| (https://i.ibb.co/ZKfHrsP/Bowman.png) | (https://i.ibb.co/jzgWynC/Quiver.png) | | 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 Quote
| Quiver $0 – Action - Equipment Quote +1 Card |
| (https://i.ibb.co/gPL8Gpn/Observatory.png) | (https://i.ibb.co/71m74P6/Telescope.png) | | 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 Quote Set aside any number of cards | Telescope $0 – Night - Equipment Quote Choose one: Play an Action card |
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?
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.
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.
Question; why "take" the equipment and not just gain it? Are there on-gain things that would be broken with some equipment?
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?
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.
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.
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.:QuoteOnce per game: When you have 3 or more Action cards in play, you may gain a Quiver..QuoteOnce 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?
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.
Why not just omit the 'once per game' clause and make it part of the rules for equipments?
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.:QuoteOnce 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?
| (https://i.ibb.co/F7PZSky/Quiver-v1-1.png) | Quiver $0 – Action - Equipment Quote +1 Card |
Once per game: When you have- your suggestion -
exactly 3 Action cards in play…
…, you may take this (once per game).- current version -
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".
1: moot if you use a different keyword - any future equipments that can happen multiple times per game can use "gain"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.:QuoteOnce 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:
(https://i.ibb.co/F7PZSky/Quiver-v1-1.png)
$0 – Action - EquipmentQuote+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:QuoteOnce per game: When you have- your suggestion -
exactly 3 Action cards in play…
versus:Quote…, 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?
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 wantThat looks like a neat idea! But...how would you phrase it in English?
3: why not just make this a task (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18596.msg756360#msg756360) + a nonsupply pile? frees up the equipment to do more complex things than a Mining Market
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.
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.
"Directly after shuffling your deck, you may put your set aside Quiver in your discard pile."
"Directly after X, you may play your set aside."
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?
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:Quote"Directly after shuffling your deck, you may put your set aside Quiver in your discard pile."
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.:QuoteOnce 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:
(https://i.ibb.co/F7PZSky/Quiver-v1-1.png)
$0 – Action - EquipmentQuote+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:QuoteOnce per game: When you have- your suggestion -
exactly 3 Action cards in play…
versus:Quote…, 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?
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 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 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:
(https://i.ibb.co/BcQX8df/Quiver-v2.png) (https://i.ibb.co/F7PZSky/Quiver-v1-1.png)
What do you guys/gals think about that?
I decided to use "take" as it avoids any rule confusions that "gain" may cause.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.)
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.
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.Quote from: spineflucan i suggest a more obvious one: "equip"? then you can add all the keyword-rules you wantThat 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...Quote from: spineflu3: why not just make this a task (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18596.msg756360#msg756360) + 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.
(https://i.ibb.co/BcQX8df/Quiver-v2.png) (https://i.ibb.co/F7PZSky/Quiver-v1-1.png)
What do you guys/gals think about that?
The second one is so much clearer and more understandable.
I decided to use "take" as it avoids any rule confusions that "gain" may cause.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.)
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.
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.
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.Quote from: spineflucan i suggest a more obvious one: "equip"? then you can add all the keyword-rules you wantThat 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...Quote from: spineflu3: why not just make this a task (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18596.msg756360#msg756360) + 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.
(https://i.imgur.com/Jit0Jx0.png)(https://i.imgur.com/f6i3yuz.png)
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.
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)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.Quote from: spineflucan i suggest a more obvious one: "equip"? then you can add all the keyword-rules you wantThat 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...Quote from: spineflu3: why not just make this a task (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18596.msg756360#msg756360) + 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.
(https://i.imgur.com/Jit0Jx0.png)(https://i.imgur.com/f6i3yuz.png)
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; 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)
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.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.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?
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'.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.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?
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.
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.).Quote from: scolapastaBut, 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:Quote"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!
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'.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.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?
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'.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.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?
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.
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.
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'.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.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?
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.
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
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.
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 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.
Quiver $0 – Action - Equipment Quote +1 Card | Telescope $0 – Night - Equipment Quote Choose one: Play an Action card |
My point is that take is not necessary, gain works totally fine. Set aside seems needlessly wordy.I decided to use "take" as it avoids any rule confusions that "gain" may cause.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.)
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.
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 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.
