Print

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

[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.).

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" owning cards at the beginning that are set aside, etc).

I really appreciate your work and help in improving my cards. Please don't get me wrong.

I have prepared a version with your suggested wording (left) and posted the previous version to the right, just for a better comparison, text wise and aesthetic-wise:



What do you guys/gals think about that?

[D782802859]

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" owning cards at the beginning that are set aside, etc).

I really appreciate your work and help in improving my cards. Please don't get me wrong.

I have prepared a version with your suggested wording (left) and posted the previous version to the right, just for a better comparison, text wise and aesthetic-wise:



What do you guys/gals think about that?

The second one is so much clearer and more understandable.

[segura]

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.

Quiver says: "Once per game: If condition X is satisfied, you may gain this." (I'd put the once per game clause at the front, that's slightly more clear.)
It does not say "You may only gain this once per game and only if you have satisfied condition X."

The once per turn clause unambiguously refers to a very specific condition that allows you to gain this from the non-Supply nirvana and does not say anything about what is supposed to happen or not when you gain Quiver from the trash via Lurker.

I am not opposed to new types, keywords or whatever. But I am when they are not necessary.

[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".

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.

you aren't separating the whole card to the landscape; just the gain condition. You can keep the pileless/"it's already yours" concept with this as well, and by making it a task, you have an implicit once-per-game; make it an event for an infinite per-game.

[gambit05]

What do you guys/gals think about that?

The second one is so much clearer and more understandable.

Do you mean the third one (the one on the left)? The second one is the one on the right, which differs from the original only by adding "exactly" to it.

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.

Quiver says: "Once per game: If condition X is satisfied, you may gain this." (I'd put the once per game clause at the front, that's slightly more clear.)
It does not say "You may only gain this once per game and only if you have satisfied condition X."

The once per turn clause unambiguously refers to a very specific condition that allows you to gain this from the non-Supply nirvana and does not say anything about what is supposed to happen or not when you gain Quiver from the trash via Lurker.

I am not opposed to new types, keywords or whatever. But I am when they are not necessary.

Sorry, I am lost. I am right now not sure about what you are arguing.

Is it "take" vs "gain"?
or
Is it that the Equipment cards are set aside?

[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.

you aren't separating the whole card to the landscape; just the gain condition. You can keep the pileless/"it's already yours" concept with this as well, and by making it a task, you have an implicit once-per-game; make it an event for an infinite per-game.

Thanks for showing me the Quiver associated Task. I really don't think that makes things easier. Where is the Quiver when the game starts? What happens when I get the objective multiple times? It is not clear to me that it happens only once per game. The second time I met the objective criteria and Quiver is for example in the trash, can I put it in my discard pile?

[silverspawn]

I think introducing another card-shaped thing when it's not required is a pretty hard sell.

[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".

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.

you aren't separating the whole card to the landscape; just the gain condition. You can keep the pileless/"it's already yours" concept with this as well, and by making it a task, you have an implicit once-per-game; make it an event for an infinite per-game.

Thanks for showing me the Quiver associated Task. I really don't think that makes things easier. Where is the Quiver when the game starts? What happens when I get the objective multiple times? It is not clear to me that it happens only once per game. The second time I met the objective criteria and Quiver is for example in the trash, can I put it in my discard pile?

the starting position (set aside) is dictated by the "equipment" type and cue'd to the players with the special cyan color; tasks are once-per-player, per-game (which you'd know if you actually read Aquila's write up on them I linked you previously)

[gambit05]

the starting position (set aside) is dictated by the "equipment" type; tasks are once-per-player, per-game (which you'd know if you actually read Aquila's write up on them I linked you previously)

That is quite a long essay. So I tried to extract some of it, but did not read it full length, because I came to the conclusion that I does not really help to solve any potential issues that may come with Equipment cards. It just looks more complicated as my simple version that Equipment cards are set aside at the start of the game. What do you think about the newest version of Quiver I have posted a bit earlier (the one on the left)?

If you are not happy with it, can you tell me what you think is wrong with it?

[spineflu]

the starting position (set aside) is dictated by the "equipment" type; tasks are once-per-player, per-game (which you'd know if you actually read Aquila's write up on them I linked you previously)

That is quite a long essay. So I tried to extract some of it, but did not read it full length, because I came to the conclusion that I does not really help to solve any potential issues that may come with Equipment cards. It just looks more complicated as my simple version that Equipment cards are set aside at the start of the game. What do you think about the newest version of Quiver I have posted a bit earlier (the one on the left)?

