New Deck from E - Sultan Republic

[Don Boyer]

Release Date: October 24th, 2012
Where: www.ellusionist.com

Hmm...  It's beginning to look a lot like Rebels...  And is that a leather close-up pad in the background?

Tri-Colored = Having three colors

When I said I'd like the back design to be tri-colored, I wanted it to have three colors, instead of the two colors teased earlier. Standard Bicycle Back Designs are dual-colored, meaning they have two colors on their back design. An example of a tri-colored back design would be the emerald Artifices, because they have three colors: green, black, and white.

Don't they also have a silver metallic ink in them?  I mean, I know you can count and all... 

Some decks go whole-hog and have a "full-color" back, lots of different colors.  But it's not like they use a huge number of different colors of ink.  There's a reason why the print files have to be in CMYK format: Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and blacK (a "B" would be confusing, since blue also starts with a B).  Only four colors, but blended to create a rainbow of colors.  It's why when the Tendril deck was printed, eight different plates were used - one for each of those four colors and each side of the cards.

The biggest reason why most basic playing cards are monochrome in design - just a color on a white background - is because it makes printing the deck cheaper.  Only one plate needs to be used, and with no shading involved, regardless of what that one color is.  The ink can be simply blended into the correct proportions and the back takes only a single pass through a single press to get printed.  It wasn't even until Artifice that E was using more than a single color.

[kcaso]

Release Date: October 24th, 2012
Where: www.ellusionist.com

Hmm...  It's beginning to look a lot like Rebels...  And is that a leather close-up pad in the background?

It looks nothing like the rebels.

[Don Boyer]

It looks nothing like the rebels.

Really?  Let's do a quick comparison.

Black box.  Rebels?  Check.  SR?  Check.
Silver foil on box.  Rebels?  Check.  SR?  Check again.
Classic "two circle" design on card back.  Rebels?  Check.  SR?  Check the third.
Back of cards on SR uncut appear to be monochrome black, JUST LIKE THE REBELS?

CHECK.  And mate! 

I'm not saying they're identical.  But I am saying that based on what we've seen, they share a lot in common.

[kcaso]

It looks nothing like the rebels.

Really?  Let's do a quick comparison.

Black box.  Rebels?  Check.  SR?  Check.
Silver foil on box.  Rebels?  Check.  SR?  Check again.
Classic "two circle" design on card back.  Rebels?  Check.  SR?  Check the third.
Back of cards on SR uncut appear to be monochrome black, JUST LIKE THE REBELS?

CHECK.  And mate! 

I'm not saying they're identical.  But I am saying that based on what we've seen, they share a lot in common.

Sultan box is not black. It's in fact two color, dark blue and grey blue.

Silver foil, sure it's got that.

Two circles, sure. It's not the last deck to have it either.

The back of the cards are blue, not black.

So in fact, this is very much NOT like the Rebels.

[Evan]

These look promising!

COUNTDOWN: http://www.ellusionist.com/sultan-republic-playing-cards.html

[Don Boyer]

Judging from the countdown clock, the release is at 20:00 UTC
or...all in Daylight Saving Time...
4PM Eastern
3PM Central
2PM Mountain
1PM Pacific

It looks nothing like the rebels.

Really?  Let's do a quick comparison.

Black box.  Rebels?  Check.  SR?  Check.
Silver foil on box.  Rebels?  Check.  SR?  Check again.
Classic "two circle" design on card back.  Rebels?  Check.  SR?  Check the third.
Back of cards on SR uncut appear to be monochrome black, JUST LIKE THE REBELS?

CHECK.  And mate! 

I'm not saying they're identical.  But I am saying that based on what we've seen, they share a lot in common.

Sultan box is not black. It's in fact two color, dark blue and grey blue.

Silver foil, sure it's got that.

Two circles, sure. It's not the last deck to have it either.

The back of the cards are blue, not black.

So in fact, this is very much NOT like the Rebels.

Bro, please.  Dark colors that can easily be confused with black in the poorly-detailed images they've presented.  If you can't see the similarity, you're only deluding yourself.

[kcaso]

lol whatever old man.

[Emmanuel]

Kcaso, you're new around here, so one word of advice: Don't diss the moderators, especially Don.

You may not agree with him, but there's no place for disrespect around here.

[LauR]

http://www.ellusionist.com/sultan-republic-playing-cards.html

Looks pretty black, but then again Chinatowns looked pretty red.

[Don Boyer]

lol whatever old man.

At least I'm not the one who needs his eyes checked...

The picture below...it doesn't look terribly blue at all, does it?  More like BLACK with SILVER FOIL...  Reminds me of a deck I saw somewhere...  What was it called again?  Oh, yeah - REBELS.  I mean, I could be wrong, since photos are often tweaked and the subject's true colors don't always shine through, as LauR stated - and if I am, I'll be big enough to admit it.  Just like you weren't big enough to take a little gentle ribbing.

