Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[gambit05]

→  Part 2
→  Part 3
→  Part 4


Inspired by Heirlooms, I have designed a couple of cards, which come as single copies per player, called Equipment cards. A notable difference to Heirlooms is that Equipment cards do not replace any of the starting cards, but enter the game a bit later after certain requirements are fulfilled.

As for Heirlooms, Equipment cards are associated with specific Kingdom cards, labelled with a light blue banner which specifies the associated Equipment cards (likewise Heirloom associated Kingdom cards do). The Equipment cards have a light blue color somewhere, in dependency of their types. The idea is that Kingdom cards and associated Equipment cards support each other. Some of cards of these pairs can function independently of each other, whereas others are strictly depending on each other. This concept allows the design of cards that offer mini-games, that would be otherwise overpowered, that trigger effects, which shouldn’t happen too often during games and more. Compared to Heirlooms, Equipment cards do not change the opening turns.

At the start of the game, each player sets aside the Equipment cards associated with the respective Kingdom cards. When taken, they are put to the discard pile, if not otherwise specified. Taking an Equipment is not gaining it, and it can only happen once per game; respective instructions are given on the Equipment or Kingdom cards. When the requirement to take an Equipment card is fulfilled and taking it is optional (“you may take this”), the player has the choice to either take it now or later, when the requirements are met again, or if they prefer to never take it during a game.

The first two pairs of Kingdom/Equipment cards I present here are meant to illustrate the principle and thus are relatively simple: Bowman/Quiver and Observatory/Telescope. In later parts of this thread, I will show Equipment cards going to the Cabinet mat and cards giving players a Moral, which can alter the start of their turns.

Bowman/Quiver. Both cards are coin-producing cantrips, with Quiver producing coins via self-trashing and Bowman being able to recover Quivers (or other inexpensive cards) from the trash. As a consequence, trashing Quivers means that they can change their owners. Quivers come in relatively late in the game after players have a certain density of Action cards in their decks.

Bowman $5 – Action Equipment: Quiver +1 Card +1 Action +$1 You may gain a card from            the trash, costing up to $3.

Quiver $0 – Action - Equipment +1 Card +1 Action You may trash this for +1 Buy and +$2. ----------------------------      When you have 3 or more Action        cards in play, you may take this (once per game).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Observatory/Telescope. Observatory is a terminal draw-to-X card. It only draws up to 5 cards in hand, but different to official cards, before drawing, cards can be set aside from hand and go back to hand later in the same turn (usually). Telescope supports Observatory in as much as it is a Night card that can be played in the same turn, even when drawn by an Observatory, or when it was set aside. In addition, Telescope itself allows playing an Action card during your Night phase. Players can add it when they shuffle their deck, which is usually at the end of turn 2, but they do not have to if they decide to play the game without its abilities or to take their Telescope after a subsequent deck shuffling.

Observatory $5 – Action Equipment: Telescope Set aside any number of cards from your hand, face down (under this). Draw until you have 5 cards in hand.         At the start of your next Night          phase, put the set-aside cards into your hand.

Telescope $0 – Night - Equipment Choose one: Play an Action card from your hand; or put a card        from your hand onto your deck;        or trash a card from your hand. ------------------------- Directly after shuffling your deck, you may take this (once per game).

[Jonatan Djurachkovitch]

I really like the idea of equipment cards. They are a way to make exotic cards without them being useless two thirds  of the time and can implement a sort mini game. The examples you posted were really cool, too: Bowman and Quiver have nice player interaction and requires weighing the risks carefully, and Observatory and Telescope are really niche on their own, but can enable really interesting and creative plays together, in a way that hasn't really ever been seen before.

[Rhodos]

The Equipment cards are a great idea! I like how the Equipment and their associated cards interact with each other, while both of them can still be played individually, as gaining the Equipment can be gained without its associated card.

I do not know the Nocturne rules good enough, so I may ask a question: Has every turn in Dominion theoretically a Night Phase? Otherwise, you could set aside junk cards with Observatory and they would stay their until the end of the game, if you choose to not have any Night cards, right?

