Waldo's Weekly - Pick a Deck, Any Deck

[Tyrion1337]

Another Screenshot, if its still needed. I would really appreciate lower shipping costs for a bunch of Cards

[dannydb]

more shipping costs and times 

 

i'm not paying more than the cost of a deck to ship this.- they look incredible and would love both, but that isn't shipping costs, thats extortion 

[Da Git]

Another postage, note this is all in AUD, so the prices are a lot higher, but if $17AUD = $12USD, than $21AUD = ~$13-14USD

[gandrasch]

We've paid about 60 dollar in shipping. but split onto 10 people, so its "only" 6 per person. Still would be great if there's another solution. 

[Nathan Caroland]

Sadly isn't going to be a solution that I'm happy with. 

Gave our opinion, suggested some solutions, but apparently, everything has been tried before. Eh .. 

Is what it is, till I can find another option. We're certainly not in charge of the shipping there. 

[Chou]

13 hours ago, Nathan Caroland said:

Sadly isn't going to be a solution that I'm happy with. 

Gave our opinion, suggested some solutions, but apparently, everything has been tried before. Eh .. 

Is what it is, till I can find another option. We're certainly not in charge of the shipping there. 

You tried and it's not in Wyrd's hands, so thank you in any case! We just need to make joint orders and split the expeneses and that's it. Time to make our order from Spain!

[bedjy]

Love both designs !

I'm just a bit disappointed because even if I understand that it's where the symbols come from, almost every fatedeck ever created (at least the available ones) represent only Neverborn / Arcanist / Guild / Ressers... There is no space for us poor folks playing TT, Bayou and Outcasts. So our option is to grab a "neutral" one.

Isn't there any online company like Drivethrough that could be interested in a partnership in Europe ? That would be such a relief to not spend incredible amounts of money on shipping !! I'd rather give that money to you, Wyrd . And we will also order a huge amount of cards with M3e soon enough.

[Eclipse]

1 hour ago, bedjy said:

Love both designs !

I'm just a bit disappointed because even if I understand that it's where the symbols come from, almost every fatedeck ever created (at least the available ones) represent only Neverborn / Arcanist / Guild / Ressers... There is no space for us poor folks playing TT, Bayou and Outcasts. So our option is to grab a "neutral" one.

Isn't there any online company like Drivethrough that could be interested in a partnership in Europe ? That would be such a relief to not spend incredible amounts of money on shipping !! I'd rather give that money to you, Wyrd . And we will also order a huge amount of cards with M3e soon enough.

I have a different idea that Wyrd could look into: How about after the release of Faction X we get at least one deck with the symbols of the new factions? Outcasts, Ten Thunders, Bayou and Faction X in one, four symbols in total. I know that the symbols of the four original factions are iconic. but if the new factions have truly earned their place on the Malifaux stage then we should have them in some fate deck as well.

[Adran]

The Original 4 factions each were focused on 1 of the 4 "types" of magic represented by the 4 suits.  

You can't really create 4 new suits because those 4 are used in the game. You could make decks have different factions in them, but none of the other factions are as tied to 1 suit as those original 4 were, so its hard to say who your would put with each suit. And its surprisingly hard work to remember that picture A is really a Tome when you don't use the deck yourself, but you play someone who does. (It was one of the biggest flaws with the puppet deck in my opinion was that you couldn't easily associate the suit on the card with the suit in the game if you didn't know. I remember teaching someone puppet wars and they didn't realise the deck matched the game cards because the art was so different. )

 

[Sol_Sorrowsong]

14 minutes ago, Adran said:

The Original 4 factions each were focused on 1 of the 4 "types" of magic represented by the 4 suits.  

You can't really create 4 new suits because those 4 are used in the game. You could make decks have different factions in them, but none of the other factions are as tied to 1 suit as those original 4 were, so its hard to say who your would put with each suit. And its surprisingly hard work to remember that picture A is really a Tome when you don't use the deck yourself, but you play someone who does. (It was one of the biggest flaws with the puppet deck in my opinion was that you couldn't easily associate the suit on the card with the suit in the game if you didn't know. I remember teaching someone puppet wars and they didn't realise the deck matched the game cards because the art was so different. )

 

What about a "Fate Deck" that used regular playing card suits but featured the 4 factions who have been absent?  The conversion has already been in the rules and while some might gripe about Outcasts being Diamonds and Ten Thunders being Clubs, it could still work within the rules and established suits yet be a variation to give new faction flavor to a playing card deck.