And, just between us (and the whole damn board), talking shit to people doesn't impress us, especially when it comes from a n00b.  For all you knew, I was a designer from Ellusionist or Theory11 or the Blue Crown - we do get some "name-brand" people around here now and then.  How stupid would you look then?  Well, worse than you do now - and that's not easy to top.

Now, let's try to be a little friendlier - OK?  Play nice with the other kids.  First impressions do tend to last and are hard to shake when they're negative ones.

Kcaso, you're new around here, so one word of advice: Don't diss the moderators, especially Don.

You may not agree with him, but there's no place for disrespect around here.

Much appreciated.  But it should apply to more than just moderators.  It should apply to anyone around here with a reputation for being straight shooters and who know what they're talking about.

[vmagic]

At least this deck doesnt have a building on it like the Rebels.

[Don Boyer]

At least this deck doesnt have a building on it like the Rebels.

Hey, I liked the Capitol Building on that deck.  It reminded me of some early Congress designs.  I'm thinking they were borrowing from the idea that America was essentially founded by a bunch of rebels.  At least it was accurate.

Looking at the awful images of the back we've seen so far (in terms of true perspective and clear angle), I certainly don't see any buildings.  But it still looks a helluva lot like the Rebels deck to me.  That whole "split-suit" thing they're doing - I'm not sure I'm going to find that attractive at all.

Time will tell.  About 14.5 hours, in fact.

[RandyButterfield]

Sultan box is not black. It's in fact two color, dark blue and grey blue.
So in fact, this is very much NOT like the Rebels.

Why do you think these are Dark Blue and not Black?
They look Black in ALL of the photos of the actual Tuck Box.
The only photo that has a tint of Blue is the original teaser of the Tuck flat
on the computer, and that is probably from the glare of the computer screen!

I was looking forward to these as I think Ellusionist does some of the nicest designs,
but like most here I am disappointed by the final product. The Back Design looks like it
could belong in the same Series as the Rebels! Rebels = U.S. and Sultans = Middle East.
If D&D switches up their Chinatown Decks to Black with Yin Yangs on the top and bottom
they could sell the 3 decks as a matching multi-cultural Set!

thanks, Randy

[Evan]

These are now available!

I picked up 2. I'm super excited to receive these. I love the look of the faces. The backs look decent but it seems that the pictures on there are very blurry and show nothing.

[Emmanuel]

I was a little excited for this deck, but it's disappointing that most of the work went into the box. While the half-stripe treatment for the pips is nice, JAQK Cellars did it better.

Also, the "harem" tidbits on the Sultan Republic overview pages weren't necessary.

[sr15]

I actually didn't know these were coming out until today. Much like the Rebels, I am underwhelmed with the design and I probably won't pick up any of these for a while. I will say that I do think these look better than the Rebels. The box design is definitely better and the faces are better by default since the Rebels are standard faces, although I will give a slight edge to the Rebels in back design.

Either way, big ol' meh on the deck. There are quite a few decks out there that I want far more than these to justify spending money on them now.

[KPopFever605]

Wow! A double dose of of Daniel Madison within around two weeks. It's like we can't get enough!

As for the deck, I really like it, more than I did previously. Although it has hints of Rebel in it, I'm pretty sure the Sultan would be pleased with this deck as we are. I honestly love how the pips are split and that there is just so much detail in one simple card. It's also amazing how all the leaves found on the deck are able to fit into the theme. I'd say that this would be another success for Ellusionist.

By the way, who is the "Sultan" they are referring to?

[moon.exe]

By the way, who is the "Sultan" they are referring to?

You don't want to know.

Am I the only one who noticed the non-standard indices? Seems to be the same typeface, but without the serif.

[LauR]

with a bit metallic ink back design this deck could've been much better.

[Aaron]

first E deck I wont be buying very disappointed.

[moon.exe]

-sigh-

What is it exactly that you guys don't like? There's so many comments about being disappointed, but so little explanation. Does every deck that's release have to have metallic, full-custom court cards and a crapload of gimmick features?

It's really annoying to see that so many people say they're "disappointed" yet fail to see even the simplest details in a deck. You guys have been so stuffed with the big things that you don't see the subtlety anymore.

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but at least try to have an educated one.

[sr15]

It doesn't have to be any specific thing, but in general I am underwhelmed with the deck. A few factors would probably be the increasing quality of designs in decks, the increasing competition in decks with so many kickstarters and custom decks being released, and the far greater than average hype that comes with decks like these compared to decks released by smaller companies/individuals. Also it can come down to personal taste, and personally the deck just doesn't do it for me.

I can appreciate simplicity in design. White Lions, for example, are one of my favorite decks and the design is very simple. Conversely, I just bought the new seasons decks and those look phenomenal. I only have so much money and when my choices are between sultans/rebels and the seasons decks, it's no contest for me.

And don't get me wrong, I usually love the decks that Ellusionist puts outs. I would say the purple artifice deck is my favorite design, and I love the designs of the Arcane decks and Shadow Masters. Maybe part of me not liking these decks is due to higher expectations for Ellusionist/T11, who usually make awesome decks.

