Yes. Going to check out the availability of off-white/ ivory stock with USPC. I just don't want to color the background like that on a normal white stock as it will be subjected to chipping from the edges then.Magic Tapp wrote:Thanks Sunish - the deck is coming along nicely. The only thing is that I am not sure about the white background - may be better to try some sort of off-white/ivory. Just my two cents.
I have always done both roll call extra card and a free booklet with previous mythology based decks and this time an extra card with the names is confirmed. Booklet isn't.dawn wrote:Loving this deck. Will there be a roll call card or a booklet with the names/background of each god?
rousselle wrote:You are a fussy, picky guy.
Lotrek wrote:Given the number of morons produced in the world every day, a pessimist is actually a well informed realist.
Räpylätassu wrote:"Tyhmyydestä sakotetaan." You get fined for being stupid.
Thanks Eric. I am glad to know that you are excited and looking forward to it. Comparison with Luminosity is flattering too. Someone compared this with Wicked Kingdom but apart from dual courts, there isn't anything common. I think if you take a look at my previous decks you will always find a tie to mythology except 'A Motley Pack'.Eric Lee wrote:When I first saw the Scandanavian card, I was afraid it would look too similar with JE's Luminosity. The art style is similar, but after seeing the other cards, I'm really excited for this.
I'm curious though. Any reason for the 2 different images for the courts? Luminosity had 2 images to show before and after the schism. Is it trickster/action vs standard mode?
The hand on the staff belongs to the lower half of the card.shermjack wrote: why does he have 3 hands on the top part of the court (one holding the staff and two in front of his face)?
As @shiroo56 mentioned below, the hand holding the staff belongs to the lower half of the body. Anatomy has been looked into in detail here, and yes, this is a different treatment to what you'd have usually seen in a deck. We have all been wired to look for similar traits, the notion of a trickster opposes that worldview.shermjack wrote:Though I really like the art style, I think that the animal courts need a little more work. The heads on the Fox Court don't look like they belong with the body and appear disjointed. As for the Monkey King, there is something not right about it, but I can't put my finger on it...maybe he looks too human, maybe he looks too angry...IDK, but it just doesn't feel right, especially for someone like me who has a special attachment to the Monkey King as I am Chinese and born the Year of the Monkey. Also, why does he have 3 hands on the top part of the court (one holding the staff and two in front of his face)?
As it stands, this will probably be the first GPC deck I don't back.
Ah, very tricky!guru wrote:
As @shiroo56 mentioned below, the hand holding the staff belongs to the lower half of the body. Anatomy has been looked into in detail here, and yes, this is a different treatment to what you'd have usually seen in a deck. We have all been wired to look for similar traits, the notion of a trickster opposes that worldview.
So the art is purposely distorted to play with our perceptions and force a closer look . Very clever, but it'll have to spelt out to the lowest common denominator on the extra card. Such subtlety will be lost to the general public, sadly. The average joe/jill seems to now just prefer to have things spelled out and served to them. 
Good point JuFiN. Something to think about.JuFiN wrote:That Ace of spades does not fit. All the other art is very three dimensional and that ace comes across as very flat and out of place.
My thoughts exactly. Aces need a bit more depth, otherwise, they go well with the number cards, but I think in the all deck they will feel a bit misplaced.JuFiN wrote:That Ace of spades does not fit. All the other art is very three dimensional and that ace comes across as very flat and out of place.
An additional card with the deck and not the booklet. I was keen to do a booklet but need to keep the deck a good fit inside the wooden box and the booklet in addition to the deck would take more space.Eric Lee wrote:Will there be a card with the names of all the courts and jokers? Or are you planning a booklet to go with the deck?
Same. Really enjoying the asymmetryOutsider wrote:I'm actually really liking the way you've drawn these to be technically one-way but workable both ways. Very fitting. Very tricky.
These trickster gods and characters are from the above mentioned mythologies. Example. Coyote is from Native American Mythology while Monkey King is from Chinese Mythology. Just trying to understand your suggestion here, do you mean to say I need to add the word "Mythology" as the word to all of the above. Please let me know if my understanding is correct. I did try that, by the way, but it made the card feel too congested. I may need to play with the font size then.hsbc wrote:If possible, could you be more specific than "Native American" "Chinese" etc.?
Here's an exampleguru wrote:These trickster gods and characters are from the above mentioned mythologies. Example. Coyote is from Native American Mythology while Monkey King is from Chinese Mythology. Just trying to understand your suggestion here, do you mean to say I need to add the word "Mythology" as the word to all of the above. Please let me know if my understanding is correct. I did try that, by the way, but it made the card feel too congested. I may need to play with the font size then.
Saying Anansi is "African" is really broad - saying Akan mythology would be a lot more accurate BUT on the other hand it's tricky with e.g. Coyote because it's common across multiple native American peoples, even with different names 
Maybe you've already thought about all this?? 
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Magisterrene, whatwillitbenow and 9 guests