TOPIC: Colorblind Friendly Token Request

Note that completion tokens already have circles on either side of the transmute code, so working with what we already have might be the easiest thing to convince TPTB to add more.

I'd be in favor of letters instead of shapes, as I think many people will get confused by which shapes are which rarities. Maybe something like a circle with a letter inside. C for common, U for Uncommon, R for Rare, M for Monster tokens, P for Participation Tokens.

Maybe it would be easier to use a code. Common token titles could be Upper Case and Lower Case, Uncommon could be all caps. Or maybe underlined or italicized.
Rares are fairly easy to distinguish, most can be determined by the transmute type on top.
Really only the ones traded by units are hard, MS, PS, DP, EM, AI, AP

Then additional symbols are not needed.

I apologize that I haven't considered this in the apps. I will add a item to my change list to add a code to the display of tokens to indicate rarity. I will also modify the rarity designator to only include tokens of that rarity rather than that level and up. Probably won't release until the first of the year, but I will try and make it happen.

Just so that people who aren't colorblind can understand the challenge, here is a simulation of what someone what red/green colorblindness will see.


Also, I'm not sure why people are looking to reinvent the wheel on rarity indicators. Transmuted tokens have had a rarity indicator since the Combo token days (1C, 2C, etc.). Just extend that model out to other rarities instead of trying to intrude on the set symbols or trade exchange indicators.

Also, it's important not to conflate Rarity with Source. Rarity is an indicator of distribution frequency and (generally) overall power level. Source is how you acquire the token.

So, there is no collision between "Common" and "Completion" in regards to rarity. It's theoretically possible to have a Common Completion token (although there never has been one). We've seen Rare and Ultra Rare tokens with Source: Exchange.

Finally, icons carry no meaning until you learn them. Even then, they're generally less useful the more you need to remember. The first letter of a word is an easier pneumonic. And C/U(C)/R is pretty well ingrained in collectible games at this point.

Cranston wrote: I apologize that I haven't considered this in the apps. I will add a item to my change list to add a code to the display of tokens to indicate rarity. I will also modify the rarity designator to only include tokens of that rarity rather than that level and up. Probably won't release until the first of the year, but I will try and make it happen.

Thank you so much for planning to do this! It is very very much appreciated!

Marc D wrote: Just so that people who aren't colorblind can understand the challenge, here is a simulation of what someone what red/green colorblindness will see.


Also, I'm not sure why people are looking to reinvent the wheel on rarity indicators. Transmuted tokens have had a rarity indicator since the Combo token days (1C, 2C, etc.). Just extend that model out to other rarities instead of trying to intrude on the set symbols or trade exchange indicators.

Also, it's important not to conflate Rarity with Source. Rarity is an indicator of distribution frequency and (generally) overall power level. Source is how you acquire the token.

So, there is no collision between "Common" and "Completion" in regards to rarity. It's theoretically possible to have a Common Completion token (although there never has been one). We've seen Rare and Ultra Rare tokens with Source: Exchange.

Finally, icons carry no meaning until you learn them. Even then, they're generally less useful the more you need to remember. The first letter of a word is an easier pneumonic. And C/U(C)/R is pretty well ingrained in collectible games at this point.

Thank you so much for taking the time to make an example!

My thoughts for distinction of rarity and source are these can both be important parts of a token, as completion tokens have special transmutes and volunteer tokens do deserve a spot of their own since they are almost always are 1 rarity level beyond what they actually are and have a game demand all their own.

So while different I didn't want to have a muddied clarity of what an abbreviation could mean. And I thought TPTB were already moving more towards iconography with their transmutes as that has been a symbol on all transmutes I have seen since started playing on the relic transmutes to denote their level of transmute. Or at least that is what I thought the bottom symbol meant on the transmuted tokens.

Also I do personally lean toward icons vs text since I am also very dyslexic and its a preference over complicated abbreviations. Well thought out symbols can explain things intuitively without need to even find a decryption chart.

I'd be happy with any of the solutions mentioned so far though and its great to see everyone brainstorming together to help people!