[Adran]

Just now, Sol_Sorrowsong said:

What about a "Fate Deck" that used regular playing card suits but featured the 4 factions who have been absent?  The conversion has already been in the rules and while some might gripe about Outcasts being Diamonds and Ten Thunders being Clubs, it could still work within the rules and established suits yet be a variation to give new faction flavor to a playing card deck.

It can be made to work, its just not as straight forward as it seems. And I imagine there would be enough people who would buy it  to support its sale. (and arguments over why Ten Thundesr are stuck with tomes will fill many a page...). I have used and faced decks with different suit symbols, and its not hard, but it does take me that extra second or so  of thinking time each duel which adds up to more mental fatigue in a tournament, so I try not to use them for that reason.

I would rather go the whole hog and make a deck using art from just 1 faction, and do that for each faction.  

[bedjy]

2 hours ago, Adran said:

The Original 4 factions each were focused on 1 of the 4 "types" of magic represented by the 4 suits.  

You can't really create 4 new suits because those 4 are used in the game. You could make decks have different factions in them, but none of the other factions are as tied to 1 suit as those original 4 were, so its hard to say who your would put with each suit. And its surprisingly hard work to remember that picture A is really a Tome when you don't use the deck yourself, but you play someone who does. (It was one of the biggest flaws with the puppet deck in my opinion was that you couldn't easily associate the suit on the card with the suit in the game if you didn't know. I remember teaching someone puppet wars and they didn't realise the deck matched the game cards because the art was so different. )

From the Symbol meaning, we could have those illustration fit some colors, we would have to pick 12 in that list :

: Asami, Lynch, Youko, Viks*, Som'er*, Zoraida
: Yan Lo, Leveticus, Tara, Hamelin*, Jack Daw, Brewmaster
: Shenlong, Mei Feng, Parker Barrows, Zipp, Wong, 
: McCabe, Misaki** , Von Schill*, Ophelia, Ulix, Mah Tucket

* Not sure
** Not sure at all

Doesn't have to be a color per faction. Cross Road 7 could be Red Joker and/or black joker

[Da Git]

1 hour ago, bedjy said:

From the Symbol meaning, we could have those illustration fit some colors, we would have to pick 12 in that list :

: Asami, Lynch, Youko, Viks*, Som'er*, Zoraida
: Yan Lo, Leveticus, Tara, Hamelin*, Jack Daw, Brewmaster
: Shenlong, Mei Feng, Parker Barrows, Zipp, Wong, 
: McCabe, Misaki** , Von Schill*, Ophelia, Ulix, Mah Tucket

* Not sure
** Not sure at all

Doesn't have to be a color per faction. Cross Road 7 could be Red Joker and/or black joker

Misaki would 100% be a crow, off with their heads!

[solkan]

At this point it would probably be easier, and involve less shouting/biting/screaming over who gets what value to just have faction-only fate decks, like they did for The Other Side.   

Unless I'm miscounting...

• Arcanists: 6
• Bayou: 7
• DMH: 4
• Guild: 7
• Neverborn: 6
• Outcasts: 7
• Ressurectionists: 6
• Ten Thunders: 8

So every master in the game plus three filler images is a 54 card deck.

[ShinChan]

After seeing the text on the Saloon Deck, am I the only one that strongly dislikes and thinks that it looks too sexual?

You're objectifying women as sexual objects. The Red Joker would be making a threesome with the Viks? And the old ugly is the Black Joker? 

I can imagine what most of the women would think if they see a guy using that deck in a game, and it's not pleasant (my own GF, that she got interested in the game and bought her own first faction was like "WTF is this shit?"). And yes, there are "worse things" in the Malifaux lore, like Seamus' story. But at least those stuff are "lore" compliant, this deck is pure fanservice.

I know that, regarding how many likes the deck had, this comment is going to have a lot of negatives, but someone had to say it.

[dannydb]

1 hour ago, ShinChan said:

After seeing the text on the Saloon Deck, am I the only one that strongly dislikes and thinks that it looks too sexual?

You're objectifying women as sexual objects. The Red Joker would be making a threesome with the Viks? And the old ugly is the Black Joker? 

I can imagine what most of the women would think if they see a guy using that deck in a game, and it's not pleasant (my own GF, that she got interested in the game and bought her own first faction was like "WTF is this shit?"). And yes, there are "worse things" in the Malifaux lore, like Seamus' story. But at least those stuff are "lore" compliant, this deck is pure fanservice.

I know that, regarding how many likes the deck had, this comment is going to have a lot of negatives, but someone had to say it.

If you don't like it don't like the deck?

[Nikodemus]

On the other hand they were drawn by a woman and my wife likes it. Shrug. Sexuality and eroticism is a contentious issue. It's not to everyone's taste.  You do raise an interesting point. Will I use this deck when I play at a +4000 person family friendly convention later this year? Should I? I'm not sure yet.

[ShinChan]

17 minutes ago, Nikodemus said:

On the other hand they were drawn by a woman and my wife likes it. Shrug. Sexuality and eroticism is a contentious issue. It's not to everyone's taste.  You do raise an interesting point. Will I use this deck when I play at a +4000 person family friendly convention later this year? Should I? I'm not sure yet.

I know it was drawn by a woman. And actually, it didn't "bother" me at all when I saw it at the beginning. But checking the messages, my opinion really changed:

• "Make me feel alive"
• "I'll open for you"

It's a level of objectification that I didn't expect from this game. The people that knows me, knows that I'm the opposite side of "puritanism". But in a game with many strong and powerful female characters, I don't see the need of convert them into merely sexual objects, waiting to be satisfied by (or to satisfy) the men. There are differences between "Sexuality and eroticism" and Sexual objectification.

If there are going to be sexual objectification, at least, it shouldn't be only in one way.

 

[Nikodemus]

Makes sense. They don't bother me, but I get you.

I'm first in line for Tom of Finland edition of Saloon deck

[retnab]

17 minutes ago, ShinChan said:

If there are going to be sexual objectification, at least, it shouldn't be only in one way.

The lack of shirtless Von Schill is indeed unfortunate lol

[Paddywhack]

17 hours ago, Nikodemus said:

Makes sense. They don't bother me, but I get you.

I'm first in line for Tom of Finland edition of Saloon deck

I don't care for the face cards much myself, but I know others like them. I really like the rest of the deck though... Wish I could get a SFW version with more subdued face cards as the style of the rest of the deck is really great and easy to read. 

[Fixxer]

19 hours ago, ShinChan said:

I know it was drawn by a woman. And actually, it didn't "bother" me at all when I saw it at the beginning. But checking the messages, my opinion really changed:

• "Make me feel alive"
• "I'll open for you"

It's a level of objectification that I didn't expect from this game. The people that knows me, knows that I'm the opposite side of "puritanism". But in a game with many strong and powerful female characters, I don't see the need of convert them into merely sexual objects, waiting to be satisfied by (or to satisfy) the men. There are differences between "Sexuality and eroticism" and Sexual objectification.

If there are going to be sexual objectification, at least, it shouldn't be only in one way.

 

You must not have an Instagram account then... 

A level of maturity is expected when involving yourself in the endeavors of adults, which this game makes no qualms about. Wyrd has always been edgy, dark, and reserved for a crowd that appreciates a bit of realism. (the world is a dark place full of very horrible things) We live in relative safety in comparison to the rest of humanity, its nice to not have those walls up in this endeavor. 

If you want guarded, politically correct, and safe, look to other options in the market. I think Wyrd does a fantastic job taking risks and providing a product that is unique in the market. 

This reminds me of how artistic expression is constantly under the scrutiny of political correctness. Comedy has suffered due to it yet the music industry juxtaposes a completely different mantra. Perhaps it has to do with WHO's in control of the product.

I would argue that your position is cliche and nuanced to the current sociopolitical state. There arent big bad men out there simply objectifying women for the sake of other men. Its a marketable commodity that women reap the benefits from as much as men.  I dont think the artists or Wyrds intent is to "objectify women" as you so claim. 

[ShinChan]

41 minutes ago, Fixxer said:

You must not have an Instagram account then... 

A level of maturity is expected when involving yourself in the endeavors of adults, which this game makes no qualms about. Wyrd has always been edgy, dark, and reserved for a crowd that appreciates a bit of realism. (the world is a dark place full of very horrible things) We live in relative safety in comparison to the rest of humanity, its nice to not have those walls up in this endeavor. 

