Poll: using symbols in meccg textbox

[Thorsten the Traveller]

Since we are developing new cards for meccg (see here), it is important to know what people think about using symbols in a card's text.

We plan to use a couple new symbols on the cards that replace terms or phrases very regularly used on the cards.
This is done to:
1) make the card-text shorter
2) make the card-text faster and/or easier to read -if this is indeed the case, your opinion should help to establish this.

See cards below as examples. And these are the symbols:
direct influence
general influence
tap this card (to)
Company versus Company Combat
Marshalling Point(s), or Marshalling Point Pile
corruption check

nb. other symbols could be used or devised, like for automatic-attack, but some might be more important than others, and perhaps you think there should be a limit to the number of symbols, so let us know.

[Fangorn]

I like them because text is shorter.
Indeed I dislike card with long text to read.

[Vastor Peredhil]

Well as one of the dudes behind the project, I like them since for me they make it easier, everyone can look at a card as see what it does normally.

Also it shortens the cards.

Keep in mind if ICE would have used symbols more they could have made longer more proper card text, so that not every 3rd card would need an errata or clarification; DC cards have longer text, to prevent misinterpretations and such make errata unnecessary

yours Nicolai

[Bandobras Took]

Once you learn what the symbols are, it's nicely efficient. Positive vote for me.

[Darksatin]

I like them too...
These symbols are very useful.

[Shapeshifter]

I like them because they make the texts easier to read. For example you may see at first sight if a card has a ability. Thumbs up!

[miguel]

I don't like them for a few reasons.

• i) They can make cards less readable; some symbols are used for both singular and plural so you need to stop and figure out which they mean.
  
  ii) It's more stuff you need to memorize, and there are more symbols added to card texts than presented in the opening post.
  
  iii) They might make the card texts look like they are shorter, but you still need to translate the symbol into text (inside your head). And in some cases the space left over is just used for more text, creating cards that are extra long to read and possibly too complex. I don't believe the errata/clarifications are because ICE didn't have enough room on the cards, they just did sloppy work.
  
  iv) The symbols can get very small if the card text is even a bit long. You can still read the letters, but the symbols might not look so crisp once printed. In fact, I know they won't.
  
  v) The excessive use of symbols doesn't feel very Tolkien / in the spirit of MeCCG, imho.

edit: In reference to i) a symbol can actually mean two different things as well (marshalling point(s) and MP pile)

[Muad'Dib]

I agree with all miguel's points. But till i play DC, they dont bother me too much. But maybe using them will persuade some people to play, even these who are not playing meccg. Why? Because with them, game looks more friendly, similarly to other games.

[Beornd]

I don´t need them too. They renember me at magic and i hate magic
The LCG´s games (AGoT and Lotr) i play dont use them and nobody missed them there.
And for this DC project with such long text lines it could be work or not, because more than 3 symbols are not machinable.
So my vote up to 3 positive for more negative.

[Nknma]

I also voted against the symbols partly for same reasons as miguel and beornd. I think they make the cards look more plastic/boardgame/magic-like and they really don't do too much effort to clarify the card texts - maybe even the contrary. Maybe I am a bit conservative, but I like my meccg textboxes filled with text not with symbols.

[marcos]

I also voted against the symbols partly for same reasons as miguel and beornd. I think they make the cards look more plastic/boardgame/magic-like and they really don't do too much effort to clarify the card texts - maybe even the contrary. Maybe I am a bit conservative, but I like my meccg textboxes filled with text not with symbols.

+1

[jhunholz]

Joe Bisz and I were actually talking about something like this over the past weekend. For me personally, I don't care either way. But for new players in North America, I think adding symbols would be a big help. Let me explain what I mean. Sadly, competitive MECCG is dead over here. Our last Nationals was held 2 years ago and had 2 participants show up, and the previous Nationals only had 4. Many of the former players over here have sold their collections and moved on, or just play on GCCG. But ARDA has become a very popular format at Gencon the past 2 years, bringing players together that haven't played in years and also some who casually collected but never played before. For that group, symbols would be a big help in understanding what a card does.

I completely understand where some are coming from, saying the symbols detract from the game. If we had an active player base over here, I would agree with you 100% - I love the text. But MECCG has mostly passed on for us, and the symbols are very useful in bringing a new player up to speed.

[miguel]

I agree that using some additional symbols in the textbox could work. But they would need to be symbols already present in the game or otherwise just plain obvious, and they would need to pass my points i) and iv).

I'm afraid new players won't really get to benefit from these unless we'd be able to reprint the whole game. Having some cards use symbols and others text could also be confusing.

[Jose-san]

I like the symbols. But then, I'm a Race for the Galaxy fan xD

Also symbols are already used on the cards (sites and regions).

I don't get the corruption check symbol, though, what is it?

[miguel]

I believe it's a pair of dice..? (see my point iv)

Yes symbols are already used, because the game uses those symbols for something. But to come up with new symbols just to replace words is very different.