[D782802859]

The Equipment cards are a great idea! I like how the Equipment and their associated cards interact with each other, while both of them can still be played individually, as gaining the Equipment can be gained without its associated card.

I do not know the Nocturne rules good enough, so I may ask a question: Has every turn in Dominion theoretically a Night Phase? Otherwise, you could set aside junk cards with Observatory and they would stay their until the end of the game, if you choose to not have any Night cards, right?

The Night phase only exists in games with Night cards. Since Telescope is a Night card, games using it have a Night phase, which happens even if you don't personally have any Night cards, like how the Action phase still happens if you don't have Actions.

[Carline]

Very nice concept! It opens a design space for cards which do interesting things but have some kind of first turns issues. And very cool cards and interactions between them.

One question: If I trash a Quiver and my opponent, who didn't take Quiver yet, play 3 Actions, they can take Quiver from the Trash?

Similar question for Telescope, although maybe there's no good reason to trash it.

[GendoIkari]

Question; why "take" the equipment and not just gain it? Are there on-gain things that would be broken with some equipment?

[gambit05]

I really like the idea of equipment cards. They are a way to make exotic cards without them being useless two thirds  of the time and can implement a sort mini game. The examples you posted were really cool, too: Bowman and Quiver have nice player interaction and requires weighing the risks carefully, and Observatory and Telescope are really niche on their own, but can enable really interesting and creative plays together, in a way that hasn't really ever been seen before.

The Equipment cards are a great idea! I like how the Equipment and their associated cards interact with each other, while both of them can still be played individually, as gaining the Equipment can be gained without its associated card.

I do not know the Nocturne rules good enough, so I may ask a question: Has every turn in Dominion theoretically a Night Phase? Otherwise, you could set aside junk cards with Observatory and they would stay their until the end of the game, if you choose to not have any Night cards, right?

The Night phase only exists in games with Night cards. Since Telescope is a Night card, games using it have a Night phase, which happens even if you don't personally have any Night cards, like how the Action phase still happens if you don't have Actions.

Thanks to all of you for liking the concept, and for showing so much interest on the cards. There will be some more cards like that. However, some of them strictly depend on each other, which on the other hand opens another angle of design space with this concept.

D782802859 has given the simple answer to your (Rhodos) question about the Night phase, which is sufficiently enough for Observatory/Telescope. However, one could go even further. Observatory should also work the same way without Telescope, since it mentions the Night phase. One could even say that the Night phase exists in every Dominion game. It is just not relevant when no cards are around that can be played during the Night phase, and thus after the buying phase players just skip it and precede to the Clean-up phase. That is at least how I see it. If there is a different point of view, it shouldn't have any practical consequences.

Very nice concept! It opens a design space for cards which do interesting things but have some kind of first turns issues. And very cool cards and interactions between them.

One question: If I trash a Quiver and my opponent, who didn't take Quiver yet, play 3 Actions, they can take Quiver from the Trash?

Similar question for Telescope, although maybe there's no good reason to trash it.

Thanks for the compliment about the concept.
To your question: The answer depends on how you have used "take" (the second time). In "Dominion terminology" as I have defined it here (but not in common English), Quiver can be taken only once, and that is when it is still set aside. So, the answer is no. The opponent cannot take any Quiver from the trash at any time and under any circumstances. However, they can gain the Quiver from the trash, when they play a Bowman or any card that is able to gain a $0 cost card out of the trash (Lurker comes to my mind). The same is true for Telescope. If it is trashed for some reason, it can never be "taken" out of the trash, but a Bowman (if it is available in the game) could gain it from there.

Question; why "take" the equipment and not just gain it? Are there on-gain things that would be broken with some equipment?