If you want guarded, politically correct, and safe, look to other options in the market. I think Wyrd does a fantastic job taking risks and providing a product that is unique in the market. 

This reminds me of how artistic expression is constantly under the scrutiny of political correctness. Comedy has suffered due to it yet the music industry juxtaposes a completely different mantra. Perhaps it has to do with WHO's in control of the product.

I would argue that your position is cliche and nuanced to the current sociopolitical state. There arent big bad men out there simply objectifying women for the sake of other men. Its a marketable commodity that women reap the benefits from as much as men.  I dont think the artists or Wyrds intent is to "objectify women" as you so claim. 

I'm playing a game with a character that murder prostitutes and resurrect them, while keep them being prostitutes. I know exactly what I'm playing, and I like it. There is a lore, a story behind it to justify that those things are like that.

This doesn't have anything to do with political correctness, I'm not a SJW. My opinion is that the deck sexually objectifies women, specially once you read the text. Like I said, before reading the text I just though "ok, this is not for me, but I can't see anything wrong about it". But once you read the texts, the deck just transforms strong female characters in sexual objects.

And no, I don't have an instagram account, but won't be my 100 time in 4chan. But you know what you're getting into. I'm not against sexuality or eroticism, I'm just against sexualization for the sake of sexualization.

Like I said before, if that's the address that Wyrd wants to support, at least they should follow it in both ways. I guess that in Instagram there also are "hot fit men" in erotic positions.

Stuff like this is what perpetuates the vision of women as "pieces of meat", and in my opinion, it's a shame to see strong cool female characters reduced to that.

[wobbly_goggy]

22 hours ago, ShinChan said:

After seeing the text on the Saloon Deck, am I the only one that strongly dislikes and thinks that it looks too sexual?

You're objectifying women as sexual objects. The Red Joker would be making a threesome with the Viks? And the old ugly is the Black Joker? 

I can imagine what most of the women would think if they see a guy using that deck in a game, and it's not pleasant (my own GF, that she got interested in the game and bought her own first faction was like "WTF is this shit?"). And yes, there are "worse things" in the Malifaux lore, like Seamus' story. But at least those stuff are "lore" compliant, this deck is pure fanservice.

I know that, regarding how many likes the deck had, this comment is going to have a lot of negatives, but someone had to say it.

I have to say I agree with you. This is clearly an unpopular forum opinion, but this deck is just not for me.
Do I think it's 'offensive'? Do I have a 'cliche opinion'? Am I a 'snowflake'? 
Maybe to all those questions.
For me it just has no place in Malifaux and doesn't fit in with the aesthetics I have loved since 1st edition. 
Seamus - his whole shtick is pretty sick (and I mean that in a traditional sense, not a modern sense) but I can dig that - it's dark, disturbing, edgy. I can apply the same thinking to any baddies in any games, and especially here.

What I *have* seen in Malifaux is strong female lead characters who don't rely on taking their clothes off to get what they want. I have seen the M2E rulebook refer to a player as 'she' throughout. 
What does this suggest to me? That Wyrd is interested in equality, inclusivity, call it what you will.

For me the soft-porn deck doesn't fit into this.
It doesn't even fit into the theme. If it were a deck from a Saloon in Malifaux, a named saloon, if it had generic 'floozies', prostitutes, even Colette's crew, I would get it. 
This, I don't get. 

These characters have been turned into semi naked ladies just waiting to fulfil your every desire!
Why? because boobs!

And, apparently, boobs are 'a marketable commodity that women reap the benefits from as much as men.' 
Which women are benefitting here?

Some may not 'think the artists or Wyrds intent is to "objectify women" ' OK, fine... What exactly IS  the point in this deck? That's what I am dying to know, if it's not for cheap thrills (and, frankly, I pity anyone who needs this for that). Furthermore, there are no men in the deck.... What could a male deck say... ?
Joss - 'Climb on my totem pole!'
Nino Ortega - 'I'll shoot inside you!' 
Dreamer - 'Teach me what to do!'
This is the level of 'humour' on tha cards. Crass and not funny. You can have those ones when you make the male deck by the way. 
 

I am also not really a fan of the incest-implying Red Joker (I'm pretty sure the Viks are sisters, right?), or the Mah Tucket Black Joker which screams of 'LOL SHE'S FAT AND OLD AND FAT AND/OR OLD PEOPLE ARE HIDEOUS LOL!'