Lady Godiva $3 – Action Equipment: Clothes Quote +$2 | Clothes $0 – Action - Equipment Quote +1 Card |
Dragoon $4 – Action – Attack – Looter Equipment: King’s Letter Quote Discard the top card of your | King’s Letter $0 – Night – Duration – Equipment Quote While you have this in play, |
Kingsman $4 – Action Equipment: Harp, Shield, Sword, Trumpet Quote +1 Action |
Harp $0 – Action – Cabinet - Equipment Quote
| Shield $0 – Action – Cabinet - Equipment Quote
| Sword $0 – Action – Cabinet - Equipment Quote
| Trumpet $0 – Action – Cabinet - Equipment Quote
|
Something I didn't think about until now... you can take the equipment without ever buying / gaining the card that it's associated with, right? Or at least you can when the condition is on the equipment itself and not on the card? That seems weird... Use Clothes in a game (with debt-cost cards) even if you don't ever want Lady Godiva. Makes it feel like Clothes is a completely separate thing that has no reason to be an equipment for Godiva. Would it work to always have the "take" be something you can do when playing the Kingdom card?
Something I didn't think about until now... you can take the equipment without ever buying / gaining the card that it's associated with, right? Or at least you can when the condition is on the equipment itself and not on the card? That seems weird... Use Clothes in a game (with debt-cost cards) even if you don't ever want Lady Godiva. Makes it feel like Clothes is a completely separate thing that has no reason to be an equipment for Godiva. Would it work to always have the "take" be something you can do when playing the Kingdom card?
Isn't it similar to how you can use the heirloom without ever using the associated Action card?
Something I didn't think about until now... you can take the equipment without ever buying / gaining the card that it's associated with, right? Or at least you can when the condition is on the equipment itself and not on the card?1 That seems weird... Use Clothes in a game (with debt-cost cards) even if you don't ever want Lady Godiva. Makes it feel like Clothes is a completely separate thing that has no reason to be an equipment for Godiva.2 Would it work to always have the "take" be something you can do when playing the Kingdom card?3
Isn't it similar to how you can use the heirloom without ever using the associated Action card?
I actually thought of that. The only real difference is that it's not a choice whether to use the heirloom or not; it just goes in your starting deck. But still, that might be enough of an example to make my objection moot, not sure. I just know that the equipments where you get one by playing the associated card feel more natural to me.
Ok, a few more thoughts after looking over the new cards.
- I really like that you start with Equipment as part of your deck, but not in your deck. This is something not represented elsewhere in Dominion. There is some room there to have a piece of equipment augment the game until you take it. An equipment that penalizes you until it is take it would be like a reverse Works that can have a requirement other than coins. Same with an Equipment that benefits you but is taken as soon as certain criteria are met.
- I completely understand your aversion to multiple Mats, my game group actually only uses the Exile Mats and the Trade Route Mat. We have specific tokens for Coffers/Villagers and use that single Mat for Exile, Tavern, and Island. I think having a dedicated Mat to hold the Equipment before you take them could be useful for wording on cards. The Cabinet Mat could be split in half, since it is already being introduced. It may not matter too much, and I am sure whatever you do go with will work fine, but having a dedicated named zone (Mat) is better in my opinion than set aside in the aether.
- Dragoon/King's Letter looks wild. I really have no idea how it will play out, but want to try it. Very interesting concept for an attack and I like the stealing/moat effect. I do think if the Equipment started on a Mat that it could not be sent back to you could do away with the Once Per Game bit and just have it say "Take your King's Letter from your (name) Mat".
- Kingsman is a very cool upgrading Action. Not sure if too good, but probably not as the Equipment do eat an Action when played. The one concern I have is with the term Kingsman's Equipment. I understand what it is referring to, but I am not sure how much that may confuse the average player. You could always refer specifically to the Equipment names. Also, the conditional activation of the below line text on the Equipment kinda makes the first paragraph on Kingsman redundant. For Kingsman I really like the concept and design, it is just that there a few precedents that would be set with this design that I am unsure about. I think the Equipment having the triggered effect when a Kingman is played should be enough. Grouping the equipment under "Kingsman's Equipment should be fine if the rules for Equipment detail that the Equipment associated with a card is that cards Equipment, like Cursed Mirror is Cemetery's Heirloom.
