I've always tried to keep myself away from the UC vs AC nonsense, but the reality is whilst you're entitled to your opinions about the forum, etc - a quick read of the thread on UC looks like most are saying what they think to me - there's definitely some criticism in a few replies.
It's not even "UC vs. AC" anymore. In the near future, the entire site will be moved to playingcardforum.com and the current address will be changed into a redirect while people adjust. Alex sometimes refers to this place as the PCF, while I often call it the Discourse - it rolls off the tongue better, doesn't it?
But yeah, the attacks on each other and all that nonsense is pretty tired by now. As I see it, there's no reason why both boards can't coexist, and no reason why people can't be members of both, as they please. Live and let live, right?
Let's keep it real guys. Love to hear other people's opinions from an objective, non-biased point of view. Again, no disrespect intended whatsoever.
I have no bias. I thought that, for what it is, it isn't that bad. It's really just not to my liking. Is it the most original design ever made? No, but that can be said about a lot of decks - I'd call this one of the better ones of that lot. Does it have some appeal? Sure. But aged-look decks have flooded the market, and there's been more than a few Alice in Wonderland decks. I applaud the attempt to breathe life into both by combining the two styles, but I'm not so convinced he pulled it off here. The name is really not good at all. This paragraph also just doesn't ring true:
Inspired by the works of Lewis Carroll, this is our version of what life would have been like in an alternate universe for these beloved figures. A much darker and drearier place unfolds and is brought to life only by the bold colors of our characters.Darker and drearier? By putting it on dirty-and-aged-look paper? Not really, no. It's the same art that was in the original book - how does that represent "an alternate universe"?
He's really just overselling it. A less-hyperbolic description would help this deck. The small indices are nice - I'm a sucker for the old-school look - and the detailed framework on the faces is nice. Now if only those photos were all properly converted to RGB... Some appear to have been CMYK in a previous life and didn't make the transition well, 'cause in my browser, on two different computers, they look like negatives. I can't really see what the tuck box or the deck back look like.
In summation - it's not the world's greatest deck, but it's far from the worst. If aged-look decks and Alice in Wonderland both appeal to you (and you can put up with the name), this would be a good deck for you.
Hey, a thought just occurred to me... This was the guy who railed heavy and hard against the Persian Empire deck for its lack of original art, and it, too, was an aged look deck. Aside from his lack of claims to the authorship of the art, these two decks are exceptionally similar to each other...
I reckon this will eventually get funded, mainly because of the success of the white rabbit deck. I know there's no connection between the two "project managers" (I did want to say designers, but this deck isn't an original design whatsoever) but I reckon it'll succeed based on the fact that white rabbit succeeded.
Actually, market saturation is more of a reason for a deck to FAIL, not succeed. Though the continued onslaught of both Cthulhu and steampunk decks would seem to say otherwise...
