Library card redesign

Ke. wrote: Yes, I tried having "Combat: Effect text" etc on Force of Personality and it was quite effective. I think it's better than showing 2x icons (discipline + context) as new users won't be familiar with a icon as combat cards now only have COMBAT in text. Using text again here is consistent with the card type.

The difficulty was laying it out in a manner that did not look shit.

Maybe another way is to make it a 'loud' watermark or embossing.

Ankha wrote: I see three pitfalls:

1. the cardtext with or without the card type must look the same (no extra line)
2. the cardtext with 2 card types or more must look good.
3. the cardtext with 2 card types and 2 disciplines must look good (Quicksilver Contemplation)

I'm slightly in favor of the icons as multi-disciplines, multi-type cards could be seen as "advanced" cards, and it looks neater.

Unless I'm proven otherwise of course. It would be great to see Quicksilver Contemplation with

• [tem] [REACTION] on one line
• [aus][tem] [ACTION MODIFIER][REACTION] on two lines (a 2x2 square)
• [AUS][TEM] [ACTION MODIFIER] on one or two lines

and the same thing with text.

Now that we don't need bold text to separate each discipline's level, we could use that to notify the card type.

So, like Govern effect starts with "+1 stealth action", every text could start with the card type in bold. In a way, that would be consistent with the prerequisite. Force of Personnality effect would start like that : "Modifier. Only usable as the action is announced."

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

Ke. wrote: Yes, I tried having "Combat: Effect text" etc on Force of Personality and it was quite effective. I think it's better than showing 2x icons (discipline + context) as new users won't be familiar with a icon as combat cards now only have COMBAT in text. Using text again here is consistent with the card type.

The difficulty was laying it out in a manner that did not look shit.

Maybe another way is to make it a 'loud' watermark or embossing.

that looks like a step backward to me. I still like the icons best for this job.

self biased wrote: I still like the icons best for this job.

Then you are going nowhere. If the icon is at fault for confusion, using it anywhere leave the confusion. If you're going to remove it for 'simplicity' then remove it everywhere.

You can use different borders of the text blocks to distinguish card types. Like solid for actions, puncture for modifiers, zigzag for combat ets.

You can add word description of type ("action) into border frame or near it vertically or somehow.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

self biased wrote: I still like the icons best for this job.

Then you are going nowhere. If the icon is at fault for confusion, using it anywhere leave the confusion. If you're going to remove it for 'simplicity' then remove it everywhere.

ease up, bud; you're coming off a little on the hostile side. If I came off as dismissive, I apologize. I was posting from my phone, and needed to be brief. For the record, I'm in favor of keeping the icons in both places, but maybe move it down to just above the cost? I might try to shoop something in a little while.

The biggest thing thing that's hemmed up new players that i've seen is during stealth/intercept exchanges, they very often see +1 Stealth on an action card, and want to use that +1 Stealth. Perhaps a change in how included stealth is expressed on actions? wouldn't it be clearer if instead of +1 Stealth Action. on a card it was just 1 Stealth Action. and the + was removed?