Territory Class Character
Territory Class Enhancement
Warrior (Class Character)
Weapon (Class Enhancement)
Dual-Alignment
Dual Icon
I think this will simplify things for the game. (The announcement above)
I am curious why the warrior/weapon class icons and TC are not depicted on both sides though. In a separate thread it sounded like it was 100% decided that this is how it would be, and when the symbol applies to just one side that it will be noted in the identifier.
The reason I ask is because it seems like relying on the identifier uses valuable limited space that might need to be used for something else. It also seems like having the WC/TC symbol on both sides would help eliminate confusion the same as splitting up the icons.
Any information that can be shared about why it was decided against printing them this way would be appreciated.
Thanks
I am curious why the warrior/weapon class icons and TC are not depicted on both sides though. In a separate thread it sounded like it was 100% decided that this is how it would be, and if it is only one-sided that it will be included in the identifier.
The reason I ask is because it seems like relying on the identifier uses valuable limited space that might need to be used for something else. It also seems like having the WC/TC symbol on both sides would eliminate confusion the same as splitting up the icons.
Any information that can be shared about why it was decided against would be appreciated.
This is a pretty good change to see; however, should the word "Curse" be put in the identifier for immediate simplicity going forward? With all of the old curses, the snake in the icon box was super helpful to distinguish between curse, covenant, and neutral artifact. With other cards that reference curses like Balaam, new players might not realize that an artifact icon with another evil enhancement icon is a curse. It would just look to them like another artifact. Older players I know will probably not care, but younger players are going to question what is or isn't a curse because of the Grail Icon.
If you can find it could you link to the thread where you got the impression it was 100% decided we were making a change?
Personally I hope more cards like Fifth Seal / Justice Seekers, which has the TC symbol on both sides, are printed for clarity’s sake.
We've discussed that. It isn't going to happen. One icon applies to both sides unless otherwise noted. Sorry.
+1This is a pretty good change to see; however, should the word "Curse" be put in the identifier for immediate simplicity going forward? With all of the old curses, the snake in the icon box was super helpful to distinguish between curse, covenant, and neutral artifact. With other cards that reference curses like Balaam, new players might not realize that an artifact icon with another evil enhancement icon is a curse. It would just look to them like another artifact. Older players I know will probably not care, but younger players are going to question what is or isn't a curse because of the Grail Icon.
+1
+1 Same with Covenants.+1This is a pretty good change to see; however, should the word "Curse" be put in the identifier for immediate simplicity going forward? With all of the old curses, the snake in the icon box was super helpful to distinguish between curse, covenant, and neutral artifact. With other cards that reference curses like Balaam, new players might not realize that an artifact icon with another evil enhancement icon is a curse. It would just look to them like another artifact. Older players I know will probably not care, but younger players are going to question what is or isn't a curse because of the Grail Icon.
+1
+1 Same with Covenants.+1This is a pretty good change to see; however, should the word "Curse" be put in the identifier for immediate simplicity going forward? With all of the old curses, the snake in the icon box was super helpful to distinguish between curse, covenant, and neutral artifact. With other cards that reference curses like Balaam, new players might not realize that an artifact icon with another evil enhancement icon is a curse. It would just look to them like another artifact. Older players I know will probably not care, but younger players are going to question what is or isn't a curse because of the Grail Icon.
+1
I find it ironic that people would like to both change how class icons work in order to save space in the identifier line as well as add 7 or 10 extra characters on every curse and covenant :P might as well throw cities in there. (Unless everybody already has that memorized)
PS. I'm half joking here.
EDIT: I think you have a few too many returns in that post up there.
+1 Same with Covenants.+1This is a pretty good change to see; however, should the word "Curse" be put in the identifier for immediate simplicity going forward? With all of the old curses, the snake in the icon box was super helpful to distinguish between curse, covenant, and neutral artifact. With other cards that reference curses like Balaam, new players might not realize that an artifact icon with another evil enhancement icon is a curse. It would just look to them like another artifact. Older players I know will probably not care, but younger players are going to question what is or isn't a curse because of the Grail Icon.