I decided to name this "take" for several reasons: It emphasizes that it is different from "gain" as it can happen only once per game (per Equipment card). It is a better reminder that something unusual happens, i.e. a set aside card enters the game. It avoids potential problems as Carline for example asked above. I do not have any on-gain effects in mind that would make a simple "gain" of the Equipment card broken, but this way it is easier to avoid any such issues whether existent or not, also for potential future cards.

[Timinou]

I love this concept!  This would definitely allow for some very interesting cards with unique interactions.

With regards to Observatory/Telescope, if you set aside cards with Observatory but don't have a Telescope in hand, am I correct in assuming that those cards get discarded during Clean-up?

[gambit05]

I love this concept!  This would definitely allow for some very interesting cards with unique interactions.

With regards to Observatory/Telescope, if you set aside cards with Observatory but don't have a Telescope in hand, am I correct in assuming that those cards get discarded during Clean-up?

Many thanks. I really haven't dreamed of such a positive feedback on the concept.
Yes, with the exception of other Night cards (or hypothetical cards that somehow allow playing certain non-Night cards during the Night phase).

The idea is that this is the drawback of combining the "set aside" with "the draw-to-X" ability, which is mitigated if Telescope is in hand in the Night phase.

[Carline]

Question; why "take" the equipment and not just gain it? Are there on-gain things that would be broken with some equipment?

I decided to name this "take" for several reasons: It emphasizes that it is different from "gain" as it can happen only once per game (per Equipment card). It is a better reminder that something unusual happens, i.e. a set aside card enters the game. It avoids potential problems as Carline for example asked above. I do not have any on-gain effects in mind that would make a simple "gain" of the Equipment card broken, but this way it is easier to avoid any such issues whether existent or not, also for potential future cards.

Bridge Troll and Ball already use "take" in their text, so, as you want new rules attached to the word, maybe would be better if you use a more specific verb. Is there a verb in English which means something like "use an equipment" or "put an equipment in use? "Activate", maybe?

[scolapasta]

Right, "take" is already used for tokens and states, i.e. non cards. I'd suggest just sticking with gain, putting the "once per game" clause first .e.g.:

Once per game: When you have 3 or more Action cards in play, you may gain a Quiver..

Once per game: Directly after shuffling your deck, you may gain a Telescope.

There is already precedent for things you can only do once per game (e.g. Inheritance, Size the Day). Equipment don't need to be set aside any differently that other non supply cards.

A couple of other notes:
• include the phrase "(This is not in the Supply.)"
• include a "*" in the cost, for the same reason

Question on Quiver, which applies to either your original wording or my suggested above: can you take/gain it at any time with 3 in play, i.e in any phase?

[LibraryAdventurer]

Since there is one per player and the equipment card starts out set aside for each player, I would suggest using "discard" instead of "gain" or "take". No need to create a new keyword.

I think Observatory is kind of weak for a $5 since it only draws up to 5. I think it should either draw up to 6, or make the return to hand part happen at the buy phase instead of the night phase and make Telescope a treasure. (If you do the latter thing, you probably want to limit the amount of cards you can set aside to keep it from being too strong.)

I like Bowman & Quiver and the Equipment idea.

[gambit05]

Question; why "take" the equipment and not just gain it? Are there on-gain things that would be broken with some equipment?

I decided to name this "take" for several reasons: It emphasizes that it is different from "gain" as it can happen only once per game (per Equipment card). It is a better reminder that something unusual happens, i.e. a set aside card enters the game. It avoids potential problems as Carline for example asked above. I do not have any on-gain effects in mind that would make a simple "gain" of the Equipment card broken, but this way it is easier to avoid any such issues whether existent or not, also for potential future cards.

Bridge Troll and Ball already use "take" in their text, so, as you want new rules attached to the word, maybe would be better if you use a more specific verb. Is there a verb in English which means something like "use an equipment" or "put an equipment in use? "Activate", maybe?

Right, "take" is already used for tokens and states, i.e. non cards. I'd suggest just sticking with gain, putting the "once per game" clause first .e.g.:

Once per game: When you have 3 or more Action cards in play, you may gain a Quiver..

