW) or King David (P)
• Death & Hades (Wa) or Death (RJ)
• Elymas (Bar-Jesus) the Sorcerer (Ap) or Elymas the Sorcerer (Di, EC)
• Esau (Pa) or Esau, the Hunter (F, P)
• Foretelling Angel (Pa) or The Foretelling Angel (RJ)
• Frog Demons (Or, Wa, P) or The Frog Demons (RJ)
• Guiding Angel (E) or The Guiding Angel (RJ)
• Jacob (D, FF) or Jacob (Israel) (CW)
• James (half-brother of Jesus (Ap) or James, Leader in Jerusalem (PC)
• James Son of Zebedee (Ap) or James, son of Zebedee (H) or James (I)
• Job’s Three Friends (Pi) or Bildad, the Shuhite (RJ)/Eliphaz, the Temanite (RJ)/Zophar, the Naamathite (RJ)
• John (H, I, Pr, P) or John, the Apocalyptist (RJ) or John, the Revelator (RJ)
• Joshua (P-Settlers, P-District) or Joshua, Son of Nun (CW)
• King Abijah (Ki) or King Abijam (RA2)
• Manasseh (Pr) or King Manasseh (Di)
• Mary (B, D, Or, P) or The Woman with Child (RJ)
• Matthew (Di) or Matthew (Levi) (Ap)
• Medium in Endor (CW) or Witch of Endor (Pr, Wa) • Mentor (F) or The Ephesian Mentor (PC)
• Michael (Wa, Ki, AW, P-2017) or Michael, the Archangel (RJ)
• Morg (AW) or Morgan (AW)
• Noah’s Sons (Pa) or Shem (CW)/Ham (CW)/Japheth (CW)
• Pharaoh (A, D, H, Or) or The Hard-Hearted Pharaoh (CW)
• Reassuring Angel (Ap) or Reassuring Angels (EC)
• Roman Jailer (Ap) or The Roman Jailer (EC)
• Samson (J, Or, P) or Samson, the Nazirite (CW)
• Saul (Ap) or Paul (Ap, P)
• Uriah (A, Or) or Uriah the Hittite (RA2)
• Whore of Babylon (Or) or Babylon the Great (Wa) or The Harlot (RJ)
• Woman of Thebez (Wo) or The Woman of Thebez (RA2)

P.S. I tried putting the list in a spoiler, but I couldn't get it to work. If it's possible, that would be great.

Quote from: Daniel on April 24, 2018, 01:11:23 PM

Redemption is a very small, niche game that does not have funds for commissioning new artwork regularly. When Redemption first started in the 90s, thousands of dollars went towards original artwork that appeared on cards that are now considered too weak to play. Because of that, and instead of opting for public domain artwork for every card, Cactus reuses some of the old artwork that otherwise would be forgotten. I for one would rather see a reuse of original Redemption artwork than public domain artwork.

Per usual, the graphic designer summarized something regarding art much better than I did...

(Ill stop using the word "unique" as that seems to have added a layer of confusion to the discussion).

My confusion isnt grounded in re-using artwork (in fact I think it can be great), it's when artwork is associated with one card "A" and then given to a new card "B" that is different enough that it needs a new name (i.e. Babylon/The whore ["A"] vis-a-vis Babylon the Great["B"]).

Let me attempt to use The seven different trumpet cards from the Warriors Set. They are all different colors so that there is a visual difference. Seven different cards and seven different artworks. Changing the color on the trumpets was necessary because of the differences in cards. It shouldnt matter if the different card is printed in the same set or in a future set?

Quote from: SEB on April 24, 2018, 01:44:08 PM

My confusion isnt grounded in re-using artwork (in fact I think it can be great), it's when artwork is associated with one card "A" and then given to a new card "B" that is different enough that it needs a new name (i.e. Babylon/The whore ["A"] vis-a-vis Babylon the Great["B"]).

I completely agree and understand were you are coming from, but I would argue that what you are describing as being an issue is actually not the case.

Of the handful of examples that have been brought up where old art was used on a new card with a new name, the old card where the art came from is, for all practical purposes, nothing more than kindling/packing material. These "useless" cards practically don't exist. The one exception I can think of off the top of my head being Wrath of Satan/Terrifying Beast. I wonder if there are any other examples of two playable cards that share the same art?

Every single time a "card" has been "reprinted" when a playable version of that "card" already existed, different art has been used.

I totally understand how it would be confusing if there were 2-4 playable cards that existed at the same time where all are different card types/brigades/special abilities, but that is just not the case.

I apologize if I sound dogmatic or argumentative. As this discussion seems to go round and round in circles, a little more clarity/understanding comes with each lap. I'm just trying to be as clear and concise as possible as I understand where you are coming from and as I try to articulate my opinion.

(I dont think you sound argumentative in the least)

So, essentially, older cards have been "retired." This "retirement" is justification to use artwork that is now not commonly associated with the old card that people have forgotten exist. A few cards slipped through the cracks (like wrath of satan). That is helpful to know, but I wish it wasnt the case.