+1
+1
+1+1 Same with Covenants.+1This is a pretty good change to see; however, should the word "Curse" be put in the identifier for immediate simplicity going forward? With all of the old curses, the snake in the icon box was super helpful to distinguish between curse, covenant, and neutral artifact. With other cards that reference curses like Balaam, new players might not realize that an artifact icon with another evil enhancement icon is a curse. It would just look to them like another artifact. Older players I know will probably not care, but younger players are going to question what is or isn't a curse because of the Grail Icon.
+1
+1
+1
The class symbol applies to the entire card, not one alignment or the other, unless it's specified in the identifier. The need to specify that only one side gets to use the class icon is a rare exception so it doesn't limit card design all that much.
When discussing the current overhaul of dual card types this was talked about. 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. We could shrink the icons to compensate for that. It just didn't seem entirely necessary given that the system we currently have in place works.
This is an attempt to communicate the reasons others didn't go with using icons on both sides, not my personal feelings.
My preference is that we would have always used the icon on each side it applies and I'm in favor of the change now.+1
IMO putting class icons on both sides would be a step backwards after getting the special ability off the artwork.
IMO putting class icons on both sides would be a step backwards after getting the special ability off the artwork.
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.
For TC enhancements I can understand (somewhat), but has anyone ever been confused about the DAC who are Warrior Class?
This is a pretty good change to see; however, should the word "Curse" be put in the identifier for immediate simplicity going forward?
+1One 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.
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".
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
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.
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.
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.
For TC enhancements I can understand (somewhat), but has anyone ever been confused about the DAC who are Warrior Class?
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.
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.
I vote consistency here, which is sticking to the establishment.
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.
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.
There's a lot of misinformation and skewed facts in this thread...
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.
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 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.
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
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.
Cities don't have an icon which has been used for over a decade. They don't even have an identifier
Unless specified the weapon class icon applies to the whole card just like the territory class symbolThank 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'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.
When curses and covenants split you can target them in deck as either type right?
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?)
Excuse my hasty photo editing, I just wanted to get this proposal out there:
(https://photos-3.dropbox.com/t/2/AAC_hXxOrWiuJdmq-r_t4QBRvy9bDZIk1tsHcLoaGJB3eQ/12/140966186/jpeg/32x32/1/_/1/2/Demo.jpg/EI69-2sYuIoEIAIoAg/KU0TRxMhiExOeY8kIzNCy6YNYOYEq7sLQTX-RnLHjeY?size=2048x1536&size_mode=3)
Excuse my hasty photo editing, I just wanted to get this proposal out there:
(https://photos-3.dropbox.com/t/2/AAC_hXxOrWiuJdmq-r_t4QBRvy9bDZIk1tsHcLoaGJB3eQ/12/140966186/jpeg/32x32/1/_/1/2/Demo.jpg/EI69-2sYuIoEIAIoAg/KU0TRxMhiExOeY8kIzNCy6YNYOYEq7sLQTX-RnLHjeY?size=2048x1536&size_mode=3)
So hasty you forgot the image :P
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"?
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.
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.
A question to those defending the Curse icon: Why do you want one type of named DAC to have a unique icon while the other two named DAC's (Covenants and Cities) do not? Making the game more consistent has been a huge focus lately and has been the source of several improvements. Do you have any arguments for the icon other than "It's been there a long time"?
For new players it's strictly better and for old players it still has upsides such as a reminder that Curses are no longer evil in Artifact form.
Excuse my hasty photo editing, I just wanted to get this proposal out there:
(https://photos-3.dropbox.com/t/2/AAC_hXxOrWiuJdmq-r_t4QBRvy9bDZIk1tsHcLoaGJB3eQ/12/140966186/jpeg/32x32/1/_/1/2/Demo.jpg/EI69-2sYuIoEIAIoAg/KU0TRxMhiExOeY8kIzNCy6YNYOYEq7sLQTX-RnLHjeY?size=2048x1536&size_mode=3)
Excuse my hasty photo editing, I just wanted to get this proposal out there:
(https://photos-3.dropbox.com/t/2/AAC_hXxOrWiuJdmq-r_t4QBRvy9bDZIk1tsHcLoaGJB3eQ/12/140966186/jpeg/32x32/1/_/1/2/Demo.jpg/EI69-2sYuIoEIAIoAg/KU0TRxMhiExOeY8kIzNCy6YNYOYEq7sLQTX-RnLHjeY?size=2048x1536&size_mode=3)
???
