Re: [NetEpic ML] About army cards...

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:34:08 -0400

Hi!

I agree with your perceptions. I made those other cards without much
help and lacking knowledge in formatting and layout. The minis were my
own crappily painted stuff, so they had much to be desired.

I agree a simpler more graphic approach is best. Also, datacards with
stats is more effective than putting them on the army card itself.

Peter

Stephane wrote:

>Hum , athough I'm not able to make a discinction between all those
>versions, I have always been fond of the first versions included in
>Epic - the ones with repeating black shapes accordingly to the number
>of stands.
>
>They were very good for giving a sense of scale to any company or
>squadron. I have several printed card from every version but when I
>speak of army composition that's always the ones I bring to a new
>player. Explaning that each silhouette is a stand is speaking volumes
>when you want to show the might of the Imperial guard. The only
>change I'd do would be to write the break point and morale on the
>front side.
>
>Coloured versions are not necessarily better, because X X X X X X is
>more visual than writing "X x 10". We don't have painted version of
>every unit in the game; and finally, the paint job shown isn't always
>top notch...
>
>Putting rules on the cards is annoying, first because not all special
>rules can fit, and second because it's harder to maintain. Perhaps
>only the profile summary would suffice (CAF, save, etc.) but I
>definitely think a smaller font size should be used.
>
>In my games, I have the card for the army composition along with a
>printed page of the Summary of Units Statistics of the list I use
>where the troops actually fielded are highlighted. I found it was the
>best compromise.
>
>Just my 2 first fire orders :)
>
>
>
>
Received on Tue Apr 11 2006 - 22:34:08 UTC