So in an e-mail it was clearly stated that the backs of the Red Knights cards would contain foil backs: "A crushed stock, coupled with a smooth finish, RED FOIL backs, and traditionally cut..." but the cards themselves actually DO NOT contain red foil backs. I cannot think of a more clear-cut case of false advertisement and you should be ashamed of yourselves. I for one don't have the time nor inclination but I can only hope that someone as upset as I am takes legal action against this blatant lie.
Their response:
Hello!
I apologize for the confusion. It's a red metallica ink back, with gold foil in the tuck case design.
Have a great day!
What scumbags. I guarantee you that they mis-worded that on purpose so people would buy lots of them. It's a shame because this is actually a really nice deck but I can't get this bad taste out of my mouth. I repeat- what scumbags.
PrincessTrouble wrote:I wonder if it's red metallic ink rather than red foil on the backs. I ordered a couple, so I guess I'll see soon enough. But I'm preparing to be disappointed with no foil.
If that's the case then the statement I quoted from my e-mail is a blatant lie by them. It clearly states that the backs are foiled. sinjin, our resident lawyer: can you please chime in here?
I just came back from a vacation and didn't notice this thread until now (don't really pay too much attention to E stuff anymore). This is definitely misleading advertising from E, they should absolutely know the difference between metallic ink vs. actual foil/MetalLuxe. E will just chalk it up to someone being a bit overzealous in their marketing department. Is this a criminal act? No. Does this expose them to civil liability? Perhaps, but no one is going to court over a $10 deck of cards. Will E issue you a refund if you feel you've been mislead by their shady ad copy? Most likely. But E will find out, much like Jackson Robinson found out, that a flippant offer of a full refund if you don't like their crap won't buy back their damaged reputation or their customer's lost good will.
This brings me back to a point that I've been making for years now: metallic ink is just a bunch of nothing-burger. At best, it's an extremely poor man's substitute for actual foil, and at worst, it's barely noticeable. A word of advice to deck designers/producers: if you are going to use metallic ink, that's all good and fine (it's perhaps better than not having it at all), but please don't hype it up in any meaningful way otherwise you'll end up disappointing, much like this Ellusionist Knights playing cards. Captain Hook can still count on one hand the number of times any of my buddies ever even noticed metallic ink on a custom deck I busted out for a poker night.
I would side to agreement, in this matter.
I am ever moved to miss the mass of ill-found and sub-standard dross that issues forth from the advertising and marketing desks of E, T11, and others I refuse to mention.
Including D&D ....
Personally, I will fund my collection of early series Lancia Grills and Badges, Pre-Association Pigskin Footballs, Copernican Ephemeride Tables and late 17th century South-Paw Boxing Gloves (If you see any, lmk), before any such septic tank fodder above.
(Ha! Just kidding about the Lancia stuff, sorry)
An easy, instant and in-corruptible Auto-Pass ! (vomittingsmiley)
O, I beg of you your comprehensions,
yet laugh at your contempts ....
my only competition is with myselves.
But Lèse-majesté, especially >Normans, natch.
Is jarnstill the Ars of the Hors Nebulous ?
Neigh .... the Effluxor of the Omniverse ??
I feel the same way about this that I feel about the Butterfly deck, in that what they did was fine (unlike Sinjin7, I like a good metallic ink) in and of itself, and I would have ordered it at the same price point had I been given an accurate description of what I was ordering, but the fact that I got something other than what was described is nonetheless off-putting. (the Butterfly deck did likewise; they offered a marked and an unmarked deck, but what they delivered was a marked and a differently-marked deck. I would have picked up both versions, anyway, but having an "unmarked deck" turn out to be a marked deck was uncool, in my opinion. Your mileage may vary.)
The metallic red ink on the faces is actually quite effective on this deck. It's not as effective on the backs, certainly nowhere near as effective as foil would have been, but the backs are okay if you ignore the expectations that were established by their marketing. I like the smaller indices, which show nicely when fanning. And, as always, the USPCC double-crushed stock is tasty.
However, without the red foil backs, it's not what I had pictured. It's not what I was expecting. And, as a result, it didn't scratch the itch that E's marketing team created.
These are good decks. But, I'm annoyed at all the California wildfires that E is responsible for this year. (Because, you know, their pants are on fire.)
sinjin7 wrote:Does this expose them to civil liability? Perhaps, but no one is going to court over a $10 deck of cards.
This is the biggest problem. E can say or do whatever they want, and other than dragging their already poor name further into the mud, there isn't any real consequence for them. I can only assume they really don't care.
I guess all we can do is all repeat "E are liars" and affirm that we will not buy their sh*t again?
So in an e-mail it was clearly stated that the backs of the Red Knights cards would contain foil backs: "A crushed stock, coupled with a smooth finish, RED FOIL backs, and traditionally cut..." but the cards themselves actually DO NOT contain red foil backs. I cannot think of a more clear-cut case of false advertisement and you should be ashamed of yourselves. I for one don't have the time nor inclination but I can only hope that someone as upset as I am takes legal action against this blatant lie.
Their response:
Hello!
I apologize for the confusion. It's a red metallica ink back, with gold foil in the tuck case design.
Have a great day!
What scumbags. I guarantee you that they mis-worded that on purpose so people would buy lots of them. It's a shame because this is actually a really nice deck but I can't get this bad taste out of my mouth. I repeat- what scumbags.
I wrote them too about the lack of red foil on the backs that is stated on their graphic "Buy deck" page and got half assed response.
Hi Richard!
Sorry for the confusion. We'll get our graphics department to fix the error.
It still says FOIL today.
I wish it was red metallica ink like they said in vasta's lame response. That might make it more interesting. \m/
Yeah! How come the "errors" are always in their favor?
It's never "oh crap we accidentally said it was metallic inks but it's actually foil",
it's always "oh crap we said foil when it's actually printed by HP Deskjet 3700"
