[MidnightLich]

Hello folks!

We have one final vote for you, and that involves getting final approval on the personnel we've created - Yarnek. We've uploaded the Final Art Proof as a PDF for you to examine, so you can zoom in and inspect the card to make sure it's what you wanted. But, unlike the mission, you'll notice there are three options for Yarnek. Here is what Art Director Johnny Holeva (jjh) had to say:

That's a lot of text jammed onto a two line personnel. Very Holodeck Adventure-ish. (Design-wise, Decipher would have given him one less skill, with that ability) Three versions attached to consider. I think Version 3 follows the most precedent, but obviously re-arranges the Skill order. Lmk.

Options #1 and #2 keep the skill order which won the vote. Option #1 squishes the special skill slightly, and splits it across two lines. Option #2 squishes the special skill quite a bit, but fits it all on a single line.

Option #3 changes the skill order so that the special skill is first, at full size; then, the skills are after and are slightly shrunk down to fit.

Please take a look, and then decide how you would like to proceed. We are not going to go back and change skills, so that is not presented as an option; nor are we going to change to a three line template. The only potential change we will consider here is changing the skill order, and then, only if a majority of you ask for that change.

You can change your vote any time before polls close on Friday, March 22nd.

-crp

[BCSWowbagger]

ADTJ: Always Defer To Johnny

Voted #3.

[AllenGould]

ADTJ: Always Defer To Johnny

Voted #3.

Especially when there's no compelling reason to go with an uglier version.

[MidnightLich]

ADTJ: Always Defer To Johnny

Voted #3.

Especially when there's no compelling reason to go with an uglier version.

There is: the will of the collective was to have skills before special skill.

-crp

[Armus]

2 keeps the WotC intent and reads just fine to me.

It gets my vote.

[Latok]

2 keeps the WotC intent and reads just fine to me.

It gets my vote.

Looking at the voting threads there didn't seem to be any strong feelings for any option, half of the posts were about whether he should even have Empathy and a couple mentioned they think it should come down to Art any way. So I went with 3, looks better.

[HoodieDM]

I'm with #2

~D

[GooeyChewie]

Looking at the voting threads there didn't seem to be any strong feelings for any option, half of the posts were about whether he should even have Empathy and a couple mentioned they think it should come down to Art any way. So I went with 3, looks better.

Totally agreed.

[AllenGould]

Especially when there's no compelling reason to go with an uglier version.

There is: the will of the collective was to have skills before special skill.

-crp

True, but this strikes me as a good designer lesson - other departments are experts in their realms, so it's important to respect that that expertise.

[Armus]

Is "battle restrictions" correct? I always thought it was "attack restrictions"

*shrug*

[MidnightLich]

Is "battle restrictions" correct? I always thought it was "attack restrictions"

*shrug*

I meant to highlight this, but forgot, so thank you for asking. Yes, "battle restrictions" is the correct term, and the Rules Team specifically asked for this change. It is functionally identical to the original intent of the gametext.

I am 100% backwards on this. "Battle restrictions" was submitted and is incorrect; it should be "attack restrictions." I've updated the card in our software and will make sure this is fixed before we finalize.

EDIT: In fact, the correct text should be: "Away Teams present on planet have no affiliation attack restrictions."

-crp

[karonofborg13]

2 keeps the WotC intent and reads just fine to me.

It gets my vote.

I wholeheartedly agree with Brian, option 2 reads as the cleanest version possible. Sans clutter.

[jrch5618]

Yeah, but 2 has the smaller font which is aesthetically displeasing. 3 reads the best.

Away Teams present on planet have no affiliation attack restrictions.
Away Teams present on planet may ignore affiliation battle restrictions.

So it's a few characters shorter, the actual text, so #3 might not need any shrinking at all

[Ausgang]

I also voted for Version 2: It complies with the vote and the line break in Version 3 makes it less attractive and readable.

[Not_always_but_often]

Is "battle restrictions" correct? I always thought it was "attack restrictions"

*shrug*

I meant to highlight this, but forgot, so thank you for asking. Yes, "battle restrictions" is the correct term, and the Rules Team specifically asked for this change. It is functionally identical to the original intent of the gametext.

I am 100% backwards on this. "Battle restrictions" was submitted and is incorrect; it should be "attack restrictions." I've updated the card in our software and will make sure this is fixed before we finalize.

EDIT: In fact, the correct text should be: "Away Teams present on planet have no affiliation attack restrictions."

-crp

As the original submitter of the special skill, I based the wording on the triple treaty, which says "ignores affiliation battle restrictions". I now see the Fesarius uses the phrase "attack restrictions". Without doing a glossary deep dive, is there a difference in the two terms, or is the triple treaty just out of date?