Once per game: Directly after shuffling your deck, you may gain a Telescope.

There is already precedent for things you can only do once per game (e.g. Inheritance, Size the Day). Equipment don't need to be set aside any differently that other non supply cards.

A couple of other notes:
• include the phrase "(This is not in the Supply.)"
• include a "*" in the cost, for the same reason

Question on Quiver, which applies to either your original wording or my suggested above: can you take/gain it at any time with 3 in play, i.e in any phase?

Thank you both for thinking about the terms of "taking" and the labeling (0* and "This is not in the Supply"). It is very helpful to address these points to minimize any confusion and to come as close to the official cards as possible.

I think the labeling is straight forward: All* official non-Supply cards that form a pile (e.g. Spoils, Madman, Bat, Horse) are labeled with a * in their costs and have the phrase (This is not in the Supply.). All official non-Supply cards that do not form a pile (Heirlooms, Shelters, Zombies) do not have that. The Equipment cards belong to the latter type and thus do not need those labels.

* The only exception are the cards of the Black Market deck (funny enough it is called deck and not pile on the Black Market card) for obvious reasons.

"Gaining" versus something else: One thing I haven't mentioned anywhere is the status of the set-aside Equipment cards. The easiest way at the moment is that those cards already belong to the players, i.e. even if they do not enter the active deck the whole game, they are part of the deck at the end of the game. This matters for a few cards such as Gardens or Vineyard; it is consistent with the status of official set aside cards. So, if I would use the term "gain" then the players would "gain" a card they already own. That seems more confusing than helpful.

"Taking". I don't know whether this term is the best or if there is something better. However, I am quite confident that it is better to not use "gain" as that creates more confusion than it helps (see above). It should be a single word, like "call" for Reserve cards in order to minimize text and to help understanding and performing the process of "a set aside Equipment card enters the active deck by putting it to the discard pile" (if the target area is not specified to be a different one). "Activate" is a funny idea, but it is a bit dramatic for the above mentioned process. This term was once introduced for Fan-made "Activation" cards by LastFootnote, and I myself had some of those cards as well. They have some similarity to Reserve cards, and could well be considered as their prototype (they were designed before Adventures); so "activate" was similar to "call".

I don't see a major problem that "taking" is already used for some Adventures tokens. I don't think anyone would be confused by that.

"Once per game". I started with this order of words, but found it a bit more ambiguous than the other way around (which might not be perfect as well). The problem is the combination with "may", which is different to the Events you have mentioned: Does the player has the opportunity to decide to “take” the card once per game and then the opportunity is gone for the rest of the game, or does the player has the opportunity every time the specific requirements are met, but can “take” the card only once per game. I meant to have the latter case. Is that clear enough without additional rule clarifications in a hypothetical rule book? Is the other way around better? Is there a better way to formulate this, without too much text?

Quiver: Good point. I think I should omit "or more". I don't want that a player can enter the card any time after the specific requirement is met (here: 3 Action cards in play). It should occur immediately after the requirement is met, and then the opportunity is gone until the next time the requirement is met again.

Is it clear enough when I just phrase it "When you have 3 Action cards in play, you may take this (once per game)"? Is it better to add "immediately" (after "may") and/or "exactly" (after "have")? E.g.: When you have exactly 3 Action cards in play, you may take this (once per game). Or: When you have 3 Action cards in play, you may immediately take this (once per game).

Thanks again. This is very helpful and very much appreciated.

[gambit05]

Since there is one per player and the equipment card starts out set aside for each player, I would suggest using "discard" instead of "gain" or "take". No need to create a new keyword.

Just a quick reply to your post. "Taking" (or whatever term is finally used) means by default that the set-aside Equipment card is put into the discard pile. I have however a few Equipment cards that have a different destination; though after a quick look to the Equipment cards (or unfinished ideas) I have designed so far, I will probably not present any of them here; but at least the scenario exists potentially. In that case, I would need a substitute for "discard". "Discard to hand" looks a bit stupid, doesn't it? There was something else that I felt argues against using "discard" as term, but it doesn't come to my mind right now.

