[pt] 20. staff of enchantment (equipment)

[Q_x]

This is the latest incarnation of the card and it's visual history:







---
Here's the original post as written by it's author:

Cost:2
Play this card on casters only.
If new gaian creature comes into play, mark owner of the staff to instantly play equipment card for the played creature for free.

[snowdrop]

Cost:2
Play this card on casters only.
If new gaian creature comes into play, mark owner of the staff to instantly play equipment card for the played creature for free.

I really like the idea and think it's a good one. I would however suggest we replace focus from the equipment and put it on Magic instead since Gaia isn't the equipment centric faction and shouldn't rely much on equipment.

My take would be something along the lines with:

Staff of the blessed
Cost: 2
Equipment - Other

Staff of the blessed may only be given to a caster.

While the equipped caster is marked you may attach a Magic in your hand for free to a creature that you are putting into play.

Would this work?

[pennomi]

Staff of the blessed
Cost: 2
Equipment - Other

Staff of the blessed may only be given to a caster.

While the equipped caster is marked you may attach a Magic in your hand for free to a creature that you are putting into play.

Would this work?

I like the idea of it attaching magic cards to the deploying unit. I think that the card name needs revised, however. "Staff of the Blessed" makes it sound like a holy/religious item (more along the lines of a White Mage) rather than a natural/environmental item.

Maybe "Staff of the Living Forest" or something like that? "Staff of the Sacred/Blessed Forest"?

[snowdrop]

Staff of natural talent

[TorbenBeta]

Nah, then it sounds like someone is talented in a way. Living staff maybe? If there is flavour text (which I don't think) then something along the lines like this:"It is still connected with nature". It takes 34 blocks through.

[snowdrop]

Nah, then it sounds like someone is talented in a way. Living staff maybe? If there is flavour text (which I don't think) then something along the lines like this:"It is still connected with nature". It takes 34 blocks through.

Flavour or not depends on how the art will look like & be placed: If it leaves space in green footer bar then there could be flavour. Else not, as flavour and card text won't be mixed in same area in the ORC.

"it sounds like someone is talented in a way".... yes, and that he/she is. The creature comes into play with a bonus on it - the magic - which makes it "talented" in a very specific way. Compare that with a creature being in play and then letting the player pay for a magic spell that targets it in a later round (or even the same). In our user case the creature has the effect of the magic as it comes in, e.g. it is "talented".

Personally I don't care much about the name and could even go with the original name or maybe "Staff of natural skills" or why not "Staff of skills".

I don't follow what the "living staff"-name relates to: Why should the staff be associated with something living and how is it living in itself? The only thing the staff does is to enable a creature to come into play with a magic attached to it for free.

[TorbenBeta]

It is still connected to nature, as it was once a branch and is now a staff. And a rest of the living presence of the nature (magic) still clings to it. But the name is not that important.

[Q_x]

I thought the same today, without reading the forums. The idea was good, just not equipment it was to attach to card, but magic. I guess I just think slowly due to cold my skull is sticking out on recently.
And if we arguing on the name really, maybe "Staff of misty forests"?

[snowdrop]

And if we arguing on the name really, maybe "Staff of misty forests"?

Cards can be, but don't have to be, named in such a way that the name reveals or at least reminds of their function.

"Urza's object" tells us that the card is only an Equipment, while "Urza's Weapon" does a pretty good job of making us believe the it's a Weapon of some kind. "Urza's Sword" is even more revealing, and so on.

With the orc I prefer that names are a) functional and/or b) have flavour, in that order of priority. In best case scenario both a & b are in place. (This is probably a new revelation, not documented in the GDD and should be added...)

"A staff of misty forrest" says nothing. even remotely, about what the staff does. "Living staff" is, if possible, even less revealing of functionality.

"Staff of skills" or "Staff of begifting" with a lot of other names can, at the very least to some minimal level, be connected to what the card actually does: Lets a creature come into play "more talented/wise/etc".

If the forrest where the staff comes fro is misty, wet, green or deep says nothing about function.

The notion that the staff is living is still a strange one, since the card fills no such function (compare that with card that makes resource piles get some life ) The way torben explains the living part is that there is something living in a piece of wood, since the piece of wood is nature and thus filled with magic or something soul-like. I can appreciate that, and don't find it far fetched. Yet, when most people see the name if the card they wont analyze that deep, nor will they have any über-knowledge about the Gaian philosophy. So, I guess another revelation comes to mind through this discussion: Card names shouldn't ever require a deep understanding of the BfW/WT world or a philosophical process.

[snowdrop]

Posted first incarnation of this:



Also, as seen, I took the liberty to rename it since our discussion is dead. As benevolent bastard I voted for my own and new suggestion, what it lacks in creativity it makes up in functionality I think I also solve the criticism I got.