Over all I really like these cards. I think you should keep Equipment as already owned (part of your deck, if not in it) and keep using take (or a Keyword of some kind). Using Gain does interact with more mechanics, but could also collide in ways you do not want. I think a Mat for Equipment to start on would be nice, but it is your design. Please forgive the repeated suggestion of a Mat, lol. Great work! I look forward to the subsequent designs.
gambit, have you decided that take (once per game) is going to be the wording?
I don’t know what the relative silence means. Do people think about the concept and take their time for an answer? Or, do they think enough has been said, or did they lost interest and moved on?
Is there a specific reason why you are asking?
I don't. Just tried to explain my own silence at the moment.I don’t know what the relative silence means. Do people think about the concept and take their time for an answer? Or, do they think enough has been said, or did they lost interest and moved on?
Variance/reversion to the mean. Don't overinterpret.
Is there a specific reason why you are asking?
*stares expressionless into space for a few seconds*
... yes.
gambit, have you decided that take (once per game) is going to be the wording?After the first two card pairs, I got such a diverse feedback about what to do and what not, it was overwhelming.
After presenting more Equipment cards, now maybe people are overwhelmed?
I don’t know what the relative silence means. Do people think about the concept and take their time for an answer? Or, do they think enough has been said, or did they lost interest and moved on?
gambit, have you decided that take (once per game) is going to be the wording?After the first two card pairs, I got such a diverse feedback about what to do and what not, it was overwhelming.
After presenting more Equipment cards, now maybe people are overwhelmed?
I don’t know what the relative silence means. Do people think about the concept and take their time for an answer? Or, do they think enough has been said, or did they lost interest and moved on?
or did people make their suggestions, you made some minor changes, and said, "wait for the rest of the cards" and now they're doing just that because why put effort into a reply when you're just going to be told "no you dont have the full picture"
Would you please be so kind and enlighten me?
Would you please be so kind and enlighten me?
I was considering an equipment theme in case I won the WCD :-). But I didn't, so no rush.
Tinker $2* – Action Equipment: Jug, Kettle, Pot Quote +1 Action | Jug $0 – Action – Cabinet - Equipment Quote
| Kettle $0 – Action – Cabinet - Equipment Quote +1 Action | Pot $0 – Action – Cabinet - Equipment Quote
|
Truth $4 – Action Equipment: Globe, Lyre, Palette Quote +1 Action | Globe $0 – Action – Cabinet - Equipment Quote Put this on your Cabinet mat. | Lyre $0 – Action – Cabinet - Equipment Quote Put this on your Cabinet mat. | Palette $0 – Action – Cabinet - Equipment Quote Put this on your Cabinet mat. |
Camp $3 - Action Equipment: Tent Quote +1 Card | Tent $0 – Action – Cabinet - Equipment Quote +1 Action |
Pawnshop $4 – Action Equipment: Balance Quote
| Balance $0 - Action – Night - Equipment Quote
|
Obtain one of your standby Kingsman’s Equipment cards.
When you have exactly 3 Action cards in play, you may obtain this.
I am a big fan of Standby. Set aside is used in multiple cards already and is usually a temporary thing. This would be a good change and would do away all of my suggestions for a mat.
I am indifferent to Obtain, but only because I had no issue with Take. Taking a card in Standby could be ruled to go to the discard by default in the rules for Standby. However, if it makes more sense to have a keyword like Obtain to have it make sense, Obtain is a good one.
Why not just use "Equip" instead of "Obtain"? Not a big deal, but I feel it would be more intuitive if you are adding new terminology.
Equip one of your standby Kingsman’s Equipment cards.
When you have exactly 3 Action cards in play, you may equip this.
Equip with one of your standby Kingsman’s Equipment cards.
When you have exactly 3 Action cards in play, you may equip with this.
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.
Grammatically, saying "equip this" works fine. You don't need "with".
OTOH, I preferred "take" because "equip" makes it sound like it's ready to use immediately when it isn't (at least not in the case of cabinet cards: you don't get the effect of the equipment card until after you draw and play it).
I don't like the concept of Kingsman/Tinker/Truth because for the effect of playing one card, you need to refer to three or four other cards in addition to the one you played. It's too much.
I like Camp & Tent, although I think it could be worded more simply.
Instead of "follow the instructions...", Camp could say "If you have a Tent on your cabinet mat, +1 Card and discard the Tent at the start of clean-up."
Pawnshop and Balance look good to me too.