If you are not happy with it, can you tell me what you think is wrong with it?

you're trying to cram too much onto a single card. its dictating where it starts, how to get it, and what it does, which are things the rest of the game has shorthand for (supply/nonsupply, cost); this is why "deluded"/"envious" have delusional/envious (introducing another card-like thing) while the boons have "you may receive it at the beginning of your next turn", if tracking was an issue.

[gambit05]

the starting position (set aside) is dictated by the "equipment" type; tasks are once-per-player, per-game (which you'd know if you actually read Aquila's write up on them I linked you previously)

That is quite a long essay. So I tried to extract some of it, but did not read it full length, because I came to the conclusion that I does not really help to solve any potential issues that may come with Equipment cards. It just looks more complicated as my simple version that Equipment cards are set aside at the start of the game. What do you think about the newest version of Quiver I have posted a bit earlier (the one on the left)?

If you are not happy with it, can you tell me what you think is wrong with it?

you're trying to cram too much onto a single card. its dictating where it starts, how to get it, and what it does, which are things the rest of the game has shorthand for (supply/nonsupply, cost); this is why "deluded"/"envious" have delusional/envious (introducing another card-like thing) while the boons have "you may receive it at the beginning of your next turn", if tracking was an issue.

I have to disagree, sorry. The 3 lines below the dividing line are precise, give most of the information, avoid the introduction of another card-shape thing. I don't like to compliment myself, but I think my solution is more elegant than a triple set of Bowman - Quiver - Marksman. Delusional is a temporary state that is passed forth and back. You can't put that information on a Hex that disappears in the meantime. What is the context with the Boons text you have mentioned? The text gives the information that the bonus of the particular Boon can be received later. This is mainly because receiving it now may not be helpful. So it gives the later time point as alternative.

[spineflu]

the starting position (set aside) is dictated by the "equipment" type; tasks are once-per-player, per-game (which you'd know if you actually read Aquila's write up on them I linked you previously)

That is quite a long essay. So I tried to extract some of it, but did not read it full length, because I came to the conclusion that I does not really help to solve any potential issues that may come with Equipment cards. It just looks more complicated as my simple version that Equipment cards are set aside at the start of the game. What do you think about the newest version of Quiver I have posted a bit earlier (the one on the left)?

If you are not happy with it, can you tell me what you think is wrong with it?

you're trying to cram too much onto a single card. its dictating where it starts, how to get it, and what it does, which are things the rest of the game has shorthand for (supply/nonsupply, cost); this is why "deluded"/"envious" have delusional/envious (introducing another card-like thing) while the boons have "you may receive it at the beginning of your next turn", if tracking was an issue.

I have to disagree, sorry. The 3 lines below the dividing line are precise, give most of the information, avoid the introduction of another card-shape thing. I don't like to compliment myself, but I think my solution is more elegant than a triple set of Bowman - Quiver - Marksman. Delusional is a temporary state that is passed forth and back. You can't put that information on a Hex that disappears in the meantime. What is the context with the Boons text you have mentioned? The text gives the information that the bonus of the particular Boon can be received later. This is mainly because receiving it now may not be helpful. So it gives the later time point as alternative.

the boons example points out that hexes/boons dont necessarily have to resolved at the time of reciept; if you cram the delusional/deluded all onto a single card, you can just put that in the middle of the table and resolve it the same way - that's inelegant in the presence of moat/lighthouse stuff, but functionally "the same'.

Of course, it's your card, and you're welcome to do as you want, but you're also the one complaining that you can't do a thing because the card text would be too small:

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!

[gambit05]

the starting position (set aside) is dictated by the "equipment" type; tasks are once-per-player, per-game (which you'd know if you actually read Aquila's write up on them I linked you previously)

That is quite a long essay. So I tried to extract some of it, but did not read it full length, because I came to the conclusion that I does not really help to solve any potential issues that may come with Equipment cards. It just looks more complicated as my simple version that Equipment cards are set aside at the start of the game. What do you think about the newest version of Quiver I have posted a bit earlier (the one on the left)?

If you are not happy with it, can you tell me what you think is wrong with it?

you're trying to cram too much onto a single card. its dictating where it starts, how to get it, and what it does, which are things the rest of the game has shorthand for (supply/nonsupply, cost); this is why "deluded"/"envious" have delusional/envious (introducing another card-like thing) while the boons have "you may receive it at the beginning of your next turn", if tracking was an issue.