Let me address some possible replies I may get:
'They may do a men one as well!'  - True. but they haven't yet. And it isn't a mixed sex deck.

'Mah Tucket is BJ because she's a gremlin, doofus!' - OK, so why wasn't Trixibelle used for that? She's not a human, but is a 'seductress' so this would actually fit rules and fluff-wise. Instead it seems to be saying 'larger = the worst!'. 

'If you don't like it, don't buy it!' - Don't worry - I won't. But I'd counter this by saying 'If it's not in-fitting with the game or fluff and doesn't fit in with the way the company has portrayed itself - don't make it!'

'Wyrd has always been edgy, dark, and reserved for a crowd that appreciates a bit of realism' - I don't see this as dark, edgy, or realistic. Or fitting in with ... anything. Unless decks of cards of scantily clad female world leaders/role models are a thing which I wasn't aware of?


In summary - a big thumbs down from me. 
I just don't see the point, or how it fits.

(The Pixel deck - drawing in a different artistic style - that's cool!)

 

[Kogan Style]

6 minutes ago, wobbly_goggy said:

I have to say I agree with you. This is clearly an unpopular forum opinion, but this deck is just not for me.
Do I think it's 'offensive'? Do I have a 'cliche opinion'? Am I a 'snowflake'? 
Maybe to all those questions.
For me it just has no place in Malifaux and doesn't fit in with the aesthetics I have loved since 1st edition. 
Seamus - his whole shtick is pretty sick (and I mean that in a traditional sense, not a modern sense) but I can dig that - it's dark, disturbing, edgy. I can apply the same thinking to any baddies in any games, and especially here.

What I *have* seen in Malifaux is strong female lead characters who don't rely on taking their clothes off to get what they want. I have seen the M2E rulebook refer to a player as 'she' throughout. 
What does this suggest to me? That Wyrd is interested in equality, inclusivity, call it what you will.

For me the soft-porn deck doesn't fit into this.
It doesn't even fit into the theme. If it were a deck from a Saloon in Malifaux, a named saloon, if it had generic 'floozies', prostitutes, even Colette's crew, I would get it. 
This, I don't get. 

These characters have been turned into semi naked ladies just waiting to fulfil your every desire!
Why? because boobs!

And, apparently, boobs are 'a marketable commodity that women reap the benefits from as much as men.' 
Which women are benefitting here?

Some may not 'think the artists or Wyrds intent is to "objectify women" ' OK, fine... What exactly IS  the point in this deck? That's what I am dying to know, if it's not for cheap thrills (and, frankly, I pity anyone who needs this for that). Furthermore, there are no men in the deck.... What could a male deck say... ?
Joss - 'Climb on my totem pole!'
Nino Ortega - 'I'll shoot inside you!' 
Dreamer - 'Teach me what to do!'
This is the level of 'humour' on tha cards. Crass and not funny. You can have those ones when you make the male deck by the way. 
 

I am also not really a fan of the incest-implying Red Joker (I'm pretty sure the Viks are sisters, right?), or the Mah Tucket Black Joker which screams of 'LOL SHE'S FAT AND OLD AND FAT AND/OR OLD PEOPLE ARE HIDEOUS LOL!'

Let me address some possible replies I may get:
'They may do a men one as well!'  - True. but they haven't yet. And it isn't a mixed sex deck.

'Mah Tucket is BJ because she's a gremlin, doofus!' - OK, so why wasn't Trixibelle used for that? She's not a human, but is a 'seductress' so this would actually fit rules and fluff-wise. Instead it seems to be saying 'larger = the worst!'. 

'If you don't like it, don't buy it!' - Don't worry - I won't. But I'd counter this by saying 'If it's not in-fitting with the game or fluff and doesn't fit in with the way the company has portrayed itself - don't make it!'

'Wyrd has always been edgy, dark, and reserved for a crowd that appreciates a bit of realism' - I don't see this as dark, edgy, or realistic. Or fitting in with ... anything. Unless decks of cards of scantily clad female world leaders/role models are a thing which I wasn't aware of?


In summary - a big thumbs down from me. 
I just don't see the point, or how it fits.

(The Pixel deck - drawing in a different artistic style - that's cool!)

 

Agree with all of this. I found it hard to articulate why I dislike this deck; but the above encapsulates it. I can only add to this by saying I feel less inclined to promote Malifaux now  this exists.