[sr15]

-sigh-

What is it exactly that you guys don't like? There's so many comments about being disappointed, but so little explanation. Does every deck that's release have to have metallic, full-custom court cards and a crapload of gimmick features?

I already pretty much answered this, but I'll just emphasize that as competition increases in design, with more and more decks coming out with lots of customization, very intricate and beautiful designs, metallic ink and whatever else, the standard for decks is constantly being raised. I do appreciate a simple design (again some of my favorite decks include White Lions, Vintage Plaid, Bee Stingers, etc.).

It's really annoying to see that so many people say they're "disappointed" yet fail to see even the simplest details in a deck. You guys have been so stuffed with the big things that you don't see the subtlety anymore.

Maybe you'd like to point out some of these details that we so clearly missed? I'm not quite so sure what you mean by simple details in these decks since the Rebels/Sultans actually have pretty detailed back designs. You can put a lot of detail in a back design, but it can still feel uninspired.

A lot of times it does come down to personal taste, and I'll use the comparison of White Lions and Players as an example. The designs are very similar in style, and have a simple yet elegant feel to them. I wasn't a fan of the Players partially because there was too much blank space on the back design that made it feel empty. Also because there wasn't a ton of hype surrounding the deck that ended up being a letdown.

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but at least try to have an educated one.

and lol at this. Who made you the expert on what constitutes good personal taste in a back design? Probably the most pretentious thing I've seen on these forums

[LauR]

-sigh-

What is it exactly that you guys don't like? There's so many comments about being disappointed, but so little explanation. Does every deck that's release have to have metallic, full-custom court cards and a crapload of gimmick features?

I already pretty much answered this, but I'll just emphasize that as competition increases in design, with more and more decks coming out with lots of customization, very intricate and beautiful designs, metallic ink and whatever else, the standard for decks is constantly being raised. I do appreciate a simple design (again some of my favorite decks include White Lions, Vintage Plaid, Bee Stingers, etc.).

It's really annoying to see that so many people say they're "disappointed" yet fail to see even the simplest details in a deck. You guys have been so stuffed with the big things that you don't see the subtlety anymore.

Maybe you'd like to point out some of these details that we so clearly missed? I'm not quite so sure what you mean by simple details in these decks since the Rebels/Sultans actually have pretty detailed back designs. You can put a lot of detail in a back design, but it can still feel uninspired.

A lot of times it does come down to personal taste, and I'll use the comparison of White Lions and Players as an example. The designs are very similar in style, and have a simple yet elegant feel to them. I wasn't a fan of the Players partially because there was too much blank space on the back design that made it feel empty. Also because there wasn't a ton of hype surrounding the deck that ended up being a letdown.

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but at least try to have an educated one.

and lol at this. Who made you the expert on what constitutes good personal taste in a back design? Probably the most pretentious thing I've seen on these forums

It's funny how correct sr15 is, you say there is no explanation of why we're not impressed by this deck then list the very reasons we stated, derp?

Your second argument is highly flawed, if individuals say they were "underwhelmed" or "disappointed," then clearly they did see the subtlety, but that it was too bland/simple. They recognise the deck is not too cluttered, not too outreaching, or subtle as you put it (which seems to be an incorrect use of the term as subtle implies there is an overall detail or theme being expressed by the lack of detail, which you do not mention or explain) but due to this are disappointed. furthermore, rather than a subtle design, the term simple may have been the more correct choice.

Furthermore, as sr15 has pointed out your final statement is hilarious. How do you have an educated opinion about a deck design. Are you meant to quote techniques used in the printing or design? Presumably not, as that would be a quite unreasonable and unrealistic. If anything, the opinions stated on this forums should be paid attention to by the big playing cards company as it is valuable first-hand feedback from their target market.

[Joker and the Thief]

-sigh-

What is it exactly that you guys don't like? There's so many comments about being disappointed, but so little explanation. Does every deck that's release have to have metallic, full-custom court cards and a crapload of gimmick features?

It's really annoying to see that so many people say they're "disappointed" yet fail to see even the simplest details in a deck. You guys have been so stuffed with the big things that you don't see the subtlety anymore.

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but at least try to have an educated one.

You know, Moon, I agree with that statement completely. I'm going to grant this deck has a nice back design and fronts but its nothing special and certainly not anything I'd rush out for. Adding to what you said, I'd like to bring up one important thing that no one has talked about or even considered. It's somewhat worrying. What I wanted to bring up was; HANDLING. Who here gives a flying caboodle? Honestly, does no one care? It's a trend I've noticed of late. Also, a deck, like Moon said, doesn't always have to have the whole bells and whistles on it with custom court cards and metallic inks. That 's what everybody focuses on. Take Aladdins and Arrcos for example, beautiful cards and they handle nicely, Yet they don't need all of those fandangled things. Sure, those things are nice, but not exactly aesthetically necessary. Just my 10 cents worth on the topic...