I have to disagree, sorry. The 3 lines below the dividing line are precise, give most of the information, avoid the introduction of another card-shape thing. I don't like to compliment myself, but I think my solution is more elegant than a triple set of Bowman - Quiver - Marksman. Delusional is a temporary state that is passed forth and back. You can't put that information on a Hex that disappears in the meantime. What is the context with the Boons text you have mentioned? The text gives the information that the bonus of the particular Boon can be received later. This is mainly because receiving it now may not be helpful. So it gives the later time point as alternative.

the boons example points out that hexes/boons dont necessarily have to resolved at the time of reciept; if you cram the delusional/deluded all onto a single card, you can just put that in the middle of the table and resolve it the same way - that's inelegant in the presence of moat/lighthouse stuff, but functionally "the same'.

Yes, sure I agree, but what does that have to do with my Equipment cards? Their text is far away from being crammed. They do not need an extra card-shape thing to mediate the information.

[spineflu]

the starting position (set aside) is dictated by the "equipment" type; tasks are once-per-player, per-game (which you'd know if you actually read Aquila's write up on them I linked you previously)

That is quite a long essay. So I tried to extract some of it, but did not read it full length, because I came to the conclusion that I does not really help to solve any potential issues that may come with Equipment cards. It just looks more complicated as my simple version that Equipment cards are set aside at the start of the game. What do you think about the newest version of Quiver I have posted a bit earlier (the one on the left)?

If you are not happy with it, can you tell me what you think is wrong with it?

you're trying to cram too much onto a single card. its dictating where it starts, how to get it, and what it does, which are things the rest of the game has shorthand for (supply/nonsupply, cost); this is why "deluded"/"envious" have delusional/envious (introducing another card-like thing) while the boons have "you may receive it at the beginning of your next turn", if tracking was an issue.

I have to disagree, sorry. The 3 lines below the dividing line are precise, give most of the information, avoid the introduction of another card-shape thing. I don't like to compliment myself, but I think my solution is more elegant than a triple set of Bowman - Quiver - Marksman. Delusional is a temporary state that is passed forth and back. You can't put that information on a Hex that disappears in the meantime. What is the context with the Boons text you have mentioned? The text gives the information that the bonus of the particular Boon can be received later. This is mainly because receiving it now may not be helpful. So it gives the later time point as alternative.

the boons example points out that hexes/boons dont necessarily have to resolved at the time of reciept; if you cram the delusional/deluded all onto a single card, you can just put that in the middle of the table and resolve it the same way - that's inelegant in the presence of moat/lighthouse stuff, but functionally "the same'.

Yes, sure I agree, but what does that have to do with my Equipment cards? Their text is far away from being crammed. They do not need an extra card-shape thing to mediate the information.

futureproofing, allowing you a template to make more wordy/complex equipment cards while keeping a standard format

Like none of this is a necessary step, but it solves so many of the issues in this thread ("where does once per turn go to be unambiguous?" "how do i communicate a non-standard 'gain' condition") while allowing a template to let you go hog wild on future iteration; the boons/hex/state example is precedent where this concept of landscape-extraction has been applied before; artifacts are another example.

[gambit05]

the starting position (set aside) is dictated by the "equipment" type; tasks are once-per-player, per-game (which you'd know if you actually read Aquila's write up on them I linked you previously)

That is quite a long essay. So I tried to extract some of it, but did not read it full length, because I came to the conclusion that I does not really help to solve any potential issues that may come with Equipment cards. It just looks more complicated as my simple version that Equipment cards are set aside at the start of the game. What do you think about the newest version of Quiver I have posted a bit earlier (the one on the left)?

If you are not happy with it, can you tell me what you think is wrong with it?

you're trying to cram too much onto a single card. its dictating where it starts, how to get it, and what it does, which are things the rest of the game has shorthand for (supply/nonsupply, cost); this is why "deluded"/"envious" have delusional/envious (introducing another card-like thing) while the boons have "you may receive it at the beginning of your next turn", if tracking was an issue.

I have to disagree, sorry. The 3 lines below the dividing line are precise, give most of the information, avoid the introduction of another card-shape thing. I don't like to compliment myself, but I think my solution is more elegant than a triple set of Bowman - Quiver - Marksman. Delusional is a temporary state that is passed forth and back. You can't put that information on a Hex that disappears in the meantime. What is the context with the Boons text you have mentioned? The text gives the information that the bonus of the particular Boon can be received later. This is mainly because receiving it now may not be helpful. So it gives the later time point as alternative.

the boons example points out that hexes/boons dont necessarily have to resolved at the time of reciept; if you cram the delusional/deluded all onto a single card, you can just put that in the middle of the table and resolve it the same way - that's inelegant in the presence of moat/lighthouse stuff, but functionally "the same'.

