Fae Elements - USPCC Bicycle Playing Cards now live on KS

[badpete69]

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/50401333/fae-elements-uspcc-bicycle-playing-cards

[Fess]

I went a head and grabbed an EB. I haven't taken the time to really get a good look at the cards but I like the purple and silver card back shown on the campaign page. I feel like it works much better than the maroon gold card back. I'll have to take a closer looks over time like I tend to do.

Is that a bleeding kid in the lap of this red headed woman on the joker? If so... Creepy, I don't much like it.

[Don Boyer]

I love seeing all of these "first created, 0 backed" project creators...  Nothing like having absolutely no first-hand experience of the workings of the system to put your backers at ease...

The design is OK, but it's nothing we haven't seen before.  Oh, and his writing is atrocious - he makes Jackson Robinson look like Jack London...  I can't understand a good percentage of what he's written on his campaign page.

There's also no solid reasoning behind the different deck names, aside from the color schemes - they appear to both have the same faces, only differing in the colors of the back designs.  It's not a bad thing - on the contrary, it's highly desirable, especially for poker - but why give the decks different names, especially when BOTH decks each have "seelie" courts and "unseelie" courts?

[Fess]

Digging deeper into the bottom of the page it says under FYI. These are tuck swaps. The purple card back shown on the purple tuck doesn't actually exist. That's disappointing.

[Don Boyer]

That's more than merely disappointing - that's just plain dumb.  The decks in EACH box are identical!  It makes the question "Why two deck names?" even more relevant.

I have serious doubts that this deck will hit its rather high goal of $20,000.  If it does, there's a lot of gullible people out there.  He states in the FAQ: "The intent is to portray both Seelie and UnSeelie so that backers can see these deadly Fae in all their glory. We thought it would be a cool idea to show both light and dark Fae on the cover. So choose Seelie, UnSeelie, or both if you're a collector!"  So this begs the question, "Why not just put the Seelie on the front of the tuck box and the UnSeelie on the back?"  By making two boxes, he increases his costs - though certainly not to the level that he's requesting in funding.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.  Terrible planning, worse budgeting.

[AlbinoDragon]

I want to like this deck, but the tuck swap feels like a cash grab. And even worse is that $20k goal; I agree with Don that I don't think it will fund.

Maybe he should add some tiers with Alchemy decks to help push it over?

[Don Boyer]

I want to like this deck, but the tuck swap feels like a cash grab. And even worse is that $20k goal; I agree with Don that I don't think it will fund.

Maybe he should add some tiers with Alchemy decks to help push it over?

It should practically be mandatory that a project creator back a few projects before attempting to launch one of his or her own.  These "first and zeroes" really don't have a clue, and some couldn't find one with both hands and a flashlight.

[Fess]

It should practically be mandatory that a project creator back a few projects before attempting to launch one of his or her own.  These "first and zeroes" really don't have a clue, and some couldn't find one with both hands and a flashlight.

I agree that project creators with first and zero shouldn't have that zero there. Kickstarter has been around for entirely too long for project creators to not have minimally made some attempt to becoming part of the "Community" they're trying to use to have their product made. Even if they're just discovered Kickstarter a month before launching their own, that's enough time to have at least shown some interest in what's happening there aside from their own want to be funded.

Also first time project creators without backing anything have no idea what the survey is, how it can help them, or when they should send it. Which ultimately can make it a pain in the ass on the backer. I've seen everything from google docs to just msg me the information coming out of first time creators who haven't cared to back anything previous to launching their own campaigns.

Back to this campaign more pointedly. Why show me a purple card back on the purple deck if there's no clear projection at having the card back made into reality? Just put the same red one on the purple tuck. Everything is on the up and up then, we understand it's a tuck swap from the image and go on about our business. Stuffing it in the FAQ is all fine and good but being upfront about it in the first place is much better.

I have an EB on both tucks, in hopes that they actually become two separate decks which the $20,000 funding goal would allude to. I'll keep it for a couple weeks.... maybe. There's so many projects that are happening now that the additional funds could help out I may not and just forget this deck with it's two swaps exists. Just saying, $22 USD gets me an uncut sheet on another campaign which doesn't not have tuck swaps but completely different charmingly wonderful decks while also getting that campaign closer to a stretch goal.