The Book of Doctor Doom (Sorcerer)

[Viegon]

Maybe we should just update all the designs to both? "Doctor Doom (II, Sorcerer)"; "Hawkeye (Clint Barton)(II, Skycycle)"; "Superman (Kal-El)(III, Justice League)".

[Tornado]

I like that if the art dept. is cool with it.

[Yodaking]

I'd just leave the official system as the numbering system, makes it easier to reference and everyone knows exactly which design everyone is talking about.

[japes]

Originally Posted by Tornado

I like that if the art dept. is cool with it.

There wouldn't be any art department work. Cards don't say "II" just the books. It's more to tell the difference in the title of the thread.

[Tornado]

Maybe they should.

[johnny139]

I've always preferred the appellation to the numbering just because it's significantly clearer. But in the end it's all just bookkeeping.

[Ronin]

To me, the key thing is whether a design is a divergent take (in which case it's probably best to go for the name), or still essentially a spin on the classic version of the character (in which case the number works best). Like, if I ran Zombie Spider-Man or House of M Spider-Man, I wouldn't want those labeled as Spider-Man II or III. A Spider-Man that was essentially classic Spidey, but with slightly different interpretations of his powers, would absolutely be a II, though.

Doom here is kind of a borderline case, like Hawkeye II (and to a lesser extent, the JLers). He is representing something that's a fairly major part of the character, but he's doing it by tapping into one specific story and has a different armor than normal, which does make him feel like a bit of an off-shoot to me rather than a mainline iconic Doom.

You could justify either way, though.

[japes]

I mean we have Stealth Iron Man and Hulkbuster Iron Man along with I-V so there's room for both if as Ronin says there is a great divergence in the two.

[Viegon]

Ultimately I don't care that much about the label, but I would prefer that we pick a system and stick to it. A split system like Ronin suggests is workable, but as you pointed out, there are (and are going to be) a lot of borderline cases. My vote goes to either doing both for all designs (like I suggested above) or switching entirely to just names. I agree that, in the long run, the number system isn't going to work.

[A3n]

It's hard to follow this to work out what is actually the question. But if it's to make the cards to read Doctor Doom (Sorcerer) then that's horrible & I really don't like that at all. However if it's just to change the title of the threads then I don't see any reason against it. That would also justify at a glance why there is a second version of the same character & would probably be helpful to new comers.

[Ronin]

Originally Posted by A3n

It's hard to follow this to work out what is actually the question. But if it's to make the cards to read Doctor Doom (Sorcerer) then that's horrible & I really don't like that at all. However if it's just to change the title of the threads then I don't see any reason against it. That would also justify at a glance why there is a second version of the same character & would probably be helpful to new comers.

Yeah, we're just talking about changing the thread title for clarity, not the cards.

Originally Posted by Viegon

Ultimately I don't care that much about the label, but I would prefer that we pick a system and stick to it. A split system like Ronin suggests is workable, but as you pointed out, there are (and are going to be) a lot of borderline cases. My vote goes to either doing both for all designs (like I suggested above) or switching entirely to just names. I agree that, in the long run, the number system isn't going to work.

I think the split system is kinda what we've been doing all along, it just hasn't been formalized. There are, as you say, edge cases that could get a numeral or a name, but it's not really a big deal if something gets sorted into one pile over the other.

[Ronin]

Went ahead and updated the title.