Impy wrote: So while different I didn't want to have a muddied clarity of what an abbreviation could mean. And I thought TPTB were already moving more towards iconography with their transmutes as that has been a symbol on all transmutes I have seen since started playing on the relic transmutes to denote their level of transmute. Or at least that is what I thought the bottom symbol meant on the transmuted tokens.

This image is hidden for guests.
Please log in or register to see it.

Also I do personally lean toward icons vs text since I am also very dyslexic and its a preference over complicated abbreviations. Well thought out symbols can explain things intuitively without need to even find a decryption chart.

I'd be happy with any of the solutions mentioned so far though and its great to see everyone brainstorming together to help people!

We arguably have a sample size of three right now in regards to rarity symbols, albeit with multiple instances in two of those samples.
Sample 1: Trade tokens (hammer and anvil)
Sample 2: Combo tokens (1 - 4 cauldrons)
Sample 3: Transmuted tokens (stars with 3 - 5 points)

My honest preference is for C/U/R on the tokens because that's an ingrained standard from other collectible games, notably Magic. I see advantages in alignment with industry standards rather than fighting against them.

I also will admit that I have a personal bias away from icons because I have quite a few people in my gaming groups that get very frustrated with iconography, no matter how clear it appears to me. Race for the Galaxy is a great example. I think it's a very well thought through system of icons, but lots of my friends reach for the icon key every game

I had not really thought about red/green colorblindness, since the green tone was always so dark to be black or brown. I am slightly red/green myself, but it only comes up for me when the tones are similar. My wife points out when I am in error.
I used to game with a friend who was totally colorblind, so we had to choose pieces based on gray scale rather than color.
So White/gray/beige or yellow, or orange/red or blue/green (unless a deep green then it looked black) or brown/black. We would ask him which tones were distinct enough for him.

So really R/U/C would work on the token bottom, since the ones which would need it don't need the Hand icon. Their rarity is noted by the associated trade good on the top

We already have the set icon on the side of the token, and I wouldn't fix what isn't broken.

"special" tokens now get the dots to the side of the trade good designation (even if they could be larger or darker)

Adding C/U/R to the bottom where the 3, 4, or 5 point star seems a natural fit.

The example is really telling. It's like people with this issue have to pretend they're always trying to differentiate old commons from uncommons (which was tough for everyone, even those without color blindness)

I hope this wouldn't be a cost prohibitive thing for TPTB, because it seems like such a good idea.

Something on the stick applied to the token l? Avoid putting it into a circle and just have the letter(s).

Lequinian wrote:

Marc D wrote: Also, it's important not to conflate Rarity with Source. Rarity is an indicator of distribution frequency and (generally) overall power level. Source is how you acquire the token.

So, there is no collision between "Common" and "Completion" in regards to rarity. It's theoretically possible to have a Common Completion token (although there never has been one). We've seen Rare and Ultra Rare tokens with Source: Exchange.

If marc’s point is to show rarity and not source, then +1. Adding codes for source to the token isn’t there today and is scope creep looking to solve a non-exist / minor problem. Color blindness / accessibility is a valid concern.

Another (worse?) way to handle rarity is the token’s edge shapes. URs are stars, but UC could be hashes and Cs squares (or some such).

Yep. I want to limit scope to just rarity identification.

I thought about suggesting something with the token blank itself. Something similar happens with trade goods where you have Trade 1, Trade 2, etc. on the reverse. A few issues though:
- I'm not sure how it affects cost. Right now, TD probably hits certain breakpoints with the gold/platinum backed tokens that reduce the cost per unit. I wouldn't want to mess with that.
- Increased chance of error. There's a potential for a large batch of Commons to get printed on Uncommon blanks.
- Mental overhead - need to learn what each of the edge shapes means and remember it
- Discoverability - Lots of people don't notice the starts vs. circles already.
- Usability - I thought about putting Common/Uncommon/Rare where Trade 1, Trade 2, etc. go, but then you'd need to flip over the token to check rarity (and that's annoying )

Marc D wrote: I thought about suggesting something with the token blank itself.

Cool idea, but I'm afraid that's not a viable option.