A question to those defending the Curse icon: Why do you want one type of named DAC to have a unique icon while the other two named DAC's (Covenants and Cities) do not? Making the game more consistent has been a huge focus lately and has been the source of several improvements. Do you have any arguments for the icon other than "It's been there a long time"?Please see my post above. For me here consistency is not the main reason but the topic of getting an idea about what the card's type is when just having a quick glance at it (e.g. when scanning through a deck). Today I am able to identify at first glance whether a card is an artifact, a covenant or a curse.
A question to those defending the Curse icon: Why do you want one type of named DAC to have a unique icon while the other two named DAC's (Covenants and Cities) do not? Making the game more consistent has been a huge focus lately and has been the source of several improvements. Do you have any arguments for the icon other than "It's been there a long time"?
For new players it's strictly better and for old players it still has upsides such as a reminder that Curses are no longer evil in Artifact form.
New players are still going to need to learn what the snake icon means. (Even if set rotation happened someday, we still have several Curses with the snake on the current card face.)
A question to those defending the Curse icon: Why do you want one type of named DAC to have a unique icon while the other two named DAC's (Covenants and Cities) do not? Making the game more consistent has been a huge focus lately and has been the source of several improvements. Do you have any arguments for the icon other than "It's been there a long time"?
For new players it's strictly better and for old players it still has upsides such as a reminder that Curses are no longer evil in Artifact form.
The main reason I am a proponent of keeping the snake icon is the potential for confusion among both old and new players. If we were to go with the skull/grail combo, yes it's consistent with other card types, but it's not consistent with current Curses. As a result, new players are still going to need to learn what the snake icon means. (Even if set rotation happened someday, we still have several Curses with the snake on the current card face.)
Current players may also have some confusion. Back in the day one of the most commonly asked ruling questions was about the Goshen, Kingdoms of the World and Potter's Field "sites" being able to hold Lost Souls--so common in fact, that the question was added to the FAQ. Even after new versions of those cards were released with the proper Fortress icon, the question still came up. Even today, a new player who pulled a Warriors Goshen (say from a Persecuted Church pack) would likely assume he could use that as a Site access card.
Did Fall of Man curse purposely lose its Genesis 3 curse activation identifier? Also, the artist is listed as "Artist Unknown" on that.
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.
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.
I agree and think this is a good point. Surely there's a better artifact icon out there that would identify Artifacts, Covenants, & Curses as a neutral Biblical item.
The artifact symbol is depicting a holy grail yes, but artifacts are not good or evil in and of themselves. A curse gets its "evilness" from the fact that it's part evil enhancement. This is a totally unnecessary nitpick, and is akin to saying that Sites must be evil since they are represented by pyramids.
The artifact symbol is depicting a holy grail yes, but artifacts are not good or evil in and of themselves. A curse gets its "evilness" from the fact that it's part evil enhancement. This is a totally unnecessary nitpick, and is akin to saying that Sites must be evil since they are represented by pyramids.
I must disagree on theological grounds. The Holy Grail has traditionally been viewed of as heroic. In fact, it has been documented that the quest for the grail is not "archeology", it's a race against evil. And consider Guy de Lobard who thought so positively of it, he already had one!
The artifact symbol is depicting a holy grail yes, but artifacts are not good or evil in and of themselves. A curse gets its "evilness" from the fact that it's part evil enhancement. This is a totally unnecessary nitpick, and is akin to saying that Sites must be evil since they are represented by pyramids.
I must disagree on theological grounds. The Holy Grail has traditionally been viewed of as heroic. In fact, it has been documented that the quest for the grail is not "archeology", it's a race against evil. And consider Guy de Lobard who thought so positively of it, he already had one!
The artifact symbol is depicting a holy grail yes, but artifacts are not good or evil in and of themselves. A curse gets its "evilness" from the fact that it's part evil enhancement. This is a totally unnecessary nitpick, and is akin to saying that Sites must be evil since they are represented by pyramids.Ha ha Sites are officially evil now. #IlluminatiConfirmed!
why are redemption players so nitpicky
First post updated
As someone who initially opposed double icons, I think the "doubled & downsized" concept is a great compromise :thumbup:
At first I didn’t see the need to downsize the icons. Even with them downsized I preferred them centered. But the decision was to downsize and move them to the outside edges. Somewhere in the process of updating 57 cards last night the change grew on me and I really like it now!
