Revolution Playing Cards by Murphy's Magic

[Azid]

This new deck will be released on 5/15/2017
Back design is boring imo but everything else seems to be 100% custom, so i will get that









Trailer:

[vasta41]

If the back of the cards was the same as the back of the tuck, I'd be on these like a cheap whore. But those backs do not do this otherwise well-designed deck justice. Pass, on the backs alone.

[RichK]

I can live with that back since everything else is customized. I do wonder why the AoS has 2015?

[MagikFingerz]

If the back of the cards was the same as the back of the tuck, I'd be on these like a cheap whore. But those backs do not do this otherwise well-designed deck justice. Pass, on the backs alone.

I have to agree. The backs are at fontaine-level. Hard pass.

[sinjin7]

With a lot of custom decks, you see all the design effort put into the tuck and back design, and you get let down by standard courts. I really don't get this deck - I like the court cards and they actually designed a decent back design, as evidenced by the back of the tuck box, but they just didn't utilize it and just phoned it in big-time with the back. I don't see anything revolutionary about three white bars except for the fact it makes me want to revolt against buying this deck. Jason Brumbalow was involved in the design for this deck, which is usually a good thing, but I think the folk over at Murphy's Magic dropped the ball on the back design of these cards. A shame, really, because there was a lot of potential in this deck. . .

[vasta41]

With a lot of custom decks, you see all the design effort put into the tuck and back design, and you get let down by standard courts. I really don't get this deck - I like the court cards and they actually designed a decent back design, as evidenced by the back of the tuck box, but they just didn't utilize it and just phoned it in big-time with the back. I don't see anything revolutionary about three white bars except for the fact it makes me want to revolt against buying this deck. Jason Brumbalow was involved in the design for this deck, which is usually a good thing, but I think the folk over at Murphy's Magic dropped the ball on the back design of these cards. A shame, really, because there was a lot of potential in this deck. . .

The only reason I can come up with is that someone decided that minimalist decks are "in" and the deck would sell more if they "dumbed down" the back. Although this theory doesn't make much sense it's all I could come up with. Like John said, the hardest part is creating a nice back design but they already did that step! It's baffling.