Question; why "take" the equipment and not just gain it? Are there on-gain things that would be broken with some equipment?
I decided to name this "take" for several reasons: It emphasizes that it is different from "gain" as it can happen only once per game (per Equipment card). It is a better reminder that something unusual happens, i.e. a set aside card enters the game. It avoids potential problems as Carline for example asked above. I do not have any on-gain effects in mind that would make a simple "gain" of the Equipment card broken, but this way it is easier to avoid any such issues whether existent or not, also for potential future cards.
Bridge Troll and Ball already use "take" in their text, so, as you want new rules attached to the word, maybe would be better if you use a more specific verb. Is there a verb in English which means something like "use an equipment" or "put an equipment in use? "Activate", maybe?
Right, "take" is already used for tokens and states, i.e. non cards. I'd suggest just sticking with gain, putting the "once per game" clause first .e.g.:
Once per game: When you have 3 or more Action cards in play, you may gain a Quiver..
Once per game: Directly after shuffling your deck, you may gain a Telescope.
There is already precedent for things you can only do once per game (e.g. Inheritance, Size the Day). Equipment don't need to be set aside any differently that other non supply cards.
A couple of other notes:
• include the phrase "(This is not in the Supply.)"
• include a "*" in the cost, for the same reason
Question on Quiver, which applies to either your original wording or my suggested above: can you take/gain it at any time with 3 in play, i.e in any phase?
Thank you both for thinking about the terms of "taking" and the labeling (0* and "
This is not in the Supply"). It is very helpful to address these points to minimize any confusion and to come as close to the official cards as possible.
I think the
labeling is straight forward: All* official non-Supply cards that form a pile (e.g. Spoils, Madman, Bat, Horse) are labeled with a * in their costs and have the phrase
(This is not in the Supply.). All official non-Supply cards that do not form a pile (Heirlooms, Shelters, Zombies) do not have that. The Equipment cards belong to the latter type and thus do not need those labels.
* The only exception are the cards of the Black Market deck (funny enough it is called deck and not pile on the Black Market card) for obvious reasons.
"
Gaining" versus something else: One thing I haven't mentioned anywhere is the status of the set-aside Equipment cards. The easiest way at the moment is that those cards already belong to the players, i.e. even if they do not enter the active deck the whole game, they are part of the deck at the end of the game. This matters for a few cards such as Gardens or Vineyard; it is consistent with the status of official set aside cards. So, if I would use the term "gain" then the players would "gain" a card they already own. That seems more confusing than helpful.
"
Taking". I don't know whether this term is the best or if there is something better. However, I am quite confident that it is better to not use "gain" as that creates more confusion than it helps (see above). It should be a single word, like "call" for Reserve cards in order to minimize text and to help understanding and performing the process of "a set aside Equipment card enters the active deck by putting it to the discard pile" (if the target area is not specified to be a different one). "Activate" is a funny idea, but it is a bit dramatic for the above mentioned process. This term was once introduced for Fan-made "Activation" cards by LastFootnote, and I myself had some of those cards as well. They have some similarity to Reserve cards, and could well be considered as their prototype (they were designed before Adventures); so "activate" was similar to "call".
I don't see a major problem that "taking" is already used for some Adventures tokens. I don't think anyone would be confused by that.
"
Once per game". I started with this order of words, but found it a bit more ambiguous than the other way around (which might not be perfect as well). The problem is the combination with "may", which is different to the Events you have mentioned: Does the player has the opportunity to
decide to “take” the card once per game and then the opportunity is gone for the rest of the game, or does the player has the opportunity
every time the specific requirements are met, but can “take” the card only once per game. I meant to have the latter case. Is that clear enough without additional rule clarifications in a hypothetical rule book? Is the other way around better? Is there a better way to formulate this, without too much text?
Quiver: Good point. I think I should omit "or more". I don't want that a player can enter the card any time after the specific requirement is met (here: 3 Action cards in play). It should occur immediately after the requirement is met, and then the opportunity is gone until the next time the requirement is met again.
Is it clear enough when I just phrase it "When you have 3 Action cards in play, you may take this (once per game)"? Is it better to add "immediately" (after "may") and/or "exactly" (after "have")? E.g.: When you have exactly 3 Action cards in play, you may take this (once per game). Or: When you have 3 Action cards in play, you may immediately take this (once per game).
Thanks again. This is very helpful and very much appreciated.