Give it some time. Maybe it’ll grow on you too. :thumbup:
Some of the updated cards may need the icon added to the other side, if I'm understanding things correctly. For example, Death in the Family. Is that right? If so, I can look through them all and see if I find any more.
Some of the updated cards may need the icon added to the other side, if I'm understanding things correctly. For example, Death in the Family. Is that right? If so, I can look through them all and see if I find any more.
This is exactly the type of thing I hope that people will see and point out! It's the main reason I've shared these google document proofs with the public (they're usually only for the elder team and those helping us).
In the example of Death of Family, what benefit is there to making the evil side territory class? Since it only discards male Heroes in battle and withdraws all female Heroes it technically does nothing when played outside of battle. It was worded this way before these changes to ensure only the good side worked as territory class. If we'd made these changes earlier in the set design it's possible the evil side would do something completely different!
Thank you and please don't hesitate to ask about any others like this.
Can territory class enhancements be played in territory during battle?
Can territory class enhancements be played in territory during battle?
No, sir. The symbol allows them to be played during your preparation and discard phases. During battle Enhancements are played according to the rules of initiative.
I like the Pentecost LR slipped in with the revisions... :)
Now it is Captured Ark.
Didn’t see Pentecost when it was up. Will we be using TC symbol for set aside cards now too? Seems like it would make sense...
Now it is Captured Ark.
Didn’t see Pentecost when it was up. Will we be using TC symbol for set aside cards now too? Seems like it would make sense...
Set aside cards that are able to be played in territory, yes. We've been doing that since Early Church. 8)
Will we be using TC symbol for set aside cards now too? Seems like it would make sense...
If Pentecost and Captured Ark or any more recent LR images have been spoiled could someone point me to the link(s) so I can add them to the FoM thread?
Thanks
For your viewing pleasure, here is a google document (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Zot3OKfmkKoL-wSssBsnpdWhj-x-sdw8HbwCXhEEGMI/edit?usp=sharing) containing the 28 update images.
Icon size changes group 2 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K1Hx-9v7dTrQVIY8prf7wISLAZW5htuVl91xUgIF0mo/edit?usp=sharing)
For your viewing pleasure, here is a google document (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Zot3OKfmkKoL-wSssBsnpdWhj-x-sdw8HbwCXhEEGMI/edit?usp=sharing) containing the 28 update images.
Icon size changes group 2 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K1Hx-9v7dTrQVIY8prf7wISLAZW5htuVl91xUgIF0mo/edit?usp=sharing)
Captured Ark is the last card in the first google doc link.
Pentecost is 2nd to last in the Icon size changes group 2.
If Pentecost and Captured Ark or any more recent LR images have been spoiled could someone point me to the link(s) so I can add them to the FoM thread?
Thanks
Mostly unrelated side note- Should Shifting Blame be worded exactly like Gib Treaty for consistency?
Not sure I like the smaller TC and WC icons. On the plus, they're on both sides (as I think they should be). On the negative, they're tiny. Comically so. I don't think this would bother me as much if they were centered, but they aren't, so it's more noticeable (to me). I get that that is probably the point, so you don't miss them for their size, but that brings me back to the whole Dual TC of Fifth Seal/Justice Seekers. I thought that looked fine there. As long as the art is centered and is given adequate space I don't see how the additional icons detract much from the aesthetic at all (given that art is secondary to function every time). Perhaps it will grow on me, but for now I think it looks a bit goofy.
I like the look of the snake on the curses now, though I would still push for a counterpart icon for Covenants that isn't the normal Art grail so both classes could retain the uniqueness of "Good" Artifacts vs "Evil" ones. Also, this would help streamline abilities in the future, if, say, you wanted to use a hypothetical Covenant icon in place of the word "Covenant" (as you would be able to use the serpent icon to replace the word "Curse").
Mostly unrelated side note- Should Shifting Blame be worded exactly like Gib Treaty for consistency?