Yes, sure I agree, but what does that have to do with my Equipment cards? Their text is far away from being crammed. They do not need an extra card-shape thing to mediate the information.

futureproofing, allowing you a template to make more wordy/complex equipment cards while keeping a standard format

Interesting point. Unfortunately, I think that it wouldn't fit to most of the other Equipment cards I intend to present here. May be we can just ignore this point now, and come back to it if you feel it is necessary, after I have presented the rest of my cards?

[spineflu]

yeah that's fine; i edited my last post to be a little more verbose (phone typing is hard)

[Xen3k]

Forgive me but I have not read all the comments made so far, so I may be repeating previous posts, but I have a few thoughts.

- I originally thought the Equipment would start off on the Cabinet Mat and each player would have their own Mat, but unless I have missed something that Mat has not been discussed yet.
- I find it completely reasonable to have "take" do a lot of heavy lifting with this mechanic. If need be you can define it, like Exile is explicitly defined, or leave it as is and just explain it as needed like "pass" with Masquerade.
- I can see the destination of the card when you "take" it being a bit confusing, Exiled cards are discarded and cards on the Tavern Mat are called, and they have defined mechanics and rules on the destination of the card. As long as the rules are adequately defined I see no real issue with "take".
- The only thing I would suggest, and this is without knowing what the Cabinet Mat is all about, would be to have the Equipment cards start off on a Mat each person has, like the Exile and Tavern Mats but different so there is no collision with their mechanics. When you are taking an Equipment card, you are taking it from your (add name) Mat and adding it to your deck. If there are no ways for the card to go back to the Mat, then their is no reason to have "once per game" anywhere. You can also design cards that do end up back on that Mat allowing you to "take" it multiple times in a game. It may be superfluous to have a Mat for a single card most games, but players understand Mats and how they work for the most part.

Just  a few thoughts for this awesome idea. Really like the designs you already have made and I look forward to what you will present later.

[gambit05]

Forgive me but I have not read all the comments made so far, so I may be repeating previous posts, but I have a few thoughts.

No need to apologize. Your thoughts are more than welcome.

- I originally thought the Equipment would start off on the Cabinet Mat and each player would have their own Mat, but unless I have missed something that Mat has not been discussed yet.

You are right, I haven’t introduced the Cabinet mat yet. I intend to show it in later parts of this thread. The idea was to start easy and introduce different parts of the concept “Equipment” step by step. What did I know. At the moment it looks like a mess.

- I find it completely reasonable to have "take" do a lot of heavy lifting with this mechanic. If need be you can define it, like Exile is explicitly defined, or leave it as is and just explain it as needed like "pass" with Masquerade.

I am amazed about the resistance I face against using the term “take” in the context of the set aside Equipment cards. As things are in the moment, I will likely replace it with “put this set-aside [name] into the discard pile”. It takes some more words, but that should be okay for most of the cards.

- I can see the destination of the card when you "take" it being a bit confusing, Exiled cards are discarded and cards on the Tavern Mat are called, and they have defined mechanics and rules on the destination of the card. As long as the rules are adequately defined I see no real issue with "take".

I think the default destination being the discard pile is natural, as that is also the default destination for cards that are gained or cards that are “released” from the Exile mat.

- The only thing I would suggest, and this is without knowing what the Cabinet Mat is all about, would be to have the Equipment cards start off on a Mat each person has, like the Exile and Tavern Mats but different so there is no collision with their mechanics. When you are taking an Equipment card, you are taking it from your (add name) Mat and adding it to your deck. If there are no ways for the card to go back to the Mat, then their is no reason to have "once per game" anywhere. You can also design cards that do end up back on that Mat allowing you to "take" it multiple times in a game. It may be superfluous to have a Mat for a single card most games, but players understand Mats and how they work for the most part.

Having an extra mat for the set-aside Equipment cards is an interesting idea that I haven’t thought about. However, in principle the difference between having such a mat or not is that the set-aside Equipment cards would have a piece of cardboard underneath. The Equipment cards got their own color (light blue), so it is not easy to forget about them when they are set aside somewhere next to the player’s playing area. I do not plan to have any Equipment cards that go back to the initial “set aside at the start of the game” status. Once they left this status by being “taken”, “equipped”, “put into discard” or whatever term or phrase will be used to describe this, they are part of the player’s active deck.
 
