Library card redesign

Here are latest; possibly final side bars for library cards:



Note that the white text is merely to denote the card type here and will not be on the final card.

Also; ignore the bleed around the edge of the card.

And for the odd dual functionality cards:



There's only 73 of these cards out of 3700 and a good chunk of them will be covered by text like so:



So I don't think it's worth investing too much time in worrying about these.

Ke. wrote: So I don't think it's worth investing too much time in worrying about these.

Could I enquire as to what Quicksilver Contemplation would look like in that style? It has four layers using six disciplines (aus, tem, aus+tem, AUS+TEM), which looks like it would leave very little space for card art, if you need four boxes and six discipline icons arranged vertically - like you've arranged the four dom+pre, DOM+PRE icons vertically.

It also looks like the words "Action Modifier / Reaction" might get squashed on the left-hand side.

I personally have no problems with tweaking the style to cope, but as the aesthetic aim seems to be towards large text and consistency, it looks like it might trouble that. So it would be interesting to see what compromises could be deployed, if required.

You also get some cards with just endless card text, like Permanency. Does anyone happen to know what library card has the most words / characters on its text? (That's not a quiz question - I don't know the answer.)

jamesatzephyr wrote: Could I enquire as to what Quicksilver Contemplation would look like in that style? It has four layers using six disciplines (aus, tem, aus+tem, AUS+TEM), which looks like it would leave very little space for card art, if you need four boxes and six discipline icons arranged vertically - like you've arranged the four dom+pre, DOM+PRE icons vertically.

Quicksilver Contemplation was covered earlier in the thread:



In terms of the longest amount of text, call the great beast is the winner:

Juggernaut1981 wrote: Because of the large number of cross logos around the world, there should be an easy enough modification to make it clear as something 'medical' but without infringing any specific copyright (i.e. The Red Cross' Red Cross)

Yeah, one could think that making card backs featuring five rings would be easy but , as you probably know, (US) Olympic Committee has nabbed copyright on all (?) variations of the five rings...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend_of_the_Five_Rings
"One legal issue for Legend of the Five Rings involved the use of a symbol that consisted of five interlocking rings, arranged in essentially a star pattern. This symbol was used for several years in the role-playing game and featured prominently on the backings of the cards in the collectible card game. The United States Olympic Committee sued Wizards of the Coast, who at that time owned Legend of the Five Rings, over the logo, because a special Act of the U.S. Congress[17] gave them the exclusive rights to any symbol consisting of five interlocking rings.

The only way to completely resolve the issue was to quit using the symbol. For the role-playing game this meant very little, but for the collectible card game it meant that the backing of the cards had to be redesigned, which left players with a mix of cards that essentially resulted in marked decks. In an attempt to appease the players, Wizards released the first set with the different backs – Spirit Wars – bundled with opaque sleeves that would obscure the designs on the backs of the cards, allowing players to use any mix of cards in their decks."

Lönkka wrote: The United States Olympic Committee sued Wizards of the Coast, who at that time owned Legend of the Five Rings, over the logo, because a special Act of the U.S. Congress[17] gave them the exclusive rights to any symbol consisting of five interlocking rings.

There's the rub for why LotFR got screwed... Special Act of Congress. With the HUGE number of games using a cross of some sort (red, green, white, etc) as a Life marker, there would be a clear argument to make about it being an undefended copyright.