I think Observatory is kind of weak for a $5 since it only draws up to 5. I think it should either draw up to 6, or make the return to hand part happen at the buy phase instead of the night phase and make Telescope a treasure. (If you do the latter thing, you probably want to limit the amount of cards you can set aside to keep it from being too strong.)

As I mentioned above, this is just a quick reply. So, I have to think about the particular abilities (as is and as you have suggested) in much more detail. This is a complex relationship between draw-to-X and reducing the hand size prior to that, which to my knowledge is quite unique and potentially very strong. And on top of that, there is also Telescope, which interacts with the abilities.

I like Bowman & Quiver and the Equipment idea.

Although I have mentioned twice that this is a quick reply to your post, no need to think too much about this statement: Thank you very much!
 

[silverspawn]

Why not just omit the 'once per game' clause and make it part of the rules for equipments?

[gambit05]

Why not just omit the 'once per game' clause and make it part of the rules for equipments?

Well, it is not essential (it is in parenthesis after all), but just meant to give extra information likewise Nomad Camp for example does. It is also intended to emphasise that this a special event that, well, happens only once per game. Whether or not to leave it there seem to strongly depend on the "take" term or any alternative that might be finally used. "Gain" instead of "take" would create a lot of confusion. For example gaining a Quiver from the trash can happen multiple times during a game. However, it can be "taken" only once per game. This difference depends just on the one-word phrases "take" vs. "gain" or vs. any alternative and the additional information "(once per game)" is a sort of a reminder.

[silverspawn]

I'm with you on 'take' being a fine wording. Take & the rule that a thing can only be taken once seems elegant.

[gambit05]

Right, "take" is already used for tokens and states, i.e. non cards. I'd suggest just sticking with gain, putting the "once per game" clause first .e.g.:

Once per game: When you have 3 or more Action cards in play, you may gain a Quiver..

Question on Quiver, which applies to either your original wording or my suggested above: can you take/gain it at any time with 3 in play, i.e in any phase?

I have changed Quiver and hope it is clearer:

Quiver $0 – Action - Equipment +1 Card +1 Action You may trash this for +1 Buy and +$2. ----------------------------      When you have exactly 3 Action      cards in play, you may take this (once per game).

With respect to the position of "once per game":

When I dissect the instructions below the line as follows, it looks like this:

Once per game: When you have
exactly 3 Action cards in play…

- your suggestion -

versus:

…, you may take this (once per game).

- current version -

I don’t know whether the second phrasing can be improved and if so, how, but at least the vicinity of “once per game” to “may” makes the intended ability clearer than when it is next to “When you have…”.

Don't you think so?

[spineflu]

I'm with you on 'take' being a fine wording. Take & the rule that a thing can only be taken once seems elegant.

thats a recipe for disasterous misreadings when played in a game with artifacts. "why would you ever buy the first flag bearer, you cant get the flag back".

can i suggest a more obvious one: "equip"? then you can add all the keyword-rules you want

Right, "take" is already used for tokens and states, i.e. non cards. I'd suggest just sticking with gain, putting the "once per game" clause first .e.g.:

Once per game: When you have 3 or more Action cards in play, you may gain a Quiver..

Question on Quiver, which applies to either your original wording or my suggested above: can you take/gain it at any time with 3 in play, i.e in any phase?

I have changed Quiver and hope it is clearer:

Quiver $0 – Action - Equipment +1 Card +1 Action You may trash this for +1 Buy and +$2. ----------------------------      When you have exactly 3 Action      cards in play, you may take this (once per game).

With respect to the position of "once per game":

When I dissect the instructions below the line as follows, it looks like this:

Once per game: When you have
exactly 3 Action cards in play…

- your suggestion -

versus:

…, you may take this (once per game).