I have some Equipment cards (or ideas for them) that use the Cabinet mat the way you describe as a possibility for the “set-up mat”, i.e. they are put on the Cabinet mat, do something there, and then can leave the mat again under specific circumstances. However, as far as I can see it now, I will not present any of those, but rather only 2 or 3 Equipment sets that stay on the Cabinet mat once they are there.

A final thought on mats in general: I prefer to use as few mats as I can in real life games. We usually play only with the Tavern and Exile mats. Occasionally a Native Village mat or a Trade Route mat, but that doesn’t really happen often. We do not use Coffers/Villagers mats. I made some Villager tokens simply from paper pieces with an image of Villagers glued on cardboard. They are easily distinguishable from other tokens by color and shape. No need to mess with the Coffers/Villager double-mat or to use the coin tokens for Villagers.

Just  a few thoughts for this awesome idea. Really like the designs you already have made and I look forward to what you will present later.

Many thanks, Xen3k for your thoughts and input! It is encouraging to hear (read) that you like my ideas. Your post is uplifting and just came in at the right moment!

[Timinou]

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.)

Perhaps rather than first setting aside cards and then drawing up to 5, Observatory should let you draw up to X cards and then set aside X cards for the Night phase.  That would make it easier to set up the Night phase with Telescope to be like a second turn.   

[silverspawn]

I am amazed about the resistance I face against using the term “take” in the context of the set aside Equipment cards. As things are in the moment, I will likely replace it with “put this set-aside [name] into the discard pile”. It takes some more words, but that should be okay for most of the cards.

Nooo  that's such a bad solution.

How about this:

Quiver $0 – Action - Equipment +1 Card +1 Action You may trash this for +1 Buy and +$2. ---------------------------- Equip: have exactly 3 Action cards in play.

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. ------------------------- Equip: shuffle your deck.

It's one keyword, it's different from any existing keyword (unlike 'take'), it's shorter than any other solution proposed so far, and it doesn't require extra card-shaped things.

Then, the rules about equipment cards are: (1) whenever the thing after Equip: occurs, you may choose to put the associated card into your discard pile; (2) when you do this, the option disappears for the rest of the game.

The only disadvantage I see is that you can't do mandatory equipments, but I'm just going to hope you weren't intending to do that anyway. Even then, you could say Equip (mandatory):, although this would introduce a second keyword.

[segura]

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.

Quiver says: "Once per game: If condition X is satisfied, you may gain this." (I'd put the once per game clause at the front, that's slightly more clear.)
It does not say "You may only gain this once per game and only if you have satisfied condition X."

The once per turn clause unambiguously refers to a very specific condition that allows you to gain this from the non-Supply nirvana and does not say anything about what is supposed to happen or not when you gain Quiver from the trash via Lurker.

I am not opposed to new types, keywords or whatever. But I am when they are not necessary.

Sorry, I am lost. I am right now not sure about what you are arguing.

Is it "take" vs "gain"?
or
Is it that the Equipment cards are set aside?

My point is that take is not necessary, gain works totally fine. Set aside seems needlessly wordy.

[silverspawn]

I would vote for just 'gain' with (once per turn) above 'put it into your discard pile' as well.

[faust]

Not having read everything in detail, I think using "gain" for this is nice simply so that it can interact with things that care about gaining. It's better to have more interactions when you can.

[scolapasta]

Still on team gain.

@gambit05, I asked a question a while back, but I think you may have missed it. Is it important for it to be set aside (and owned) at the start of the game instead of just being a non supply pile?

Reason I am on team gain is that is is simple and standard (as others have said). However, I do think that for it to be gain, it should be a non supply pile and not start set aside. So I'm trying to understand if you feel that is is critical in the design to be set aside.

If not, then non supply and gain worked quite well, and details on any minor* ambiguity about "once per game" can be hashed out in the FAQ.

* I say minor, because I think that "Once per game: Directly after X, you may gain Y." reads as the gaining is only once per game and not the "directly after X, you may".

[segura]

My point is extremely theoretical, but I hope it illustrates nonetheless why set aside would not be a natural way to implement this:
For example with Gardens, Quiver would count at the end of the game no matter what you did, i.e. it is already yours but in „set aside nirvana“. This is pretty weird. It is as if in Cemetery games, ignoring the existence of Exorcist for the sake of the argument, Ghost were already yours but set aside.