Skip to Content

Overhauling the layout. "Dark Horse C"

Group V6back.jpg
Group V6.jpg

So the overwhelming majority said "C" with my last blog.
On the right, you will see 2 groups of images. On the left are all the characters (aside from warrior which you've seen) with the same "C" style. The cleric is in 4 positions, each labeled on the bottom of his card. Which position do you prefer?
.

The image on the right is in the "C" style, but with the background from the box art. I think it might be sensory overload, but I've been wrong before. What I DIDN'T do, was push over the icons on the left. It SHOULD be done, but I didn't think of it until I saved everything. It's no big deal, maybe just a 10 pixel shift. Also, let me know which position of the cleric you prefer. Maybe you prefer the position of him from the left group, but on the right background.

Let me know which card style you like most. Mind you, every card you are playing with will have the same image and icons. Only the text changes.

If you are having trouble viewing the full image:

Click the image you wish to view.
Click "Original" below the image.
Right-click the image.
Click "View Image".

Comments

I voted Mace cut out -

I voted Mace cut out - reversed as it flows better with every other cards character orientation and placement.

As for the background, I don't think it makes any difference at all. I'd probably stick with the original though rather than going with the box art background to add variety and interest to the mix.

Although ..

Having said that, it's YOUR game and you are the one with the final say on the matter. Take peoples ideas and thoughts into consideration, sure, but ultimately it's up to you.

If you poll people constantly about every little detail, it often ends up showing in the end as something will almost always look disjointed/disconnected from the rest in appearance (also commonly known as 'design by committee')

That IS true. I am fully

That IS true. I am fully aware of design by committee pitfalls. I always remember I have the final say. The problem is being able to say that MY say is sometimes wrong and allowing a veto.

So far of the 3 I asked, they all said "All in frame, Regular" with "Torch and Pillar". This is 2 "professional" playtesters and 1 board gamer. Yours is the first to go against the grain. I'm just making doubly sure I'm not missing something. My tastes obviously differ from everyone else when given options, and I want to hit a majority when I don't care for the outcome one way or another.

All in frame reversed

"All in frame reversed" is my vote. Here is why, it is the most like the Wizard card. I don't think seeing him on the box facing the other way will make people even "blink twice". a mace is a weapon that switches hands without any issues.... it is not like the scar on his face jumps from one side to the other.

However, you could make him "match" the wizard's position and have part of him off the card... having the two match might be the best from a "theme" perspective that they are both "caster".

Everything you have chosen so far has been good (I like all the cards), and asking us is just a "side vote" for the sake of being thorough.

-Eamon

Oh, I know. I discussed the

Oh, I know. I discussed the moving hands in the previous blog. Actually, I'd rather him look nothing like the Wizard card. I had each drawn in specific poses as to not be cookie cutter, but the Wizard and Cleric were the hardest. I really should have had the cleric, elbow bent, hand upturned, as if holding a glass of wine. It's too late now, but a nice thought. Vote noted.

All in frame regular or

All in frame regular or reverse is fine. Regular is left heavy so eyes will gravitate to left. Regular is more balanced. I would go with Regular. Box art background looks nicer, but because of the glare, the original background is better for readability. I would go with original.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Syndicate content


blog | by Dr. Radut