- current version -

I don’t know whether the second phrasing can be improved and if so, how, but at least the vicinity of “once per game” to “may” makes the intended ability clearer than when it is next to “When you have…”.

Don't you think so?

1: moot if you use a different keyword - any future equipments that can happen multiple times per game can use "gain"
2: at the end reads as super confusing to me
3: why not just make this a task + a nonsupply pile? frees up the equipment to do more complex things than a Mining Market

[segura]

I don’t get why this needs new keywords. Simply use gain, keep the once per turn clause and explicitly make it a non-Supply card.

[gambit05]

I'm with you on 'take' being a fine wording. Take & the rule that a thing can only be taken once seems elegant.

thats a recipe for disasterous misreadings when played in a game with artifacts. "why would you ever buy the first flag bearer, you cant get the flag back".

That is a good point. However, "take" combined with "once per game" makes it different to Artifacts.

can i suggest a more obvious one: "equip"? then you can add all the keyword-rules you want

That looks like a neat idea! But...how would you phrase it in English?
It can't be "...you may equip this", or can you do it this way?
Wouldn't the correct English be rather like "you may equip yourself with this"?
What about "get"? Looks a bit strange, but who knows...

3: why not just make this a task + a nonsupply pile? frees up the equipment to do more complex things than a Mining Market

I don't see an easy way how I could convert Equipment/associated Kingdom cards to Landscape-type Tasks. To properly work, Equipments and Kingdom cards should be mobile (i.e. playable); also Equipment cards do not form a pile. I think that would utterly complicate things.

I don’t get why this needs new keywords. Simply use gain, keep the once per turn clause and explicitly make it a non-Supply card.

It only needs one term for "put a set aside Equipment card to the discard pile, do this only once per game". I decided to use "take" as it avoids any rule confusions that "gain" may cause.
One example: Player A has their Quiver still set aside. Player B has "taken", played and trashed their Quiver. Player A plays a Lurker, which can gain Action cards from the trash. Player A gains the Quiver from the trash. Now they have gained a Quiver once per game and can't gain their own still set aside Quiver anymore.

The Equipment cards are non-Supply cards! They even have their own color. If you mean the * in the costs and the (This is not in the Supply.) label, they don't need it; they even shouldn't have it! Please see my explanations in reply to scolapasta (reply #12, my 2nd paragraph).

In summary, I am somewhat surprised that the term "take" combined with "once per game" can cause such an immense discussion. I don't say it is a bad thing to discuss it and to find the best solution, I just haven't expected it.

Thanks to both of you for all your efforts!

[scolapasta]

I don’t get why this needs new keywords. Simply use gain, keep the once per turn clause and explicitly make it a non-Supply card.

Yeah, I'm still on board team "non supply and gain". I get that won't work with the cards being yours and set aside at the start of the game. But it begs the question, why? The only difference, like you said, is scoring at the end of the game and that doesn't seem especially critical. Just being a non supply pile with 1 per player seems just fine and keeps it more standard. Think of Ghost, which is effectively, one per player (at least in most Haunted Mirror games), and in the case of Equipment, the "once per game" clause guarantees that.

I don't think the "once per game" would be so confusing with other gaining, like Lurker. For example, with Seize the Day, that doesn't stop you from taking other extra turns from Outpost, Fleet, etc. (and this part can be explained easily enough in the FAQ)

But, say you do want to keep the idea of each person starts with this card set aside. Then is already precedent as well, for set aside cards and moving them: "put". For example, cards like Faithful Hound, Church, and many others. All those put it into your hand, but they also specify the location specifically, so you could easily do a different location:

"Directly after shuffling your deck, you may put your set aside Quiver in your discard pile."

Since the Dominion norm is to do what you can when you can, this also obviates the need for the "once per game" clause, since there is only one set aside Quiver.

It also opens up a space where you could re "equip" some Equipment card, if that card sets itself aside.

Another bonus of not specifying a new keyword for Equipment, is that you some Equipment that you gets played immediately play, e.g.:

"Directly after X, you may play your set aside."

