prophet

I guess that's a risk if you have some elements that have to be flattened
 
Happy to help. I know these threads can sometimes be frustrating if there's some miscommunication going on, but I find even the most…shall we say…persistent folks are just trying to help and find a solution. Not just for you, but for others who will come after.

Watched the videos and reread the whole thread. Seems like @walt.farrell's suggestion of using PDFs would be a reasonable solution.
You would then have all pages "converted" to artboards. That works fine for the first document and creating the "export template". For the second document, export it as PDF, open it separately in Designer, copy all the art boards and paste them into the original "template" over the top of the original artboards. All new art, but same slices are ready for export.

I wonder if the nifty Export Selection Area would be useful in this situation?
I've used it a few times when designing a full flat package and just needing to export the front panel. I make a simple, no fill, no stroke shape that sits on a locked layer at the top of my stack and then when I need it, unlock, select and choose Selection Area when exporting.
 

With the "parent" selected… "Lock Children" in the context toolbar.
 

@flyleaf If you haven't found the silly workaround yet, group your picture frame by itself (group of one). You can then scale from any corner.

I'm really enjoying this epic metaphor battle. Carry on.

I'm really enjoying this epic metaphor battle. Carry on.

+1
and bonus +1 for @.: NICKY G. :.'s idea for multiple divisions. Have always been frustrated when needing to divide a segment into thirds.

A fun experiment.
In Publisher, I can use the Designer persona to create a symbol and, using the "sync" toggle appropriately, it will do just about everything shown in @Aleksandar Kovač's example: rotation, scaling, changing color, changing text.
However, I run into trouble with images in Picture Frames. It seems the "Lock Children" toggle goes haywire across symbol instances. I can lock children in one symbol to change the frame dimensions, but that will still scale content in the other symbol. And even weirder, the lock will keep the children in place when scaling the frame, but if I rotate the frame, the content doesn't lock in either symbol. Even the one I am currently editing! I also experience some updating delays and weird box/content handle offsetting issues when manipulating Picture Frame within the symbol.
Anyway, the OP point is well taken insofar as they have found a novel way to use Master Pages and the current symbol implementation does not quite offer the same ability. I'd say pitch this as a Feature request of some kind and see what comes of it.
Edit: scratch that rotation bit. It seems even a normal Picture Frame with Lock Children ticked will still rotate the content. Is that a bug?
Edit 2: Just swapped using a Picture Frame for a Curve and it works fine. I should always trust my first instinct which is to avoid Picture Frames entirely. They just don't make sense to me.

With a nice solid background like that, you can use the image itself to get a pretty good mask…
• Duplicate
• Apply Threshold Adjustment, merge
• Invert
• Rasterize to mask

Screen Recording 2022-02-22 at 3.13.26 PM.mov

With a nice solid background like that, you can use the image itself to get a pretty good mask…
• Duplicate
• Apply Threshold Adjustment, merge
• Invert
• Rasterize to mask

Screen Recording 2022-02-22 at 3.13.26 PM.mov

There was a good discussion over here a few months back with staff getting involved. Seemed promising.

Well, yes, they can exist. But then we are unable to use Pages or Master Pages without converting.
Well…I guess my point could be moot. If Artboards can exist in Publisher and maintain their Layer structure, as they seem to do already, then why not have Global Layers move across Publisher and Designer? It would be essentially the same construct.
Fair enough. I rescind my previous arguments. Global Layers for all!

+1 for this. Would be very handy. Also handy would be the much asked for Resources as a Panel.

Ah. I would never expect 100% agreement. At least those who really don't care about one feature might disagree just to force another instead. People and politics

yes, yes, yes. Need this to get done.

Amen to that.

Certainly. Go to Preferences > Keyboard Shortcuts > Node Tool > Join Curve

I too found this frustrating when I first started using Designer, but I got a new workflow pretty quickly.
As others have noted, on a single curve, one can Close Curve to have the app create a curve between points, and one can drag a node onto another to get the yellow indicated which will weld the 2 nodes together.
For separate curves, I've found that to be able to drag select 2 overlapping nodes to weld, as the OP is trying to do, one has to make sure both curves are selected first. I find the easiest way to do that is to do a quick toggle to the Move Tool (v), drag around the node junction to select both curves, then quick toggle to Node Tool (A) and drag again to select the nodes, then Join Curves.
An aside that has been bemoaned for quite some time on these forums, Join Curves work better than Close Curve as you can see in the last steps of the video. Close creates an extra line whereas Join does not.

Screen Recording 2022-01-08 at 10.19.56 AM.mov

My attempt at a simple representation of Global Layers.

My take involves preserving the white pencil and the black pencil as separate layers. Achieved using separate White fill layer with the original image used as mask, and Black fill layer with an inverted copy of the original as a mask. Each Mask has a Levels Adjustment applied to the alpha to help tweak the BW balance. Then all placed over a colored background. (The colored lights would need to be redrawn or painted perhaps)

My technique…
• Make a white pixel layer
• "Rasterize to mask" the original image and make it the child of the white layer
• Add a Levels adjustment to the mask, set to only affect the Alpha, to be able to play with the black/white balance.
• The colored layer at the the stack bottom is to show the transparency has been achieved.
 

Indeed. I would also prefer this so I can set my own spacing if necessary.

I can, however, make it with the hexagon tool.

Screen Recording 2021-12-13 at 3.36.45 PM.mov

Is see the OP's point.
Perhaps a simpler shape for an example.
On the top star, I can't adjust the red "inner" points of the star to extend any farther outward. Thus I cannot make the bottom shape using the Star Shape tool.