Library card redesign

666Raziel wrote:

Question : why did you remove the "+1 " icon from cards that gives capacity ?

I didn't remove it. I just didn't / haven't accounted for it.

While I like newest propositions for crypt cards really nice I found library cards ... ugly. Readibility is good but not the estethics.
What hurts my eyes most are:
1. Card types backgrounds.
Action modifier background is nice. All the other are looking much worse than current cards.
2. Left bar
Left bar was looking better when it was thicker
3. Slim stripe of background between art and card text
Looks bad

Ke. wrote:

3. Equipment keyword left in place

Nice catch. That appears to be redundant text and I've sent it to the Rules Team for review. Another example is "Master" - you've eliminated it from master cards such as your Blooding By the Code sample. Though "Master" is a special case as master cards don't have a card type icon.

- You've moved "Master" out of the text box and have indicated it as a card type in the sidebar, consistent with other card types. It's definitely an oddity in the rules that masters don't have a card type icon and I like giving it consistent card type representation. This also frees up a row of text space.

- You've expanded the text box into the bar separating the art and the text. This plus moving "Master" to the sidebar gains us font size.

- You expand the text box into the side bar, but the space you gain is spent almost entirely on displaying the requirement icon.

- "Master", the pool icon, and the requirement icon are not properly aligned.

- The Salubri icon is displayed instead of Salubri antitribu. Also, "antitribu" is not italicized, though I suspect that's because you're working from the .csv and haven't added automatic italicization logic to your text processing yet.

Not that my opinion would matter, but so far these suggestions haven't looked like something I would want to play with. And this troubles my artistic side rather than analytical side.

- I cannot stand the title overflow AT ALL. I don't know why. It looks super-ugly to me and haphazardly put together, like someone hadn't bothered to align the text. Would it look better if the title was moved towards the center a bit so it wouldn't stack with the border?

- I don't like the location of the blood/pool cost in the middle of the card. to the left side. Especially when it also overflows. Its not a place I'm accustomed to for costs in any CCG that I play. I believe costs are usually located in corners of the card, to make them easy to find with the eye once you get used to it. Upper right corner for MTG, upper left or right corner (depending on card type) for netrunner, approximately lower left corner for VTES, or lower right corner for vampires capacity (essentially cost to move the vampire to ready region).

- Despite my earlier post about text instead of icons, I realized having card type identifying text instead of icon in the upper left corner actually looks rather ugly. I think it would look more tolerable if the text was within the actual text box, like with old master cards.

- The space between lines of text seems slightly too large, or maybe its the font.

Overall impression is like comparing an easy-to-read children's book to a real novel. While it may be easy to read, it may not be everyone's cup of tea,

These are just personal opinions.

Ke. wrote:

666Raziel wrote:

I REALLY like the clarity on this card.

The overall restrictions in separate transparent area under the artwork and then the two different white boxes for normal and superior effect.

I think that especially separating the restrictions from the discipline effects is a very good idea and one that will certainly help players understand how bleed modifiers work. Especially the newbies.


The only thing that bugs me is the thinness of the left sidebar (which also causes the card cost to look in awkward position ie. not -centered).