Co dominant x recessive phenotypes

Hey guys, new here. I understand no one likes noob questions and I promise I have been digging for answers, unsuccessfully obviously. So if someone could either link me to a sticky or give me a quick explanation, I'd be most appreciative.
I understand basic genetics, recessive, co dominant, unproven dominant, dominant genes etc. But can't seem to wrap my head around this cross: Axanthic Pastel, both traits visual. Het is obviously simple enough. It would seem that being recessive, axanthic could only show in a homozygous animal. Do the genes code at a different locus? How is it that they can both be visual? I understand the 1/16 dual super crosses, but haven't been able to find an explanation for this. Is it the same idea, needing two double het snakes?

Here is a link to genetics.

"There are sometimes combinations of morphs that seem to go against these basic rules, such as a Het Axanthic causing a visual difference when combined with a Pastel."
Quoted from the article you linked me to, thank you by the way.
So then, is that as deep as the general understanding goes or is there more info regarding it? Because to my updated understanding, it would seem that Axanthic Pastels are simply het animals.

Here's the quick explanation for ya. Yes, the Axanthic and Pastel genes are on different locus. This means that they do act independently from each other. Many morphs (recessive, dominant, incomplete dominant) are on different locus. That's why these things are so cool! Many different combinations are possible without "muddying the waters" too much.

To get into your example:

Pastel is an incomplete dominant morph. This means only one of the parents needs to be carrying a copy of the gene in order to pass it on to the offspring. The minimum pairing would be:

• Pastel x Normal

Axanthic is a recessive morph. This means that in order to create a visual Axanthic animal, both of the parents need to be carrying a copy of the gene in order to pass it on to the offspring. The minimum pairing would be:

• Normal het Axanthic x Normal het Axanthic

Taking the above into account, the minimum pairing to create a Pastel Axanthic animals would then need to be:

• Pastel het Axanthic x Normal het Axanthic

When it comes to ball pythons, the generally used terminology only refers to heterozygous animals ("hets") when a person is talking about recessive genes. The incomplete dominant morphs still have homozygous and heterozygous forms (basic genetics), but they just aren't referred to as such. They are simply referred to by their morph name (heterozygous) and the super form (homozygous) of said morph: Pastel vs. Super Pastel, Enchi vs. Super Enchi, etc.

Does this help clarify things any for you?

Best regards,
Eric

EDIT: In the quote you mentioned, in some cases "het" recessive animals have been found to be slightly visual (in a different way that the homozygous form is visual). This goes against the basic thoughts of recessive genes in Mendelian genetics, but ball python genetics are more complex than we tend to give them credit for. When this happens in ball pythons, we still refer to them as "het xxxxx", but then talk about them having "markers". These markers aren't 100% accurate, but they can provide a starting point for someone working with these genes as to which animals may in fact be carrying the recessive traits.