(this latter idea you could also do if you used the standard gain, as well).

[gambit05]

I don’t get why this needs new keywords. Simply use gain, keep the once per turn clause and explicitly make it a non-Supply card.

Yeah, I'm still on board team "non supply and gain". I get that won't work with the cards being yours and set aside at the start of the game. But it begs the question, why?

Can you gain a card you already own?

I don't get the "non supply" part. The Equipment cards are non-Supply cards and are accordingly designed. Like Heirlooms, they have no own pile, therefore no cost*, and no (This is not in the Supply.).

But, say you do want to keep the idea of each person starts with this card set aside. Then is already precedent as well, for set aside cards and moving them: "put". For example, cards like Faithful Hound, Church, and many others. All those put it into your hand, but they also specify the location specifically, so you could easily do a different location:

"Directly after shuffling your deck, you may put your set aside Quiver in your discard pile."

Yes, this would work, it might be just a bit too long for some of my cards. No problems with Telescope or Quiver, but some other cards have more text. I am afraid that their text becomes too tiny. I would win a bit about correct wording in the sense of what is established, but would loose on the other hand on readability.

Well, thanks for the feedback!

Edit: I just had a look to the other Equipment cards. Among those I want to present here, probably only one would have a problem with your suggested wording in that there would be quite a lengthy text. So, I will try how your wording looks on the other cards. Thanks!

[scolapasta]

Right, "take" is already used for tokens and states, i.e. non cards. I'd suggest just sticking with gain, putting the "once per game" clause first .e.g.:

Once per game: When you have 3 or more Action cards in play, you may gain a Quiver..

Question on Quiver, which applies to either your original wording or my suggested above: can you take/gain it at any time with 3 in play, i.e in any phase?

I have changed Quiver and hope it is clearer:

Quiver $0 – Action - Equipment +1 Card +1 Action You may trash this for +1 Buy and +$2. ----------------------------      When you have exactly 3 Action      cards in play, you may take this (once per game).

With respect to the position of "once per game":

When I dissect the instructions below the line as follows, it looks like this:

Once per game: When you have
exactly 3 Action cards in play…

- your suggestion -

versus:

…, you may take this (once per game).

- current version -

I don’t know whether the second phrasing can be improved and if so, how, but at least the vicinity of “once per game” to “may” makes the intended ability clearer than when it is next to “When you have…”.

Don't you think so?

It still feels ambiguous to me, since you could for example play your third treasure card, not take* it, then buy a card (for example, Inn to cause some shuffling), and then take* it. Or for example, if you play a Vampire as your 3rd card, can you take* it before you exchange it for a Bat? (that seems weird, since it's in between instructions). Also I'm not sure if it's ever ruled (since it's never mattered, I think) Or at cleanup, after trashing a 4th (action) card from cleanup, leaving you with just 3?

If you need it to be precise, I think it'd it have to be after something happens, but "Directly after you play a card and have 3 cards in play" seems longwinded.

Re: the placement of "once per game", I forgot to mention in my other post - I do see what you mean with the "may". But I still think that's an explainable via the FAQ and that it's better to have it in front.

[scolapasta]

I don’t get why this needs new keywords. Simply use gain, keep the once per turn clause and explicitly make it a non-Supply card.

Yeah, I'm still on board team "non supply and gain". I get that won't work with the cards being yours and set aside at the start of the game. But it begs the question, why?

Can you gain a card you already own?

I don't get the "non supply" part. The Equipment cards are non-Supply cards and are accordingly designed. Like Heirlooms, they have no own pile, therefore no cost*, and no (This is not in the Supply.).

I'm glad my other suggesting might work for you.

To be clear with the above, what I (and I assume @segura) was suggesting was that players don't already own Equipment and that they are non supply piles.

My goal was to help accomplish the goals you want with the Equipment mechanic within the confines of standards that already exist. i.e. trying to minimize the # of new rules ("take" cards, owning cards at the beginning that are set aside, etc).