I must disagree on theological grounds. The Holy Grail has traditionally been viewed of as heroic. In fact, it has been documented that the quest for the grail is not "archeology", it's a race against evil. And consider Guy de Lobard who thought so positively of it, he already had one!
I must disagree on theological grounds. The Holy Grail has traditionally been viewed of as heroic. In fact, it has been documented that the quest for the grail is not "archeology", it's a race against evil. And consider Guy de Lobard who thought so positively of it, he already had one!
(https://i.imgur.com/QNYeTqv.png)
The funniest post of the year, and all it gets is two negatives?!?
You've disappointed me internets :-)
how about the covenants?? Will they have still have the grail icon or will they have a different icon?? (for example instead of a grail . maybe a dove icon instead)
how about the covenants?? Will they have still have the grail icon or will they have a different icon?? (for example instead of a grail . maybe a dove icon instead)
There if no plan to change the Grail icon for Covenants.
#2 - From now forward dual affiliation cards that need the warrior, weapon or territory class icon will use it on all appropriate sides. As part of this change we have downsized the icons and justified them with the outside of the brigade box. As a result, all cards with those icons have been adjusted, not just the ones with icons on both sides.After skimming the changes I can say this:
Please take this opportunity to check out several more of the updated card images, but more importantly help us make sure that these late changes don't result in any errors being sent to the printer.
It's intentionally off centered to avoid covering artwork as much as possible.
See Gabe's updated first post regarding the snake icon. :)
I'm sorry but the smaller size symbols, and more specifically the off-setting just does not look right. I don't see why after all of the other cards using TC and WC symbol covering a very small part of the artwork is being changed to this with the new cards. It is not consistent with the old symbols and looks like it was a printing error.
Please take this opportunity to check out several more of the updated card images, but more importantly help us make sure that these late changes don't result in any errors being sent to the printer.
QuoteI'm sorry but the smaller size symbols, and more specifically the off-setting just does not look right. I don't see why after all of the other cards using TC and WC symbol covering a very small part of the artwork is being changed to this with the new cards. It is not consistent with the old symbols and looks like it was a printing error.
Fair enough, personally I think it looks fine, and as more cards are printed it will become the new normal.
At first I didn’t see the need to downsize the icons. Even with them downsized I preferred them centered. But the decision was to downsize and move them to the outside edges. Somewhere in the process of updating 57 cards last night the change grew on me and I really like it now!
Give it some time. Maybe it’ll grow on you too. :thumbup:
He who practices deceit shall not dwell within my house; He who speaks falsehood shall not maintain his position before me.
See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people.
I am still trying to figure out why Deceit & Vengeance could ever be considered good from a theological standpoint.Quote from: Psalm 101:7He who practices deceit shall not dwell within my house; He who speaks falsehood shall not maintain his position before me.Quote from: 1 Thessalonians 5:15See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people.
The less restrictions we have in terms of layout, the easier it is to find free art that works for us.
Vengeance = can be good biblically (vengeance is mine says the lord, etc.)
Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord.
Any reason for Avenged to have territory class on the good side? I mean you could pay the cost without getting the benefit in territory but that doesn't seem very useful.
Any reason for Avenged to have territory class on the good side? I mean you could pay the cost without getting the benefit in territory but that doesn't seem very useful.
Anti-Serpent tool.
I vote to keep it. :DAny reason for Avenged to have territory class on the good side? I mean you could pay the cost without getting the benefit in territory but that doesn't seem very useful.
Anti-Serpent tool.
It also gives you a way to remove a multi-brigade character if you have too many brigades. There are strategic uses. They just wont be common. But we can remove the TC on the GE if people prefer.
Are all the swapped numbers purposeful on the updated enhancements? Also, I believe Two By Two was the only one I've seen so far that flipped the numbers on the GE side and kept the original for the EE side.
Thanks, Gabe!
The Land Of Redemption article today with all the updated cards images shows Joshua's Spear with the old-style Warrior Class shield icon. Did that one get missed?
Thanks, Gabe!
The Land Of Redemption article today with all the updated cards images shows Joshua's Spear with the old-style Warrior Class shield icon. Did that one get missed?