Getting rid of the Equipment type is an idea worth considering. I cautiously disagree that it's the cleaner design, though. If you're going to have a type of card that obeys certain rules, giving it a type seems to have intuitive value, doesn't it?
Although, I think there is a case that you should either go all-in with the type and define Equip: as a key word (which was my previous suggestion) or get rid of the type altogether, and handle it by 'once per game' plus the new ruling that if you gain a specific card, you can do it even if it's not in the supply. (That is, as supposed to doing a hybrid where you have the type but don't make the card texts as short as possible.)
Getting rid of the Equipment type is an idea worth considering. I cautiously disagree that it's the cleaner design, though. If you're going to have a type of card that obeys certain rules, giving it a type seems to have intuitive value, doesn't it?
Although, I think there is a case that you should either go all-in with the type and define Equip: as a key word (which was my previous suggestion) or get rid of the type altogether, and handle it by 'once per game' plus the new ruling that if you gain a specific card, you can do it even if it's not in the supply. (That is, as supposed to doing a hybrid where you have the type but don't make the card texts as short as possible.)
Sorry, I guess I mean the whole concept (non supply, gain, possibly no type) is cleaner. The no type suggestion was the one I was least sure of.
Also, I will add that for camp for example, the "when play" text could just be "If you haven't yet this game, gain a Tent." Clear, simple, no special rules.
Sorry, I guess I mean the whole concept (non supply, gain, possibly no type) is cleaner. The no type suggestion was the one I was least sure of.
2x | 3x | 5x |
8x | 3x | 3x |
2x | 1x | 3x |
Drummer $4 – Treasure Equipment: Drums Quote
| Drums $0 – Treasure – Moral - Equipment Quote
| Muster $3 – Action - Moral Quote +3 Cards | Jouster $5 – Action - Moral Quote +1 Card |
FWIW, I do like Equip better than take. (and your point on tracking is a good one, though in practice, I imagine you could use some sort of colored token).
A couple of points on these new cards:
• I think you might mean Morale instead of Moral. At least that seems to fit more with "If the Moral/Morale is good", etc.
Morale: the confidence, enthusiasm, and discipline of a person or group at a particular time.
Moral: a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.
• I think you can save text by removing the "Players receive it at the start of their turn"; as that is just the standard rule for these cards.
FWIW, I do like Equip better than take. (and your point on tracking is a good one, though in practice, I imagine you could use some sort of colored token).
A couple of points on these new cards:
• I think you might mean Morale instead of Moral. At least that seems to fit more with "If the Moral/Morale is good", etc.
Morale: the confidence, enthusiasm, and discipline of a person or group at a particular time.
Moral: a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.
• I think you can save text by removing the "Players receive it at the start of their turn"; as that is just the standard rule for these cards.
I think it could be a bit confusing to have Moral as the card type as well, but it doesn't bother me too much.
I don't know if you plan to have a card that would let you cycle through different Morals. Jouster is pretty strong when stacked, but I think it would also be good to have an option to let you combo with Drums / Drummer.
I'm not sure I like the fact that in multiplayer games one player could receive High or Excellent, then the next one could get Low or Disastrous.
Just another minor comment - think Drummer and Drums would be less ambiguous if they said "Good, Excellent, or High" instead of "Good or better".
I’d use different background colours to differentiate the three levels.
I’d also put the frequency on the card, a small number in the corner or something like that.
KingsmanI believe the part saying "Follow the instructions of the
$4 – Action
Equipment: Harp, Shield, Sword, TrumpetQuote+1 Action
Follow the instructions of the
Kingsman’s Equipment cards
on your Cabinet mat.
Take one of your set-aside
Kingsman’s Equipment cards.
KingsmanI believe the part saying "Follow the instructions of the
$4 – Action
Equipment: Harp, Shield, Sword, TrumpetQuote+1 Action
Follow the instructions of the
Kingsman’s Equipment cards
on your Cabinet mat.
Take one of your set-aside
Kingsman’s Equipment cards.
Kingsman’s Equipment cards
on your Cabinet mat." are not important, due to them already saying to take those bonuses when a Kingsman is played. The way it is currently worded, you already get the bonus for playing kingsman without the clause
I like very much the idea of Moral (or Morale), but I would like better if it would be the same for all players. One way I would like is to change the Morale at the start of each of the turns of the first player and have more cards like Drummer which are sensible to the current Morale.