Linestrider or Wild Unknown

Sumaya said:

In the end, it is your decision and your personal choice. For me, both are good decks.
Linestrider is easier to read but I like The WU more.
Sorry that I can't be more helpful.

Glad to hear that you enjoy both.

Click to expand...

LOL, I'm all about being responsible for the choices one makes but I do like to joke heavily about deck buying.

I agree with both points about Ls being easier to read, in some ways, yet liking the WU more. The reason I said "in some ways" was that the WU really drew me in but for the Ls my eyes didn't really zero in so a quick read at a glance for me wouldn't really be happening with this deck. I had to really look, which isn't a bad thing in reading. Both are incredibly interesting, I can't get either one off my mind.

This thread has made me look again at the Linestrider with more attention. I wasn't attracted to it a while back but checking it out now, I can see the appeal. But I have been so swayed by tales of the cardstock. If it's anything like the Modern Spellcaster, it really isn't worth getting at all. I mean so many people say that cardstock is a dealbreaker - and it is for me - and if it's as papery as the Modern Spellcaster then I don't think I'll bother. It's the artwork that has been drawing me in since reading this thread.

Le Fanu said:

This thread has made me look again at the Linestrider with more attention. I wasn't attracted to it a while back but checking it out now, I can see the appeal. But I have been so swayed by tales of the cardstock. If it's anything like the Modern Spellcaster, it really isn't worth getting at all. I mean so many people say that cardstock is a dealbreaker - and it is for me - and if it's as papery as the Modern Spellcaster then I don't think I'll bother. It's the artwork that has been drawing me in since reading this thread.

Click to expand...

Uh-oh, is the cardstock like the Llewellyn Classic? I liked that deck, but traded it because the cardstock was as you describe above papery thin.

Anyone care to comment on cardstock differences?

I know it's bad because I have seen comments elsewhere, but there still seem to be the two types of Llewellyn cardstock around right now - flimsy and papery. The Modern Spellcaster's is papery, but other recent decks have just been plain old flimsy. If it were like the Witches or Wizards Tarot I could deal with it...

I'm not sure if you saw my comment that in just viewing the Linestrider cards, the edges were already showing wear. That is something I hate in some cards that I would otherwise love especially since I love shuffling. Fraying edges is a turn off in cards. I'm not very optimistic about what will happen once I start shuffling them but I've got several other decks in front of me and ahead of this one before that's going to really start happening. I really liked the WU cardstock so much better, it was a significant difference that I couldn't fail to notice as I held them both in my hands together yesterday.

Hmm, doesn't sound great. Why does Llewellyn cheap out like that? Publishers would do better if they used nicer cardstock and just made the price a little higher.