Skip to Content

Shared Deck Size

8 replies [Last post]
Pt314
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969

How many cards would be too much in one shared deck?

So far my game has around 120 square cards. Any shuffling problems I should worry about?

SVan
Offline
Joined: 10/02/2008
Shared Deck Size

The most I've seen is Skip-Bo has 144 cards. If you got big hands you can shuffle it all at once (I don't have big hands and I can barely do it.)

It's been said a few times on here that most printers usually print cards 110 at a time. That's probably why you see Dollar stores selling 2 packs of cards for the amount of 1. Because it's almost as cheap to make two as it is to make one.

-Steve

zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Shared Deck Size

I wouldn't worry too much about the shuffling aspect if it is only done at the beginning of the game. If there is a lot of shuffling during the game, then it could become a problem.

Anyway, as SVan pointed out, card decks are usually printed in units of 55 cards, so production-wise it would be better if you trim the number of cards back to 110.

-René Wiersma

Anonymous
Shared Deck Size

zaiga wrote:
card decks are usually printed in units of 55 cards, so production-wise it would be better if you trim the number of cards back to 110.

-René Wiersma

That's not completely true. I could tell you that 110 cards vs. 111 cards will have no bearing on the price to create the game, other than the material cost. It's all about the amount of material needed to produce your cards.

I am looking at two "spreads" that are hanging on the wall outside my office. One has 54 cards on it, the other has 63 on it. These were produced in our factory. Our factory, and others, have many paper and card stock sizes to choose from. I know that some smaller printers have a set size stock that works in their press, so this may create the problem you are describing. But, we have never had any constraints as far as the number of cards you could have in your game. Just remember, the more cards, the more material, and the more it costs to produce.

And, our standard poker decks are printed on spreads of 54, not 55 (9 Rows of 6).

Anonymous
Card quantity

In my experience, there could be a dramatic difference in cost for 110 versus 111 cards. Depending on the size/bleed of the cards, this could mean the difference of printing a deck on 1 sheet or needing a second. This means not only more sheets through the press, but higher film costs as well.

The actual # of cards in a deck to achieve the most efficient costs has a lot to do with the equipment your printer is using as well as the design of your cards and the stock you are printing on.

If your printer is using a 40" press ( most common ) then the sheet size will be limited to a 28"X40". How many cards you can fit on that sheet depends on the size of your card, if you have common borders or if the art requires bleeds etc. If you are using a printer that has a large format press ( less common ) then you can get more cards on a sheet.

If the cards are being cut with a guillatine, the large format sheets aren't a problem. If they are being die cut or finished on a Rollem machine, then you will likely be stuck on the 28X40 sheet size as that is the limitation of the Rollem and many die cutters.

I have seen layouts of 55,56,60 and 66 cards ( 2 decks print on each sheet ).

Another thing that will affect this is the stock you are printing on. You will be hard pressed to find an actual " card stock " in anything over a 28X40. There just isn't enough demand for it to justify anyone stocking it. Sure, you can get anything, but watch out for the minimum order quantities and the lead-times.

So, I say it again. There really is no such thing as a standard. If you can design your game within the constraints of common presses, equipment, and paper sizes, you will ultimately realize better costs. On the other hand, you have to design your game to work first. Form follows function. If your game doesn't work, it probably doesn't matter if you save 1/2 a buck in production.

GM

Anonymous
Shared Deck Size

The bottom line here is that it depends on the printer. We don't have these constraints that you are describing.

Pt314
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Shared Deck Size

The deck shouldn't be shuffled that many times in my game. Only when the deck runs out and the discard pile is reshuffled (which shouldn't have as many cards in it anyway, because I am anticipating most of them already being on the board.)

I am thinking that I should be able to print out 12 cards / piece of cardstock. In that case 120 cards means 10 pieces of cardstock.

Because my cards are squares instead of rectangles, I think some of the production costs would be different then for standard poker size.

ensor
Offline
Joined: 08/23/2008
Shared Deck Size

I found a few issues with square cards when I made them, 12 per sheet, about 2.5" x 2.5", same size as you have in your game.

First, since I cut them out by hand, it was hard to get them to be exact squares. You could rotate them any way, and it was hard to get a good random shuffle out of them; since one dimension was inevitabley longer than the other, some cards would be missed and stay together.

Second, since they were shorter than regular cards, they were harder to bend without making a crease in the middle; I think longer cards of the 3.5" variety are more flexible, or at least easier to shuffle.

That being said, I'm still going keep my cards as a square for now; the pictures just don't look right on a rectangle, and 12 cards per page saved me some paper and ink in prototyping. Good luck,

Mark

Pt314
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Shared Deck Size

Hmm, That is something to think about. Randomness compromised from using square cards. I will have to look into this. I am not that worried however, it would have small if any impact on the game. They only need to be random enough so one player can't predict the exact card, all the time.

I feel that my cards should be nearly all the same shape though. I plan to use a papercutter.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut