Print

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

[pinkymadigan]

Prince card:
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1186675/new-dominion-origins-promo

Pretty powerful, pretty expensive.


EDIT:

for easier access:
 

[sudgy]

Prince card:
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1186675/new-dominion-origins-promo

Pretty powerful, pretty expensive.

I was thinking, "King's Court it to get three actions!" but I realized it said "If you do"...  I guess the best you could do now is play three Highways and use it on King's Court.

[sudgy]

Then I thought of playing four Highways and playing it on itself, but then I realized the first one would lose track of the second once it got set aside.

[pinkymadigan]

Then I thought of playing four Highways and playing it on itself, but then I realized the first one would lose track of the second once it got set aside.

That's probably the answer to what I'm kicking around in the BGG thread. For a minute I thought double-Prince shenanigans might be allowed.

[jsh357]

Glad to see it finally came out; it's a really cool and powerful card, but not without risk.  Someone reply here when it's possible to order a copy!

[Watno]

4 Highways into Princing a Prince

[SCSN]

A princed Prince does nothing because you'll fail to trigger the "If you do" clause in "You may set this aside. If you do, set aside an Action card" at the beginning of each turn. I don't think the princes lose track of each other, they're identical twins after all.

Princing a Mercenary or Followers would be pretty sweet.

[yed]

Glad to see it finally came out; it's a really cool and powerful card, but not without risk.  Someone reply here when it's possible to order a copy!

You won't get it for free after the playtesting?

[sudgy]

Also, someone on the BGG thread said that you get the Prince back, but you don't.  It stays set aside.

[SCSN]

There's also the obvious Prince-Princess combo to make you Prince more expensive actions each turn.

[petrie911]

Kind of reminds me of how tournament's payoff works. You buy an $8 card and get it to collide with a $4 card for a huge benefit.

[sudgy]

Kind of reminds me of how tournament's payoff works. You buy an $8 card and get it to collide with a $4 card for a huge benefit.

Or, better yet, pair it with Tournament...

[jsh357]

Glad to see it finally came out; it's a really cool and powerful card, but not without risk.  Someone reply here when it's possible to order a copy!

You won't get it for free after the playtesting?

I didn't playtest it.  Don't see why I would get it for free anyway.

[LastFootnote]

Princing a Mercenary or Followers would be pretty sweet.

In our second playtest game, my housemate got a Prince of Spies, then that helped him get a Prince of Mercenaries. It was so brutal and awesome.

In the third game, I got a Prince of the Black Market, allowing me to buy Sea Hag. Then I got a Prince of Sea Hags.

Prince is awesome.

[silverspawn]

for easier access:
 

[jsh357]

Guess the other question is '[when] will Goko get this?"

[SirPeebles]

It conforms to the principle that $8 cards begin with the letter P.

[LastFootnote]

Guess the other question is '[when] will Goko get this?"

I don't expect soon, because implementing this correctly will require them to let you choose the order of start-of-turn effects. You want your Prince of Watchtowers to go off before your Wharf, but you want your Prince of Remodeling to go off afterward.

[Titandrake]

Even Prince on a cantrip is like starting your turn by playing a level 2 City. It is an $8 card, to be fair.

I suppose it does need to compete with Province. In terminal draw-BM, it probably isn't worth it, but its existence makes terminal draw-BM weaker.

[2.71828.....]

Really interesting card.  Obviously princing a throne room, spy, scheme (that would be really nice) or other such card is going to be amazing.  I would be careful about princing a masquerade or ambassador though

[sudgy]

Princing a Smithy is amazing...

[pinkymadigan]

Guess the other question is '[when] will Goko get this?"

I don't expect soon, because implementing this correctly will require them to let you choose the order of start-of-turn effects. You want your Prince of Watchtowers to go off before your Wharf, but you want your Prince of Remodeling to go off afterward.

Nah, they'll just go ahead and implement it incorrectly.

[2.71828.....]

Just so I am straight on the mechanics of the card:  The card you choose to set aside will be played at the start of your turn every turn, but you may decide not to set it aside (for whatever reason) and then that card just gets shuffled back into your deck.  The prince itself is forever out of play

[pinkymadigan]

Just so I am straight on the mechanics of the card:  The card you choose to set aside will be played at the start of your turn every turn, but you may decide not to set it aside (for whatever reason) and then that card just gets shuffled back into your deck.  The prince itself is forever out of play

I don't think technically you are allowed to not set it aside intentionally, but if it gets rid of itself (Hermit), you could not set it aside whether you wanted to or not, and the Prince would still be out of play, yes (by my reading, I'm sure someone will confirm or deny).

[2.71828.....]

Guess the other question is '[when] will Goko get this?"

I don't expect soon, because implementing this correctly will require them to let you choose the order of start-of-turn effects. You want your Prince of Watchtowers to go off before your Wharf, but you want your Prince of Remodeling to go off afterward.

Nah, they'll just go ahead and implement it incorrectly.

Is the anything in the rules about resolving start-of-turn effects?  I mean, the duration cards that we have really do not need any special rule, but this seems like it needs something in the rules to clarify when exactly it should happen.  Or if you get your choice of when it happens

[LastFootnote]

Is the anything in the rules about resolving start-of-turn effects?  I mean, the duration cards that we have really do not need any special rule, but this seems like it needs something in the rules to clarify when exactly it should happen.  Or if you get your choice of when it happens

If multiple cards resolve at the same time on your turn (for example, Duration cards that do something “at the start of your next turn”), you choose what order to resolve them. A card that affects multiple players during your turn still resolves in player order, affecting you first if it affects all players and then proceeding clockwise.

The order of start-of-turn effects never matters when using just Seaside cards, but with Prince it does. You can resolve your Prince effects before, after, or between your Duration effects. And if you have multiple Prince effects, you can resolve some Durations between them.

[theory]

My head hurts parsing how this card will work ...

[LastFootnote]

My head hurts parsing how this card will work ...

Mechanically it's pretty easy. Set it aside with a card, then play that card at the start of each turn. It doesn't work on Durations or one-shots.

IRL it's easiest to put the Princed card on top of the Prince and leave them in your play area so that you remember to do it each turn.

[Awaclus]

It conforms to the principle that $8 cards begin with the letter P.

I guess I have to start calling them "Plääni" and "Pkulkukauppias" then...

[pinkymadigan]

Really interesting card.  Obviously princing a throne room, spy, scheme (that would be really nice) or other such card is going to be amazing.  I would be careful about princing a masquerade or ambassador though

Even a Throne Room could be bad.

"Oh dang, I drew 4 Colonies and an Ambassador..."

[Titandrake]

What happens if you Prince an Island? You don't discard the Island from play, but every turn you do set the Island aside.

[LastFootnote]

What happens if you Prince an Island? You don't discard the Island from play, but every turn you do set the Island aside.

…Huh. Good call. Obviously the intent is that you stop playing it if you fail to set it aside with Prince. Still, good catch.

[silverspawn]

it seems best to target cards that are strong but unreliable, since reliability is always a non-issue, smithy seems perfect. also, cards that like a 5-card hand much more than a 4 card hand, like coppersmith, or storeroom.

and dont forget the prince->beggar->gardens rush

[pinkymadigan]

and dont forget the prince->beggar->gardens rush

Love it.

[2.71828.....]

and dont forget the prince->beggar->gardens rush

Love it.

but getting to 8 to buy prince?  Not going to happen

[LastFootnote]

and dont forget the prince->beggar->gardens rush

Love it.

but getting to 8 to buy prince?  Not going to happen

Hah, you underestimate Beggar. In fact, I'd love to have a Prince of Beggars even without Gardens. With an extra $3 to spend every turn, you can pretty reliably get to $8 with just a few Silvers in your deck.

[Awaclus]

The five Princes of the Bureaucrat pin.

[SirPeebles]

Prince + Counting House!  It needs a bit of price reduction to get moving, but finally a real Counting House combo

[Awaclus]

The five Princes of the Bureaucrat pin.

A Prince of Crossroads counters this pretty well.

[markusin]

I recognize this card from the Outtakes. A variant of this is in the "Orphans" section of the outtakes:


Prince - $6 - Action
Set aside this and an action card from your hand costing up to $5. Play it at the start of each of your turns.


Quote from Donald X. himself:
"Prince was cool but really could only exist as a unique card like a prize; otherwise people would always be Princing Princes."

You proved yourself wrong, and I thank you for it. Really awesome card. Practically a 1-card expansion given how intense it is.

It's interesting to compare the price of the 2 variants, and how the older version let you set aside a $5.

[Awaclus]

scheme (that would be really nice)

Oh, that would be really nice indeed. Scheme is probably the best target for Prince.

[markusin]

Beware, the Prince of the Advisor.

[Awaclus]

Prince of Scavengers, the closest thing to Lucky Chancellor in a real game.

[markusin]

Oh man, Prince of Warehouses is pretty sweet.

[Dsell]

Prince of Scavengers, the closest thing to Lucky Chancellor in a real game.

Just think of how much this will help two-card combos! Prince of Scavengers/Chancellors loves Stash as well as the Prince of Counting Houses (which incidentally sounds like a terribly boring job).

[pst]

I recognize this card from the Outtakes. A variant of this is in the "Orphans" section of the outtakes:


Prince - $6 - Action
Set aside this and an action card from your hand costing up to $5. Play it at the start of each of your turns.

Let's call that version "the card formerly known as Prince".

[Axxle]

Prince of Herbalists would probably be a cool dark horse in Colony games.

[pacovf]

After three highways, prince of king's court. 

Let's call that version "the card formerly known as Prince".

Haha, nice.

[soulnet]

I think this is the Prince of the golden decks. Prince/Goons Golden Deck sounds especially awesome.

Prince/Princess sounds extremely awesome.

[2.71828.....]

Prince of Herbalists would probably be a cool dark horse in Colony games.

prince of herbalist is actually super amazing.  province/colony every turn once you have your golds/silvers/plats (or whatever you need to get to 8 or 11) in play

[azadin]

After three highways, prince of king's court. 

So mechanics question. Does the cost of the card you set aside have to be 4 the first time you play Prince, or does its cost have to be 4 or less at the end of each turn from then on out? The wording seems to imply that it only has to cost 4 when you initially play Prince and set the card aside with it. This seems crazy strong.

Also, if you Prince the King's Court, and play a duration card with it, would the King's Court get set back on the Prince, or would it go with the duration card, thereby losing it's Prince status afterward?

[soulnet]

Also, if you Prince the King's Court, and play a duration card with it, would the King's Court get set back on the Prince, or would it go with the duration card, thereby losing it's Prince status afterward?

The latter.

[SCSN]

Goko should make this card cost 4 for like the first week it's released, just so that we can all get our craziness fix.

[LastFootnote]

So mechanics question. Does the cost of the card you set aside have to be 4 the first time you play Prince, or does its cost have to be 4 or less at the end of each turn from then on out? The wording seems to imply that it only has to cost 4 when you initially play Prince and set the card aside with it. This seems crazy strong.

It just has to be $4 or less when you set it aside with Prince initially.

Also, if you Prince the King's Court, and play a duration card with it, would the King's Court get set back on the Prince, or would it go with the duration card, thereby losing it's Prince status afterward?

Ooh, I've never had this happen. I think it doesn't get discarded, so you don't get to keep playing it. Better not use your precious Prince of the King's Court to play a Duration.

[soulnet]

Goko should make this card cost 4 for like the first week it's released, just so that we can all get our craziness fix.

h
Actually, Prince on Prince does not work, because each play on the inner Prince will either do nothing or set it aside and thus forever lose the outer Prince effect.

[sudgy]

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1204.msg387920#msg387920

You could easily set up horrible pins with this card and Possession.

[LastFootnote]

Goko should make this card cost 4 for like the first week it's released, just so that we can all get our craziness fix.

Oh man, it's plenty crazy at $8. I mean, I haven't played it against elite players, so maybe I won't have time to set Prince up in more online games. But using Prince on pretty much anything is awesome, so that helps you get some use out of it before the game ends.

[pacovf]

Goko should make this card cost 4 for like the first week it's released, just so that we can all get our craziness fix.

Imagine if princing a prince worked. I don't think anyone would complain ever again about duration cards.

"I princed a prince two turns ago, and at the beginning of the previous turn I played the prince to prince a prince. So this turn I play prince twice to prince a smithy and a militia, and next turn I will start my turn by drawing three cards, making you discard down to three, and then princing a bridge and another smithy before my real turn even begins. Now, is this smithy here one I played with prince, or one I played during my turn?"

-> Needs more "yo dawg".

[Awaclus]

Lord Bottington is going to love his Prince of Rats.

[Axxle]

Prince of Herbalists would probably be a cool dark horse in Colony games.

prince of herbalist is actually super amazing.  province/colony every turn once you have your golds/silvers/plats (or whatever you need to get to 8 or 11) in play

It'd also allow you to Double Province a lot easier than you normally would, and you'd probably be doing some of that if you're setting up a Prince thing while the other person is pounding Colonies.

[SirPeebles]

Prince a Hermit for unlimited Madmen (you don't trash the Hermit)

[pst]

Just thinking about using Prince with almost any action card is interesting. (Where are the Prince of Scout jokes, by the way?) But when I think of having two (or more) Princes with actions to play in the order you want then my mind really boggles. Suppose you have Princes of Bridge and Workshop/Armory when competing for the Minion split or something similar. Or a Beggar Prince with Prince of Coppersmith for extra $6 each turn.

Maybe it's too hard to set up even one Prince, so two Princes will take too much time? (DOTB.)

[theblankman]

A princed Prince does nothing because you'll fail to trigger the "If you do" clause in "You may set this aside. If you do, set aside an Action card" at the beginning of each turn. I don't think the princes lose track of each other, they're identical twins after all.

I'm not sure why you think this... the Princed Prince is already set aside, so "set this aside" just means put it where it already is.  Clause trivially triggered.  Unless there are specifically two different "aside" places, one for Princes and one for targets of Prince.  Then the Princed Prince would, on some turn after he's played, "move" from the aside-space for Prince targets to the aside-space for Princes, and you'd get to put another action on that Prince.  So it either goes crazy, or it lets you put a target on the second Prince, once, on some later turn.  But I don't see how it would do nothing at all. 

[Awaclus]

(Where are the Prince of Scout jokes, by the way?)

Scout isn't actually bad when it doesn't cost a card in your hand and gives you an extra action.

[LastFootnote]

(Where are the Prince of Scout jokes, by the way?)

Scout isn't actually bad when it doesn't cost a card in your hand and gives you an extra action.

True, but the opportunity cost of not having Princed something else can be quite high.

[theblankman]

Prince a Hermit for unlimited Madmen (you don't trash the Hermit)

You also don't discard the Hermit from play because it's set aside with Prince, and stays there.  So you never trigger the effect, "When you discard this from play... gain a Madman."  Sorry. 

[Awaclus]

Prince a Hermit for unlimited Madmen (you don't trash the Hermit)

You also don't discard the Hermit from play because it's set aside with Prince, and stays there.  So you never trigger the effect, "When you discard this from play... gain a Madman."  Sorry.

No, you do discard it from play. That triggers two effects: Prince's and Hermit's, and you get to decide the order. If you choose wrong, you'll lose the Hermit, but if you don't, you get to keep it.

[theblankman]

Prince a Hermit for unlimited Madmen (you don't trash the Hermit)

You also don't discard the Hermit from play because it's set aside with Prince, and stays there.  So you never trigger the effect, "When you discard this from play... gain a Madman."  Sorry.

No, you do discard it from play. That triggers two effects: Prince's and Hermit's, and you get to decide the order. If you choose wrong, you'll lose the Hermit, but if you don't, you get to keep it.

Right, don't have the exact words of Prince down yet... and Hermit doesn't even have an "if you do" to guard the gain-Madman effect, just "trash this and gain a Madman."  Although one might argue that even if you pick the Prince effect first, it's possible for the Hermit to trash himself from set-aside-land.  A card can't exactly lose track of itself, can it? 

[theblankman]

And of course we can hypothetically strategize about the card before we even play it... anyone think that, given the chance, you might want to Swindle your opponent's Prince into a Province?  

[Awaclus]

And of course we can hypothetically strategize about the card before we even play it... anyone think that, given the chance, you might want to Swindle your opponent's Prince into a Province?

If my opponent has wanted a Prince instead of a Province, the odds are that I want him to have a Province instead of a Prince.

[sudgy]

Prince a Hermit for unlimited Madmen (you don't trash the Hermit)

You also don't discard the Hermit from play because it's set aside with Prince, and stays there.  So you never trigger the effect, "When you discard this from play... gain a Madman."  Sorry.

No, you do discard it from play. That triggers two effects: Prince's and Hermit's, and you get to decide the order. If you choose wrong, you'll lose the Hermit, but if you don't, you get to keep it.

To expand on this a bit more (this post will be worth $3 more than Awaclus'), this is what happens:

1. You discard Hermit from play (without buying anything).  This triggers Prince and Hermit.
2. You decide which to do first.  If you choose Prince (which is all I'll worry about here):
3. You set the Hermit aside, being able to play it again next turn.
4. You try to trash the Hermit, but can't because it has lost track of itself.  You still gain the Madman.

PPE: Yes, a card can lose track of itself.  Most cases of losing track are a card losing track of itself (TR-Mining Village for instance).

[soulnet]

If my opponent has wanted a Prince instead of a Province, the odds are that I want him to have a Province instead of a Prince.

Well. If you give him a Prince, he will still play it a shuffle later. A whole shuffle can make a big difference and make another Prince preferable. Also, there are tons of tactical considerations regarding parity of the Provinces and how the game status is at the moment.

[liopoil]

The real question is, what use does Prince have in puzzles like emptying the supply in 3 turns? none

My first thought was "Prince of death cart oh my gosh" but it doesn't work

Prince of scavenger + Prince of scheme = start every turn with an empty deck, 2 actions, 2 coins, 4 cards, 1 card schemed from last turn, and 1 card of your choice in your deck.

Prince of steward for trashing each turn - but only if you want it. Prince of sea hag though...

But actually I'm going to guess that this card is actually below average in terms of how often you get one.

[Awaclus]

I think the main use of Prince is when you are already pretty thin and (almost) guaranteed to connect it with the correct Action, so trashing won't necessarily be the best target.

EDIT: Cool, I'm a Margrave now.

[markusin]

Prince of Sea Hag is just going to discard your opponent's top card every turn. The curses will almost be empty before you can even get a Prince. You may even play Sea Hag instead of Princing it just to give out the last curse.

[blueblimp]

Interesting that this card has an accountability hole. If you set it aside but don't have any <=$4 action card in your hand, you aren't required to show your hand to your opponents. Of course, this is unlikely to ever happen.

But actually I'm going to guess that this card is actually below average in terms of how often you get one.

With any engine strategy where you wouldn't already buy a Province with your first $8, which is most of them, it seems like a clearly good buy. I don't think you'll often need more than one.

[AJD]

And of course we can hypothetically strategize about the card before we even play it... anyone think that, given the chance, you might want to Swindle your opponent's Prince into a Province?

If my opponent has wanted a Prince instead of a Province, the odds are that I want him to have a Province instead of a Prince.

Depends how long ago he bought it.

[Axxle]

Why is everyone avoiding the real question here. How many posts do we need to make in order to be ranked a Prince?

[pst]

Prince of Sea Hag is just going to discard your opponent's top card every turn. The curses will almost be empty before you can even get a Prince. You may even play Sea Hag instead of Princing it just to give out the last curse.

Really fun and if you find it as the only curser in the black market deck, though, when you have a big deck  so playing it ten times normally would take forever.

[eHalcyon]

Goko should make this card cost 4 for like the first week it's released, just so that we can all get our craziness fix.

Oh man, it's plenty crazy at $8. I mean, I haven't played it against elite players, so maybe I won't have time to set Prince up in more online games. But using Prince on pretty much anything is awesome, so that helps you get some use out of it before the game ends.

Rats.  Remake.  Most forced trashers, really.  Tactician.

A princed Prince does nothing because you'll fail to trigger the "If you do" clause in "You may set this aside. If you do, set aside an Action card" at the beginning of each turn. I don't think the princes lose track of each other, they're identical twins after all.

I'm not sure why you think this... the Princed Prince is already set aside, so "set this aside" just means put it where it already is.  Clause trivially triggered.  Unless there are specifically two different "aside" places, one for Princes and one for targets of Prince.  Then the Princed Prince would, on some turn after he's played, "move" from the aside-space for Prince targets to the aside-space for Princes, and you'd get to put another action on that Prince.  So it either goes crazy, or it lets you put a target on the second Prince, once, on some later turn.  But I don't see how it would do nothing at all.

SCSN is absolutely correct.  "Set this aside" means moving the card from "not set aside" space to "set aside" space.  If it was already set aside previously, it can't be moved and therefore it can't be set aside again.  This is the same principle that prevents you from triggering Mining Village's +$2 multiple times with TR/KC.

Prince a Hermit for unlimited Madmen (you don't trash the Hermit)

You also don't discard the Hermit from play because it's set aside with Prince, and stays there.  So you never trigger the effect, "When you discard this from play... gain a Madman."  Sorry.

No, you do discard it from play. That triggers two effects: Prince's and Hermit's, and you get to decide the order. If you choose wrong, you'll lose the Hermit, but if you don't, you get to keep it.

Right, don't have the exact words of Prince down yet... and Hermit doesn't even have an "if you do" to guard the gain-Madman effect, just "trash this and gain a Madman."  Although one might argue that even if you pick the Prince effect first, it's possible for the Hermit to trash himself from set-aside-land.  A card can't exactly lose track of itself, can it?

sudgy already explained it well, but Prince-Hermit should work for the same reason that Scheme-Hermit works.

[AJD]

Why isn't Prince a Duration card? (Just so the whole Seaside rulebook doesn't have to be included with it, I guess.)

Using Prince on a Duration card fails, right?

And now I'm super-confused about what using Prince on Prince would do.

Some wiki-editing is in order, but I don't have time to do it right now.

[JacquesTheBard]

With really flexible cards like Steward or Count Prince is truly obscene. Steward especially, given how useful trashing is at the beginning and draw at the end.

[Awaclus]

With really flexible cards like Steward or Count Prince is truly obscene. Steward especially, given how useful trashing is at the beginning and draw at the end.

Scheme especially, I would say.

[eHalcyon]

Why isn't Prince a Duration card? (Just so the whole Seaside rulebook doesn't have to be included with it, I guess.)

Using Prince on a Duration card fails, right?

And now I'm super-confused about what using Prince on Prince would do.

Some wiki-editing is in order, but I don't have time to do it right now.

Prince as a Duration card -- you're probably right.  It would also be confusing for this to be the one Duration card that doesn't last just for the next turn.

Prince on a duration -- yes, it would fail on the turn that the duration card doesn't get discarded.  I think that means it might succeed for one turn with Outpost on an Outpost turn... I'm not sure.

Prince on Prince -- you set aside P1, then choose to set aside P2.  At the start of your next turn, you play P2 and set it aside.   Then you choose an action card from your hand to set aside.  At the end of that turn, you do not discard P2 and thus fail to set it aside again.  Therefore P1's effect is lost and P2 does not get played on any subsequent turn.  The action set aside for P2 will be played though.

With really flexible cards like Steward or Count Prince is truly obscene. Steward especially, given how useful trashing is at the beginning and draw at the end.

I think Prince-Steward would be great, but the trashing wouldn't matter much in this case.  By the time you get Prince, you'll usually have trashed down significantly with Steward already.  It could be helpful in junk-heavy games though.  But the choice between a free Wharf or Merchant Ship would already be very handy.


New question -- what happens when multiple players have Prince-Possession going?

[Awaclus]

New question -- what happens when multiple players have Prince-Possession going?

They get disqualified for cheating, since Possession costs a Potion.

[sudgy]

Why isn't Prince a Duration card? (Just so the whole Seaside rulebook doesn't have to be included with it, I guess.)

Using Prince on a Duration card fails, right?

And now I'm super-confused about what using Prince on Prince would do.

Some wiki-editing is in order, but I don't have time to do it right now.

Prince as a Duration card -- you're probably right.  It would also be confusing for this to be the one Duration card that doesn't last just for the next turn.

Prince on a duration -- yes, it would fail on the turn that the duration card doesn't get discarded.  I think that means it might succeed for one turn with Outpost on an Outpost turn... I'm not sure.

Prince on Prince -- you set aside P1, then choose to set aside P2.  At the start of your next turn, you play P2 and set it aside.   Then you choose an action card from your hand to set aside.  At the end of that turn, you do not discard P2 and thus fail to set it aside again.  Therefore P1's effect is lost and P2 does not get played on any subsequent turn.  The action set aside for P2 will be played though.



New question -- what happens when multiple players have Prince-Possession going?

You can never play Prince on potion cost cards, thank goodness.

[eHalcyon]

New question -- what happens when multiple players have Prince-Possession going?

They get disqualified for cheating, since Possession costs a Potion.

Whooops.  Good call.

[amalloy]

New question -- what happens when multiple players have Prince-Possession going?

They get disqualified for cheating, since Possession costs a Potion.

Next promo card: Hi-Potion. +1 card, +1 action; while this is in play, all cards cost one potion less, but not less than zero.

[qmech]

New question -- what happens when multiple players have Prince-Possession going?

They get disqualified for cheating, since Possession costs a Potion.

Next promo card: Hi-Potion. +1 card, +1 action; while this is in play, all cards cost one potion less, but not less than zero.

Hi-Potion: You may discard a card. If you do, you may trash up to 4 Curses.

[pst]

Why isn't Prince a Duration card? (Just so the whole Seaside rulebook doesn't have to be included with it, I guess.)

Also then it would be discarded when the princed card can't be set aside again, so you could reuse the Prince, which might be too good.

[Awaclus]

Hi-Potion: You may discard a card. If you do, you may trash up to 4 Curses.

I don't get it.

[Axxle]

Hi-Potion: You may discard a card. If you do, you may trash up to 4 Curses.

I don't get it.

Bottled Fairy $10P Action-Duration: When you buy this put it in play, do not shuffle it into your deck at the end of the game. If you would lose the game, trash this and instead replay the game.

[amalloy]

Hi-Potion: You may discard a card. If you do, you may trash up to 4 Curses.

I don't get it.

http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Hi-Potion heals you, and trashing curses is kinda like healing? It seems like quite a stretch to me as well.

[sudgy]

New question -- what happens when multiple players have Prince-Possession going?

They get disqualified for cheating, since Possession costs a Potion.

Next promo card: Hi-Potion. +1 card, +1 action; while this is in play, all cards cost one potion less, but not less than zero.

[yed]

Glad to see it finally came out; it's a really cool and powerful card, but not without risk.  Someone reply here when it's possible to order a copy!

You won't get it for free after the playtesting?

I didn't playtest it.  Don't see why I would get it for free anyway.

Oh it was LastFootnote, somehow I thought it was you.

[Tables]

Maybe I missed it, but I'm surprised nobody else commented on the set icon. It's confusion (I think)! It fits perfectly!

[AJD]

Prince on Prince -- you set aside P1, then choose to set aside P2.  At the start of your next turn, you play P2 and set it aside.   Then you choose an action card from your hand to set aside.  At the end of that turn, you do not discard P2 and thus fail to set it aside again.  Therefore P1's effect is lost and P2 does not get played on any subsequent turn.

Prince says "stop playing it if you fail to set it aside on a turn you play it". But you do set aside P2 on the second turn ("you play P2 and set it aside").

...I guess that doesn't matter, though, because it doesn't say "if you don't set it aside". It says "if you fail to set it aside", and you do "fail to set it aside" (in addition to successfully setting it aside earlier in the turn). Okay.

[Donald X.]

Guess the other question is '[when] will Goko get this?"

Having no inside information whatsoever, at this point my first guess is never. As always I have to concede to the possibility that they've been rewriting the entire program from scratch and then everyone had to take maternity leave.

[Donald X.]

What happens if you Prince an Island? You don't discard the Island from play, but every turn you do set the Island aside.

You stop playing the Island if Prince itself failed to set it aside. It almost looks like "with Prince" would have fit on the card but oh well. Prince cannot find the card on your Island mat and in some obscure way the rules cover this.

[Donald X.]

I recognize this card from the Outtakes. A variant of this is in the "Orphans" section of the outtakes:


Prince - $6 - Action
Set aside this and an action card from your hand costing up to $5. Play it at the start of each of your turns.


Quote from Donald X. himself:
"Prince was cool but really could only exist as a unique card like a prize; otherwise people would always be Princing Princes."

You proved yourself wrong, and I thank you for it. Really awesome card. Practically a 1-card expansion given how intense it is.

It's interesting to compare the price of the 2 variants, and how the older version let you set aside a $5.

At the start of playtesting it looked like that with the understanding that I would fix the duration etc. problems somehow. It turns out that playing the same card every turn is powerful.

In the outtakes article I was just repeating what I had thought back when, but obv. there were wordy and confusing ways around the problems.

[Donald X.]

So mechanics question. Does the cost of the card you set aside have to be 4 the first time you play Prince, or does its cost have to be 4 or less at the end of each turn from then on out? The wording seems to imply that it only has to cost 4 when you initially play Prince and set the card aside with it. This seems crazy strong.

Also, if you Prince the King's Court, and play a duration card with it, would the King's Court get set back on the Prince, or would it go with the duration card, thereby losing it's Prince status afterward?

It only has to cost $4 when you play Prince, and a Prince'd Throne will lose its magic if you use it on a duration card.

Prince FAQ

Prince has you play the same cheap action every turn for the rest of the game. The turn you play Prince, you set it aside with an Action from your hand costing $4 or less; then every turn after that you play the Action at the start of the turn, and then set it aside again when you discard it from play. If you don't discard the Action then you stop playing it with Prince; Prince at that point is just set aside doing nothing for the rest of the game. That won't normally happen but will happen for example if the Action is a Feast or Mining Village and you trashed it, or if it's a duration card and so it stayed in play, or if it's a Madman and was returned to its pile, or if it's an Island and was set aside, or if it's a card you put back on your deck with Scheme. In practice you will probably not choose to set aside Prince with a card that won't work well with it, and so will play the Action you set aside every turn from that point on. The set aside Action technically goes back and forth from being in play to being set aside each turn, but in practice it's easier to leave it sitting on the Prince and just announce resolving it each turn.

Prince has to be set aside to do anything; using Throne Room on Prince won't let you set aside two cards. The Action card you set aside has to cost $4 at the time you play Prince, but can normally cost more; for example you could play a Highway, then use Prince on a Laboratory. You do not play the set aside Action the turn you first set it aside with Prince. Playing the card each turn doesn't use up your normal Action play, and is mandatory; setting aside the Action when you discard it from play is also mandatory, you only fail to do it if the card isn't in play at that point. At the end of the game, Prince and the set aside card are returned to your deck before scoring. When you have multiple effects to resolve at the start of the turn - such as multiple Princes and certain duration cards from Seaside - resolve them in any order, and that order may vary from turn to turn; choose one to resolve, resolve it, then move on to another one, until they are all resolved. Cards which cost $0* such as Mercenary and the Cornucopia Prizes can be set aside with a Prince, as can cards from Guilds that cost $2+ or $3+ or $4+. Cards with a Potion in the cost cannot be set aside with Prince. Prince plays its Action on extra turns from Outpost and Possession. The Action card that Prince plays is in play after it's played each turn, so it will count for things like Peddler; Prince however remains set aside.

[Donald X.]

Interesting that this card has an accountability hole. If you set it aside but don't have any <=$4 action card in your hand, you aren't required to show your hand to your opponents. Of course, this is unlikely to ever happen.

Yeah, after realizing that I'd missed accountability on some early cards and swearing to do better, I've ended up not always including it, because of the confusion or extra text. Graverobber also intentionally didn't include the accountability.

[Donald X.]

Why isn't Prince a Duration card? (Just so the whole Seaside rulebook doesn't have to be included with it, I guess.)

Using Prince on a Duration card fails, right?

And now I'm super-confused about what using Prince on Prince would do.

Some wiki-editing is in order, but I don't have time to do it right now.

At some point in there Prince tried to be a duration card, on the grounds that it kept doing stuff. It doesn't fit what duration cards actually mean at all though; really the entirety of duration cards is, you leave them in play until they're done. Prince isn't in play. (I'm pretty sure I also tried a version that was in play.)

You can use Prince on a duration card and there are edge-cases where it could be the play. It's not very effective though, you will play the duration card on your next turn and then Prince will lose it forever. But I mean, maybe you really wanted to save that duration card for next turn.

Prince on Prince is not very useful.

[Donald X.]

Maybe I missed it, but I'm surprised nobody else commented on the set icon. It's confusion (I think)! It fits perfectly!

I do not know what the icon is intended to mean.

Also, Highway, Prince on Tactician; on my opponent's turn I discard my hand to Torturers; play Tactician, fail to discard anything, discard it from play, set it aside again.

[elahrairah13]

Guess the other question is '[when] will Goko get this?"

Having no inside information whatsoever, at this point my first guess is never. As always I have to concede to the possibility that they've been rewriting the entire program from scratch and then everyone had to take maternity leave.

I kind of love you.
(note: not in a stalker way)

[elahrairah13]

My objection to "Princing a Prince" not being useful is that it would lead to more in-game singing of:
and we should have more of that, when you think about it

[soulnet]

Interesting that this card has an accountability hole. If you set it aside but don't have any <=$4 action card in your hand, you aren't required to show your hand to your opponents. Of course, this is unlikely to ever happen.

Forced playing of Prince with Golem, Herald or TR-TR-draw may make it happen. It is unlikely, but not unlikely enough that it will NEVER happen. However, I guess you can choose not to set aside Prince if you are forced to play it, so an edge case would be to want the Prince out of your deck. I guess if you anticipante this being the next-to-last of your turns and you need the Action now, it can happen. Golem into Prince and draw, play Prince first, set it aside, play draw, continue to play action claiming you just drew them.

[ashersky]

In addition to the $8 price point, NOT getting to play your action on the turn you set it aside is a small penalty as well.

Not a huge thing, but something to consider, especially if it is a vital attack, etc.

[jamfamsam]

So, if you play the Prince and set it aside but don't have an appropriate card to set aside with it, is the Prince essentially lost to use? I'm thinking of this in context of the rare occasion I Possess my opponent and a Prince happens to be in his hand.

[Nevermind]

Finally, the wait is over! My fingernails can start regrowing.

[eHalcyon]

So, if you play the Prince and set it aside but don't have an appropriate card to set aside with it, is the Prince essentially lost to use? I'm thinking of this in context of the rare occasion I Possess my opponent and a Prince happens to be in his hand.

Yes, it's lost for the rest of the game.

[Beyond Awesome]

So, is there anyone who is at Origins that would not mind picking me up one of those Prince cards?

[enfynet]

Finally, the wait is over! My fingernails can start regrowing.

You already have it? Because I'm going to be checking the BGG store daily until I can order it. So no fingernails for me yet...

[AJD]

You can use Prince on a duration card and there are edge-cases where it could be the play. It's not very effective though, you will play the duration card on your next turn and then Prince will lose it forever. But I mean, maybe you really wanted to save that duration card for next turn.

When you say "Prince will lose it forever", do you mean it'll be cleaned up and go back into your discard pile like normal (and thus stop being played by Prince that way), or do you mean it'll end up set aside and out of your deck forever (but still not being played by Prince)? The wording of Prince seems to suggest the latter—it tells you to set aside the Princed card when you discard it from play. So your Princed Caravan gets set aside when discarded from play, but since it wasn't discarded on the same turn you played it, it doesn't get played again and remains in set-aside-land forever.

[jomini]

So my fun initial thoughts with Prince:
1. Prince pins have a lot of wild and crazy options. The simplest thing as that we have a new no-attack pin option - Prince x5/Masq x5; I could completely see setting that up if the other guy goes for a megaturn and gets 50%+1 of the VP points and then has his deck die e.g. he goes Hermit/Coppersmith/+buy and kills his deck buying 7 colonies or if he goes for a slow slog (e.g. Horse Traders/Silk Road) with a lot of staying power.
2. Now there is something besides Peddler to trash a Kc into. How often will it be the right move to Procession a Kc into a Prince and then play a freebie action every turn?
3. Prince/Sir Martin. So I can play a Knight every turn up until it hits one of yours. New winner for most annoying Black Market draw - when your opponent gets the one Prince-able Knight?
4. A combo which I think may be surprisingly strong fairly often would be Prince/Horse traders or /Storeroom or /Secret chamber. With any limit draw card: Menage, Minion, Watchtower, Jack, and Lib that let's you sift even with no village and get some nice coin for your efforts, as a bonus Ht gives you the +buy to make a big Lib turn make up for the lost province buy. Storeroom is an insane amount of sifting - you get to look through up to 10 cards for the ones needed to kick off your big turn and you can toss dross for cash with a +buy, with any sort of limited draw you can effectively start +3$/+1 buy and likely with nice stacks of cards.

[assemble_me]

I would really like to know if/when Prince is going to be released in other languages...

[brokoli]

Wow, this looks awesome.
What I really like is the combo potential, especially to build golden decks or decks that buy province every turn at least.
- Prince of trusty steed could be a fun way to rush on feodums
- Prince of Tfb is sick if you find a way to have a Fortress (or rats) in hand every turn
- Prince of Storeroom in a deck full of tunnels (after copper trashing) is an easy way to reach $8 every turn or even more (and spend the rest of the money on more tunnels).
- Native village golden deck seems to work easily with Prince. Just prince a courtyard and topdeck your province each turn before playing native village. Then you have a folden deck of 8 cards.
- Prince of Saboteur or Outpost (princed with the help of a cost reducer) : these cards hurts in the deck, playing them from the "set aside" make them much better.

[Awaclus]

Wow, this looks awesome.
What I really like is the combo potential, especially to build golden decks or decks that buy province every turn at least.
- Prince of trusty steed could be a fun way to rush on feodums
- Prince of Tfb is sick if you find a way to have a Fortress (or rats) in hand every turn
- Prince of Storeroom in a deck full of tunnels (after copper trashing) is an easy way to reach $8 every turn or even more (and spend the rest of the money on more tunnels).
- Native village golden deck seems to work easily with Prince. Just prince a courtyard and topdeck your province each turn before playing native village. Then you have a folden deck of 8 cards.
- Prince of Saboteur or Outpost (princed with the help of a cost reducer) : these cards hurts in the deck, playing them from the "set aside" make them much better.

Prince of Outpost isn't very good though.

[qmech]

Hi-Potion: You may discard a card. If you do, you may trash up to 4 Curses.

I don't get it.

I fluffed the reference, which was a bit of a stretch anyway.  Sorry. 

Your regularly scheduled Prince discussion will resume shortly.

[Davio]

Imaging Princing a Council Room and having "sort of" a Tactician hand every turn!!!

You don't even have to play any more Tacticians to keep it rolling.

[SCSN]

You can use Prince on a duration card and there are edge-cases where it could be the play. It's not very effective though, you will play the duration card on your next turn and then Prince will lose it forever. But I mean, maybe you really wanted to save that duration card for next turn.

When you say "Prince will lose it forever", do you mean it'll be cleaned up and go back into your discard pile like normal (and thus stop being played by Prince that way), or do you mean it'll end up set aside and out of your deck forever (but still not being played by Prince)? The wording of Prince seems to suggest the latter—it tells you to set aside the Princed card when you discard it from play. So your Princed Caravan gets set aside when discarded from play, but since it wasn't discarded on the same turn you played it, it doesn't get played again and remains in set-aside-land forever.

It goes to the discard. What happens if you prince a Caravan is this:

Turn N: Prince-Caravan, both the Caravan and Prince are set aside.

Turn N+1: The set aside Caravan is played at the beginning of your turn. Because it's a duration, it won't be discarded from play at the end of this turn, hence Prince can't set it aside and by the parenthetical clause on the card will stop playing it, thus "losing it forever".

Turn N+2: You draw a card from the Caravan that's now totally disconnected from Prince, at the end of your turn it goes to the discard as usual.

[Davio]

So this could be a fun Golden deck:

1. Prince an Envoy so you start every turn with 9 cards
2. KC-Scheme, Vault lets you draw 5 extra cards and you can discard 11 (9 - 3 + 5) cards to get a Colony
3. Put back KC, Scheme and Vault, rinse, repeat

[Awaclus]

So this could be a fun Golden deck:

1. Prince an Envoy so you start every turn with 9 cards
2. KC-Scheme, Vault lets you draw 5 extra cards and you can discard 11 (9 - 3 + 5) cards to get a Colony
3. Put back KC, Scheme and Vault, rinse, repeat

Or just Prince a Scheme and return the Envoy every turn.

[Davio]

But if you Prince the Scheme you only get to pick one card to return every time (Envoy), so you're not guaranteed to draw Vault.

[Awaclus]

But if you Prince the Scheme you only get to pick one card to return every time (Envoy), so you're not guaranteed to draw Vault.

I meant another Scheme. There is no reason to Prince anything other than a Scheme whenever Scheme is on the board.

[LastFootnote]

There is no reason to Prince anything other than a Scheme whenever Scheme is on the board.

Minion.

[Davio]

Well, obviously there are reasons, a card in your hand is vulnerable to attacks (Pillage, Minion); a set aside card is not.

[soulnet]

You can use Prince on a duration card and there are edge-cases where it could be the play. It's not very effective though, you will play the duration card on your next turn and then Prince will lose it forever. But I mean, maybe you really wanted to save that duration card for next turn.

When you say "Prince will lose it forever", do you mean it'll be cleaned up and go back into your discard pile like normal (and thus stop being played by Prince that way), or do you mean it'll end up set aside and out of your deck forever (but still not being played by Prince)? The wording of Prince seems to suggest the latter—it tells you to set aside the Princed card when you discard it from play. So your Princed Caravan gets set aside when discarded from play, but since it wasn't discarded on the same turn you played it, it doesn't get played again and remains in set-aside-land forever.

It goes to the discard. What happens if you prince a Caravan is this:

Turn N: Prince-Caravan, both the Caravan and Prince are set aside.

Turn N+1: The set aside Caravan is played at the beginning of your turn. Because it's a duration, it won't be discarded from play at the end of this turn, hence Prince can't set it aside and by the parenthetical clause on the card will stop playing it, thus "losing it forever".

Turn N+2: You draw a card from the Caravan that's now totally disconnected from Prince, at the end of your turn it goes to the discard as usual.

Actually, the parenthesis says to stop playing it, not to stop setting it aside, and the setting aside (when played by Prince) is not conditional on being played, so I think Caravan should be set aside and lost forever too after being discarded at the end of turn N+2.

[silverspawn]

There is no reason to Prince anything other than a Scheme whenever Scheme is on the board.

why is sheme so great? 6cards, 2 actions and you can always topdeck one action card doesn't necessarily sound better than 8 cards 1 action

[SCSN]

Barring discard attacks and trash for benefit or multi-Prince shenanigans, princing a Scheme is strictly better than princing a Smithy because you can always at least Scheme the Smithy and play it as your first action each turn, which is functionally equivalent to princing a Smithy, but you can also choose to play something else first (say, Fishing Village - Watchtower) or scheme another card this turn. Hence a princed Scheme gives you greater flexibility.

There are enough cases where you want to prince the Smithy anyway, though. E.g. if you've princed another card that you sometimes want to play after the Smithy, the already mentioned discard attacks and maybe some specific TfB spots.

[silverspawn]

Barring discard attacks and trash for benefit or multi-Prince shenanigans, princing a Scheme is strictly better than princing a Smithy because you can always at least Scheme the Smithy and play it as your first action each turn, which is functionally equivalent to princing a Smithy, but you can also choose to play something else first (say, Fishing Village - Watchtower) or scheme another card this turn.

oh yea, that's true. sheme it is.

[SirPeebles]

There is no reason to Prince anything other than a Scheme whenever Scheme is on the board.

Minion.

Also, you may have a hand of Prince-Scheme-X, where X is the card that you really want to Prince.  If you Prince your Scheme, you may need to wait many turns before cycling back to X.

[Emeric]

There is no reason to Prince anything other than a Scheme whenever Scheme is on the board.

Minion.

Also, you may have a hand of Prince-Scheme-X, where X is the card that you really want to Prince.  If you Prince your Scheme, you may need to wait many turns before cycling back to X.

No, you may have a hand of Prince-Scheme and have just to wait to hit your good card.

[pacovf]

But if you Prince the Scheme you only get to pick one card to return every time (Envoy), so you're not guaranteed to draw Vault.

I meant another Scheme. There is no reason to Prince anything other than a Scheme whenever Scheme is on the board.

Minion

EDIT: of course, there was another page.

[A Drowned Kernel]

LastFootnote: how long into playtesting did the "Prince of X" phrasing come about? Because that's seriously the best.

[LastFootnote]

LastFootnote: how long into playtesting did the "Prince of X" phrasing come about? Because that's seriously the best.

When Donald was first emailing me about it, he mentioned "Prince of Pearl Divers". I immediately realized it was the best phrasing ever. I'm glad it's caught on here!

[matste]

Guess the other question is '[when] will Goko get this?"

Having no inside information whatsoever, at this point my first guess is never. As always I have to concede to the possibility that they've been rewriting the entire program from scratch and then everyone had to take maternity leave.

Wouldn't they need to ask for some kind of licence before using the Prince?

[A Drowned Kernel]

When Donald was first emailing me about it, he mentioned "Prince of Pearl Divers". I immediately realized it was the best phrasing ever. I'm glad it's caught on here!

I'm trying to decide what the funniest "Prince of X" is. Too bad you can't have a Prince of Harems...

[AJD]

I'm trying to decide what the funniest "Prince of X" is.

("Prince of Noble Brigands" doesn't have quite the same ring to it)

[Robz888]

Beggar Prince.

[Watno]

Prince Jack of All Trades?

[A Drowned Kernel]

Also I've been thinking of what the best cards for Prince and for a second was like "Ooo, Prince of Barons!" then realized the problem with that.

[Beyond Awesome]

Prince of Scouts 

[Moneymodel]

Y'know, the Prince and the Peddler is very close to the Prince and the Pauper.

[Beyond Awesome]

You know, it is interesting that this card if it were made for an expansion it could only really go into Prosperity, but it doesn't really fit that set because it hardly has any action cards that are $4 or less.

[markusin]

You know, it is interesting that this card if it were made for an expansion it could only really go into Prosperity, but it doesn't really fit that set because it hardly has any action cards that are $4 or less.

But among them are Monument and Bishop. Bishop seems like a good target for Prince by the time you get the Prince.

[Captain Stupendous]

I'm trying to decide what the funniest "Prince of X" is. Too bad you can't have a Prince of Harems...

Prince of Princesses

[Witherweaver]

From the FAQ:

The set aside Action technically goes back and forth from being in play to being set aside each turn, but in practice it's easier to leave it sitting on the Prince and just announce resolving it each turn.

Interesting thing of note when you're playing in real life, the Action you set aside modifies Peddler's cost every turn (except the turn you set it aside), but Prince never does.  So I guess something to be careful about.

(I think.)

[Witherweaver]

"Prince of Schemes" sounds pretty cool, too.

[LastFootnote]

When Donald was first emailing me about it, he mentioned "Prince of Pearl Divers". I immediately realized it was the best phrasing ever. I'm glad it's caught on here!

I'm trying to decide what the funniest "Prince of X" is. Too bad you can't have a Prince of Harems...

Prince of Rats?

Prince Jack of All Trades?

I think I've been calling this Prince of all Trades.

[Witherweaver]

Oh, snap.

Jon Snow: Prince of Stewards.

Because R+L = J implies Jon is a prince, and he's a steward.

Edit: Okay it implies he's a king, but he used to be a prince.

[terminalCopper]

(Where are the Prince of Scout jokes, by the way?)

Scout isn't actually bad when it doesn't cost a card in your hand and gives you an extra action.

Yeah, Scout becomes a village with a bonus, and a village with a bonus usually costs 4$. In other terms, all you have to do to turn Scout into a correctly priced card is combining it with a card costing 8$.

[liopoil]

(Where are the Prince of Scout jokes, by the way?)

Scout isn't actually bad when it doesn't cost a card in your hand and gives you an extra action.

Yeah, Scout becomes a village with a bonus, and a village with a bonus usually costs 4$. In other terms, all you have to do to turn Scout into a correctly priced card is combining it with a card costing 8$.

to be fair you don't usually get to play your 4 cost village you bought every single turn.

[SirPeebles]

How often should you pass on playing your Prince?  It's effectively a one shot, so do you play it with that spent Witch in your hand to at least get the extra draw, or did you hold on to it hoping for a better pairing next shuffle?

[A Drowned Kernel]

If there are ever councilroom-style achievements again there should be one for playing Prince with a Ruined Village (or Ruins in general)

[liopoil]

I think you usually play it on the witch. The witch may have been hurting your deck, and the difference in quality between +3 cards, + 1 action each turn and whatever you would have played it on several turns later isn't big enough to counteract the benefit you'll get in those turns. However, witch costs 5, so unless you have a cost reducer in play...

[silvern]

How often should you pass on playing your Prince?  It's effectively a one shot, so do you play it with that spent Witch in your hand to at least get the extra draw, or did you hold on to it hoping for a better pairing next shuffle?

In this example, it can do only cards costing up to four, so there's that. But in general, I would assume that when you buy a prince, you have at least generally some idea of what card(s) you want to use it on--no sense using it on something like a pawn when you have a smithy in your deck. And much of it, I'm sure, is based off of how much of the game is left.

[liopoil]

If there are ever councilroom-style achievements again there should be one for playing Prince with a Ruined Village (or Ruins in general)

"Ruin repairer"

seriously though:

prince on ruined village = village
prince on ruined market = market square
prince on ruined library = laboratory which is sort of like library?
prince on abandoned mine = peddler, which is sort of what mine does - give you a peddler in addition to a coin.
prince on survivors = uhh.... well there isn't any unruined survivors in the first place.

[brokoli]

I like Prince of Jesters.

[silvern]

The card does seem kind of swingy (is that the right word?), given that even if both players go for it, it will be much much better for anyone who activates it even just a few turns ahead. No more so than some other cards, I suppose though.

[Awaclus]

The card does seem kind of swingy (is that the right word?), given that even if both players go for it, it will be much much better for anyone who activates it even just a few turns ahead. No more so than some other cards, I suppose though.

The comparison to Tournament is pretty good.

[silvern]

The card does seem kind of swingy (is that the right word?), given that even if both players go for it, it will be much much better for anyone who activates it even just a few turns ahead. No more so than some other cards, I suppose though.

The comparison to Tournament is pretty good.

Quite similar, given that both hinge upon getting an 8$ card and then linking it with a 4$ card. But I anticipate that with Prince, the effect will be far, far more exaggerated.

[eHalcyon]

When Donald was first emailing me about it, he mentioned "Prince of Pearl Divers". I immediately realized it was the best phrasing ever. I'm glad it's caught on here!

I'm trying to decide what the funniest "Prince of X" is. Too bad you can't have a Prince of Harems...

The Shanty Town Prince?

or maybe Prince of Misfits (which would be spectacular, actually.)

[Awaclus]

The card does seem kind of swingy (is that the right word?), given that even if both players go for it, it will be much much better for anyone who activates it even just a few turns ahead. No more so than some other cards, I suppose though.

The comparison to Tournament is pretty good.

Quite similar, given that both hinge upon getting an 8$ card and then linking it with a 4$ card. But I anticipate that with Prince, the effect will be far, far more exaggerated.

Depends on the kingdom, probably. Sometimes, being the only player to get the Princess or the Followers can be extremely good.

[liopoil]

The card does seem kind of swingy (is that the right word?), given that even if both players go for it, it will be much much better for anyone who activates it even just a few turns ahead. No more so than some other cards, I suppose though.

The comparison to Tournament is pretty good.

Quite similar, given that both hinge upon getting an 8$ card and then linking it with a 4$ card. But I anticipate that with Prince, the effect will be far, far more exaggerated.

the thing is, with tournament, the 8 cost gives you 6 points too. Prince is easier to connect with another action though.

[Awaclus]

Prince is easier to connect with another action though.

At least if any Action is fine. If you need a Prince of a specific card, then isn't it equally easy, am I missing something here or was that just not the point?

[A Drowned Kernel]

If you have a Prince of Band of Misfits, do you get to keep changing the card or does it lock in like for Throne Room?

[liopoil]

it leaves play each turn, so you can change it each turn

[Davio]

Maybe this has already been asked, but if you have Durations and this, do you get to choose the order of resolving them?

[Awaclus]

Maybe this has already been asked, but if you have Durations and this, do you get to choose the order of resolving them?

Yes and yes.

[Davio]

Maybe this has already been asked, but if you have Durations and this, do you get to choose the order of resolving them?

Yes and yes.

Well, 4 pages is obviously way too much for me to keep track of.

[AJD]

it leaves play each turn, so you can change it each turn

That doesn't help for Throne Room–Band of Misfits (Feast).

[silverspawn]

it leaves play each turn, so you can change it each turn

That doesn't help for Throne Room–Band of Misfits (Feast).

i dont think throned cards enter play several times

[AJD]

it leaves play each turn, so you can change it each turn

That doesn't help for Throne Room–Band of Misfits (Feast).

i dont think throned cards enter play several times

They don't; but with Throne Room–Band of Misfits (Feast), the Band of Misfits leaves play and gets played again, but you don't get to redesignate it as something else the second time you play it. So with Prince–Band of Misfits, the Band of Misfits leaves play and gets played again, and I don't know whether you can redesignate it as something else the second time you play it.

[silverspawn]

it leaves play each turn, so you can change it each turn

That doesn't help for Throne Room–Band of Misfits (Feast).

i dont think throned cards enter play several times

They don't; but with Throne Room–Band of Misfits (Feast), the Band of Misfits leaves play and gets played again, but you don't get to redesignate it as something else the second time you play it. So with Prince–Band of Misfits, the Band of Misfits leaves play and gets played again, and I don't know whether you can redesignate it as something else the second time you play it.

but BoM doesn't enter play a second time even if it imitates feast, it's in the trash after the first time, and only a phantom copy gets played the second time

[azadin]

If you have a Prince of Band of Misfits, do you get to keep changing the card or does it lock in like for Throne Room?

Doesn't Band of Misfits say it becomes the other card until it leaves play? And playing the card is when it becomes another card? I think setting it aside qualifies as leaving play, and playing it the next turn as a Band of Misfits lets you choose a card again.

[Schneau]

I was curious how many Kingdom cards Prince does work with, considering there are quite a few it either flat out doesn't really help (Durations), can't work on (Potion-cost), or require cost reducers (cards costing more than $4). Here are my numbers, which might be slightly off:

Durations (8 cards)
Potion-cost cards (10 cards)
One-Shots (Embargo, Island, Feast, Treasure Map, Pillage, Prince)
Non-Actions (23 cards)
Cards costing greater than $4 - requires cost reducer (83 cards, including 19 from above categories)

Total Kingdom Cards you can Prince: 206 - 111 = 95 cards you can normally Prince (46% of Kingdom cards)

There are also some non-Kingdom cards you can Prince:
Necropolis
Ruins (5 cards)
Mercenary (Madman doesn't work)
Prizes (4 cards)

Total: 10 cards

Even though I'm excited to try out Prince, I am slightly disappointed how many cards it just doesn't work with. And this doesn't even include some cards that would almost always be bad cards to Prince (many forced trashers and Ambassador).

[theory]

omg ... Possess someone and then appoint a Prince of Ambassadors or a Prince of Lookouts ...

Also this might be the only way to Band of Misfits a $4 card, right?

[liopoil]

omg ... Possess someone and then appoint a Prince of Ambassadors or a Prince of Lookouts ...

Also this might be the only way to Band of Misfits a $4 card, right?

remake is the best one - TWO cards...

you can always BoM a $4 card...

[Awaclus]

remake is the best one - TWO cards...

Plus you gain something cool whenever you Possess him.

[eHalcyon]

Shelters (5 cards)

You mean Ruins.

[Schneau]

Shelters (5 cards)

You mean Ruins.

Fixed thanks.

[werothegreat]

So what happens to an abandoned Prince?  Like, say, you Prince a Feast - does he stay set aside for the rest of the game?

[GendoIkari]

In addition to the $8 price point, NOT getting to play your action on the turn you set it aside is a small penalty as well.

Not a huge thing, but something to consider, especially if it is a vital attack, etc.

And a penalty of the possibility of drawing it without any $4 or less actions.

[Donald X.]

You can use Prince on a duration card and there are edge-cases where it could be the play. It's not very effective though, you will play the duration card on your next turn and then Prince will lose it forever. But I mean, maybe you really wanted to save that duration card for next turn.

When you say "Prince will lose it forever", do you mean it'll be cleaned up and go back into your discard pile like normal (and thus stop being played by Prince that way), or do you mean it'll end up set aside and out of your deck forever (but still not being played by Prince)? The wording of Prince seems to suggest the latter—it tells you to set aside the Princed card when you discard it from play. So your Princed Caravan gets set aside when discarded from play, but since it wasn't discarded on the same turn you played it, it doesn't get played again and remains in set-aside-land forever.

It goes to the discard. What happens if you prince a Caravan is this:

Turn N: Prince-Caravan, both the Caravan and Prince are set aside.

Turn N+1: The set aside Caravan is played at the beginning of your turn. Because it's a duration, it won't be discarded from play at the end of this turn, hence Prince can't set it aside and by the parenthetical clause on the card will stop playing it, thus "losing it forever".

Turn N+2: You draw a card from the Caravan that's now totally disconnected from Prince, at the end of your turn it goes to the discard as usual.

Actually, the parenthesis says to stop playing it, not to stop setting it aside, and the setting aside (when played by Prince) is not conditional on being played, so I think Caravan should be set aside and lost forever too after being discarded at the end of turn N+2.

SCSN has it right. If Prince fails to set the card aside that turn, Prince is done doing things to the card. I see that this is not clear on the card - it could say "when you discard it from play that turn." The parenthetical is trying to get that in.

[Donald X.]

If you have a Prince of Band of Misfits, do you get to keep changing the card or does it lock in like for Throne Room?

Doesn't Band of Misfits say it becomes the other card until it leaves play? And playing the card is when it becomes another card? I think setting it aside qualifies as leaving play, and playing it the next turn as a Band of Misfits lets you choose a card again.

Correct, you can pick a new card for Band of Misfits each time.

[Donald X.]

omg ... Possess someone and then appoint a Prince of Ambassadors or a Prince of Lookouts ...

I have seen an intentional Prince of Ambassadors; I think he won, too. Things were that bad.

[GendoIkari]

So what happens to an abandoned Prince?  Like, say, you Prince a Feast - does he stay set aside for the rest of the game?

[AJD]

it leaves play each turn, so you can change it each turn

That doesn't help for Throne Room–Band of Misfits (Feast).

i dont think throned cards enter play several times

They don't; but with Throne Room–Band of Misfits (Feast), the Band of Misfits leaves play and gets played again, but you don't get to redesignate it as something else the second time you play it. So with Prince–Band of Misfits, the Band of Misfits leaves play and gets played again, and I don't know whether you can redesignate it as something else the second time you play it.

but BoM doesn't enter play a second time even if it imitates feast, it's in the trash after the first time, and only a phantom copy gets played the second time

So? I don't see why it matters whether or not something gets moved to the play area for resolving the instructions on these cards.

[AJD]

(Anyhow, I see Donald X has answered the question at the root of this. Though I still don't really understand why Throne Room and Prince work differently in this respect.)

[amalloy]

(Anyhow, I see Donald X has answered the question at the root of this. Though I still don't really understand why Throne Room and Prince work differently in this respect.)

With Prince, the BoM is entering play, leaving play, and entering play again, as part of resolving Prince multiple times. When BoM enters play the second time, its text instructs you to pick a card for it to imitate.

With Throne Room, the BoM enters play, leaves play, and then is played again, but does not enter play again; this happens as part of resolving the Throne Room exactly once, and the card that it throned was Feast; whether that card is still Feast now that it's in the trash does not impact what happens when you play Feast a second time.

[AJD]

(Anyhow, I see Donald X has answered the question at the root of this. Though I still don't really understand why Throne Room and Prince work differently in this respect.)

With Prince, the BoM is entering play, leaving play, and entering play again, as part of resolving Prince multiple times. When BoM enters play the second time, its text instructs you to pick a card for it to imitate.

With Throne Room, the BoM enters play, leaves play, and then is played again, but does not enter play again;

But, as I say above, Band of Misfits tells you what happens when you "play this", not when it "enters play".

[Donald X.]

(Anyhow, I see Donald X has answered the question at the root of this. Though I still don't really understand why Throne Room and Prince work differently in this respect.)

With Prince, the BoM is entering play, leaving play, and entering play again, as part of resolving Prince multiple times. When BoM enters play the second time, its text instructs you to pick a card for it to imitate.

With Throne Room, the BoM enters play, leaves play, and then is played again, but does not enter play again;

But, as I say above, Band of Misfits tells you what happens when you "play this", not when it "enters play".

Band of Misfits reverts to being a Band of Misfits when it leaves play, which happens when you set it aside (the set aside area is not "in play").

[dominator 123]

What happens if you have 3 Princed Conspirators? Is any of them activated?

[amalloy]

What happens if you have 3 Princed Conspirators? Is any of them activated?

The last one is. The Princes are not themselves played this turn, but the cards they play for you are.

[soulnet]

SCSN has it right. If Prince fails to set the card aside that turn, Prince is done doing things to the card. I see that this is not clear on the card - it could say "when you discard it from play that turn." The parenthetical is trying to get that in.

Sorry for nitpicking, but is this a ruling or you are claiming the actual text on the card implies this? If its the latter, I still don't see it. And Ironworks/Trader has made a nitpicker out of me.

[Donald X.]

SCSN has it right. If Prince fails to set the card aside that turn, Prince is done doing things to the card. I see that this is not clear on the card - it could say "when you discard it from play that turn." The parenthetical is trying to get that in.

Sorry for nitpicking, but is this a ruling or you are claiming the actual text on the card implies this? If its the latter, I still don't see it. And Ironworks/Trader has made a nitpicker out of me.

I see that this is not clear on the card.

[silvern]

This is actually pretty good, given that it would be set out with the other ruins/a looter.

[GendoIkari]

This is actually pretty good, given that it would be set out with the other ruins/a looter.

True, this would actually be way overpowered in a Looters game.

[c4master]

Has anyone ever met "Prince Hamlet"?

Yeah, and I wondered why it took so long to point out "Prince of Monuments". And noone even mentioned the "Prince of Cellars".

Did you ever know about Harald, the "Herald prince"?

The "Prince of Bridges" seems to be really cool, too, since you can then gain 5-costs.

[werothegreat]

If I have a Princed Bridge and a Princed Band of Misfits, and I play the Bridge first, is the Band of Misfits also reduced in cost, or can he now emulate "$5" cards?

[silvern]

Presumably it is also reduced in cost--Bridge makes it clear that it affects "all cards", which I assume includes set aside ones too.

[markusin]

Yeah, and I wondered why it took so long to point out "Prince of Monuments". And noone even mentioned the "Prince of Cellars".

Because Prince of Warehouses is better.

[silverspawn]

Yeah, and I wondered why it took so long to point out "Prince of Monuments". And noone even mentioned the "Prince of Cellars".

Because Prince of Warehouses is better.

yes, it's unlikely that you want to sift more than 3 cards from a 5card hand

[AJD]

(Anyhow, I see Donald X has answered the question at the root of this. Though I still don't really understand why Throne Room and Prince work differently in this respect.)

With Prince, the BoM is entering play, leaving play, and entering play again, as part of resolving Prince multiple times. When BoM enters play the second time, its text instructs you to pick a card for it to imitate.

With Throne Room, the BoM enters play, leaves play, and then is played again, but does not enter play again;

But, as I say above, Band of Misfits tells you what happens when you "play this", not when it "enters play".

Band of Misfits reverts to being a Band of Misfits when it leaves play, which happens when you set it aside (the set aside area is not "in play").

The same thing happens when Band of Misfits is trashed (as a Death Cart or Feast, e.g.), but that doesn't allow Throne Room to play Band of Misfits as Feast once and as something else the second time.

So when Card X plays Band of Misfits twice, and Band of Misfits leaves play between the two occasions, then Band of Misfits can be two different things if X is Prince but it has to be the same thing twice if X is Throne Room. Right?

[AJD]

Did you ever know about Harald, the "Herald prince"?

Harold Prince



Reveal the top card of your deck. If it is an Action card costing up to $4, set aside this and the revealed card. Play the revealed card at the beginning of each of your turns, setting it aside when it is discarded from play.


…See, he produces a play.

[soulnet]

So when Card X plays Band of Misfits twice, and Band of Misfits leaves play between the two occasions, then Band of Misfits can be two different things if X is Prince but it has to be the same thing twice if X is Throne Room. Right?

TR does not put a card into play twice. It plays it twice, but puts it into play once (the first time). Prince puts the card into play several times, because it explicitly makes the card leave and enter play each time. I guess TR cannot put the card into play again because 1. it would not make sense if the card is in play, where TR left it. 2. it could not put it into play from anywhere else, because TR would have lost track of it.

Thus, what makes Prince able to change BoM is the fact that the card is put into play several times, not the fact that it leaves play in between. I guess while you are playing BoM the second time as Feast, the BoM in the trash is actually a BoM and costs $5.

[AJD]

So when Card X plays Band of Misfits twice, and Band of Misfits leaves play between the two occasions, then Band of Misfits can be two different things if X is Prince but it has to be the same thing twice if X is Throne Room. Right?

TR does not put a card into play twice. It plays it twice, but puts it into play once (the first time).

I know that, but why does it matter? Band of Misfits tells you that you choose a card for it to impersonate when you "Play this", not when you put it into play.

[silvern]

I know that, but why does it matter? Band of Misfits tells you that you choose a card for it to impersonate when you "Play this", not when you put it into play.

"This is that card until it leaves play"

[azadin]

So when Card X plays Band of Misfits twice, and Band of Misfits leaves play between the two occasions, then Band of Misfits can be two different things if X is Prince but it has to be the same thing twice if X is Throne Room. Right?

TR does not put a card into play twice. It plays it twice, but puts it into play once (the first time).

I know that, but why does it matter? Band of Misfits tells you that you choose a card for it to impersonate when you "Play this", not when you put it into play.

When it's played, it becomes the card you choose until it leaves play. If you throne room it, you play the BoM, choose a card, and now the BoM is that card. Throne Room says you play an action twice, so you play the card BoM has become, twice. It doesn't matter if the Throne Room has lost track of the card, the Throne Room doesn't care. It plays the action of the card (which BoM became) twice.

With Prince, it leaves play when it is set aside and is played again on the next turn.

[AJD]

I know that, but why does it matter? Band of Misfits tells you that you choose a card for it to impersonate when you "Play this", not when you put it into play.

"This is that card until it leaves play"

It leaves play under Prince and under Throne Room as Feast.

[silvern]

True enough. I guess it boils down to the whole Procession vs Throne Room thing again, i.e. with Procession, you gain a Six coin action according to the rule book, even though it should have "locked in" to what the card was just like throne room.

[AJD]

So when Card X plays Band of Misfits twice, and Band of Misfits leaves play between the two occasions, then Band of Misfits can be two different things if X is Prince but it has to be the same thing twice if X is Throne Room. Right?

TR does not put a card into play twice. It plays it twice, but puts it into play once (the first time).

I know that, but why does it matter? Band of Misfits tells you that you choose a card for it to impersonate when you "Play this", not when you put it into play.

When it's played, it becomes the card you choose until it leaves play. If you throne room it, you play the BoM, choose a card, and now the BoM is that card. Throne Room says you play an action twice, so you play the card BoM has become, twice. It doesn't matter if the Throne Room has lost track of the card, the Throne Room doesn't care. It plays the action of the card (which BoM became) twice.

Throne Room doesn't say to play "the action of that card". It says "play it"—i.e., the card. Prince likewise says "play that Action". I don't understand why when Throne Room plays a Band of Misfits that it has played before but that is not in play now one thing happens, while when Prince plays a Band of Misfits that it has played before but that is not in play now a different thing happens.

With Prince, it leaves play when it is set aside and is played again on the next turn.

With Throne Room–Band of Misfits (Feast), it leaves play when it is trashed and is played again on the same turn.

[silvern]

From the "BoM as Feast?" thread:

Throne on a Band as a one-shot has a special ruling, unique to that situation, and that special ruling is why it works that way, in the technical sense. And the reason for that ruling was that the rulebook didn't address it, and I wanted it to work like people would think it would, and the other option (not doing anything the second time) was crazy counterintuitive.

[LastFootnote]

I know that, but why does it matter? Band of Misfits tells you that you choose a card for it to impersonate when you "Play this", not when you put it into play.

No, it doesn't. It says, "Play this as if it were an Action card in the Supply…"

[AJD]

From the "BoM as Feast?" thread:

Throne on a Band as a one-shot has a special ruling, unique to that situation, and that special ruling is why it works that way, in the technical sense. And the reason for that ruling was that the rulebook didn't address it, and I wanted it to work like people would think it would, and the other option (not doing anything the second time) was crazy counterintuitive.

Yep. So the situation is really, Prince on Band works one way because it does what the cards say, and Throne on Band as Feast works a different way because it does something different than what the cards say, because of this special-case ruling.

[AJD]

I know that, but why does it matter? Band of Misfits tells you that you choose a card for it to impersonate when you "Play this", not when you put it into play.

No, it doesn't. It says, "Play this as if it were an Action card in the Supply…"

Right, not "Put this into play as if it were an Action card in the Supply".

[GendoIkari]

Prince of Rats!   

[sudgy]

It's funny, having read the whole thread, seeing people who post the same thing twice.

[soulnet]

It's funny, having read the whole thread, seeing people who post the same thing twice.

But the second time the post is not put into play again.

[Beyond Awesome]

Prince of Rebuild

Honestly, that would actually probably suck because you are missing a rebuild turn plus you paid $8 to buy a Prince, and how did you get $8 anyway if you're playing Rebuild.

[silvern]

I anticipate that prince will be much MUCH stronger in Colony games.
Also, is it just me, or does the guy in the picture look scarily close to baron?

[SirPeebles]

The original post now quotes a response to the post itself?  theory, you need to do something before the spacetime continuum collapses!

[Davio]

I think my favorite 4 cost would in fact be something like a simple Smithy or Envoy.
Starting every turn with so many cards makes everything much easier.

[Beyond Awesome]

We can also have a Prince of Thieves!

[enfynet]

I think my favorite 4 cost would in fact be something like a simple Smithy or Envoy.
Starting every turn with so many cards makes everything much easier.

I agree. It probably give you the chance to set up another Prince on a +Buy card.

[silvern]

I think my favorite 4 cost would in fact be something like a simple Smithy or Envoy.
Starting every turn with so many cards makes everything much easier.

I agree. It probably give you the chance to set up another Prince on a +Buy card.

+Buy certainly seems like it would be pretty important in some capacity in any Prince game--you have to make up the lost turns buying and connecting prince. Also why Colony games are better for Prince--you have more opportunities and more turns to make up the points.

[popsofctown]

Why does the card have 'you may' at the beginning? I can't see why.  Because Golem needs the help?

[eHalcyon]

Why does the card have 'you may' at the beginning? I can't see why.  Because Golem needs the help?

Also Herald, HoP, Peddler, various fixed draw cards... But yeah, it probably would have been fine without the option.

[Awaclus]

It also helps with the accountability problem: now there are very few situations where someone would want to set it aside when they don't have an Action in their hand that they want to set aside.

[Davio]

Well, if it doesn't have "you may", you could be forced to set it aside with nothing!

I thought it was just a one-shot, that you had to keep both the Prince and the set-aside card set aside every turn.
But now I realize the Prince just gets cleaned up and you can set more cards aside with it, making it even more powerful.

[Awaclus]

Well, if it doesn't have "you may", you could be forced to set it aside with nothing!

I thought it was just a one-shot, that you had to keep both the Prince and the set-aside card set aside every turn.
But now I realize the Prince just gets cleaned up and you can set more cards aside with it, making it even more powerful.

I'm still thinking it is just a one-shot.

[scott_pilgrim]

It's funny, having read the whole thread, seeing people who post the same thing twice.

I've been reading through the whole thread...it's funny to see people post the same thing twice.

[brokoli]

Well, if it doesn't have "you may", you could be forced to set it aside with nothing!

I thought it was just a one-shot, that you had to keep both the Prince and the set-aside card set aside every turn.
But now I realize the Prince just gets cleaned up and you can set more cards aside with it, making it even more powerful.

How ? I read nowhere that set aside cards get cleaned up.

[Davio]

Well, if it doesn't have "you may", you could be forced to set it aside with nothing!

I thought it was just a one-shot, that you had to keep both the Prince and the set-aside card set aside every turn.
But now I realize the Prince just gets cleaned up and you can set more cards aside with it, making it even more powerful.

I'm still thinking it is just a one-shot.

Oh yeah, it is, it doesn't mention cleaning up though.

[enfynet]

If I remember right, the FAQ says it stays set aside.

[Donald X.]

Yep. So the situation is really, Prince on Band works one way because it does what the cards say, and Throne on Band as Feast works a different way because it does something different than what the cards say, because of this special-case ruling.

Throne/Band/Feast works the way it does because no-one having that experience was ever going to figure out that Band did nothing the second time. It was counterintuitive minus zero / no limit, and did not come up in time to put an answer in the FAQ. Prince does not have the same issue, it never tries to play Band from the trash.

[popsofctown]

Why does the card have 'you may' at the beginning? I can't see why.  Because Golem needs the help?

Also Herald, HoP, Peddler, various fixed draw cards... But yeah, it probably would have been fine without the option.

I missed the Peddler and HoP interactions, thanks.

[blaisepascal]

This is probably a stupid question: What happens to the Prince at the end of the game?

Island explicitly says (of the cards set aside) "Return them to your deck at the end of the game".

Native Village has a similar explicit statements, about cards on the Native Village mat returning to the deck.

Prince does not. Does that mean it and it's action card stays set aside at game end, and so you don't benefit from them for scoring?
If you Prince a Great Hall, do you get the Great Hall's victory point?
If you are playing Gardens, do you count the Prince and it's target as cards in your deck to score?
If you are playing Vineyards, do you count the Prince and it's target as actions in your deck to score?

[soulnet]

You return Princes and whatever Princed cards to your deck before scoring, so yes, your Princed Great Hall would still give you 1 VP at the end, and both would count for Gardens and Vineyards. Same happens to Durations, cards set aside by Haven and Horse Traders, for instance, if they are still not in your deck at the end of the game.

[RD]

I was really trying to make "King of X" work for King's Court but somehow it just isn't the same. Funny, that. All I managed to do was get "King of Wishful Thinking" stuck in my head.

I think my favorite 4 cost would in fact be something like a simple Smithy or Envoy.
Starting every turn with so many cards makes everything much easier.

This has been my thinking too. If you can get big draw reliably and draw up your other Actions, it's as good as Princing all of them. That's got to be your plan A, right? If it isn't available, then something else.

Of course the cool thing about Prince (and maybe the time it has the biggest impact?) is the ability to play cards when you don't have an engine, but you work with what's there.

[pst]

This is probably a stupid question: What happens to the Prince at the end of the game?

Island explicitly says (of the cards set aside) "Return them to your deck at the end of the game".

Native Village has a similar explicit statements, about cards on the Native Village mat returning to the deck.

As I wrote in the rule thread it's in the basic rules of the game:

("Each player puts all his cards into his Deck ...".)
(I think the reason this basic rule sometimes is forgotten is that Island and Native Village say this explicitly as well.)

[A Drowned Kernel]

Totally different topic: this might be one of my favorite card arts.

[Awaclus]

Totally different topic: this might be one of my favorite card arts.

It's the same topic though. This is a totally different topic.

[GendoIkari]

It's funny, having read the whole thread, seeing people who post the same thing twice.

I set my post aside, and then post it again at the start of every turn.

[ConMan]

I think my favorite 4 cost would in fact be something like a simple Smithy or Envoy.
Starting every turn with so many cards makes everything much easier.

This has been my thinking too. If you can get big draw reliably and draw up your other Actions, it's as good as Princing all of them. That's got to be your plan A, right? If it isn't available, then something else.

Of course the cool thing about Prince (and maybe the time it has the biggest impact?) is the ability to play cards when you don't have an engine, but you work with what's there.

I think the other major case is where you Prince a +1 Action card to act as a guaranteed Village (or Prince a Village as a guaranteed Crossroads) to get an engine going.

[Awaclus]

I think the other major case is where you Prince a +1 Action card to act as a guaranteed Village (or Prince a Village as a guaranteed Crossroads) to get an engine going.

Or Prince a Crossroads. Which probably is a pretty good idea for other reasons too, now that I think of it.

[LastFootnote]

What you Prince often comes down to what it collides with. You really don't want to wait another shuffle to use it.

[dan11295]

Given the opportunity cost (has to be better to get this than Province) it is certainly better in a Colony Game. Question is what cards work best with it. Ignoring cards it doesn't work on, and cursers (harder to get to 8 in cursing games and they will likely be almost empty before you could Prince one anyways). my thoughts are:

Militia - Leave your opponent with a 3 card hand for the rest of the game if no defense is available
Monument - +2 coin +1 vp every turn.
Smithy - 8 Card hand every turn.

These are cards you often want anyways so you are likely to collide them with Prince, as opposed to buying a card just to Prince it. Although Prince of Thieves and Pirate Ship would be nasty in games with limited sources of virtual money.

Prince of Throne Room could actually be dangerous with trashers on the board. Any hand with Remake and a Province = bad if you don't have another action to Throne.

[brokoli]

Yeah, Prince of militia seems very painful.
Among the best prince-able cards, I like Oracle too. Spy effect + Draw every turn seems not bad at all. Or Prince of Courtyard. Interesting to note that Prince of menagerie is not that good, given that there are less chances to have only unique cards. But the most surprisingly powerful, beside Scheme, is probably Prince of herbalists.

[RD]

I think my favorite 4 cost would in fact be something like a simple Smithy or Envoy.
Starting every turn with so many cards makes everything much easier.

This has been my thinking too. If you can get big draw reliably and draw up your other Actions, it's as good as Princing all of them. That's got to be your plan A, right? If it isn't available, then something else.

Of course the cool thing about Prince (and maybe the time it has the biggest impact?) is the ability to play cards when you don't have an engine, but you work with what's there.

I think the other major case is where you Prince a +1 Action card to act as a guaranteed Village (or Prince a Village as a guaranteed Crossroads) to get an engine going.

Well, Princing an ineffectual +1 Action card like say a Great Hall is almost strictly inferior to the next alternative. I mean if you have Prince of Great Hall in a Smithy engine, your hope is to draw a Smithy and play it with your first Action, thus winding up in the same position as if you had Prince of Smithy. Same if you replace Smithy with a non-drawing terminal. Whichever card you'd want to spend your first real Action on, you might as well Prince that one, at least if you get the chance to (and are willing to go one turn without playing it).

I'm inclined to think the same goes for Prince of Village. If it's a full-fledged engine you prefer to Prince the Smithy and hope to draw the Village, rather than vice versa. Big hands raise the chance things will go according to plan, I think it's as simple as that. If it's a non-engine scenario where Prince of Village would play like a Walled Village, well 3 actions is probably overkill anyhow.

[Davio]

I'd rather start my turn with 8 cards and 1 Action than 6 cards and 2 actions in general. Most engines revolve about some kind of payload and seeing more cards helps to keep finding that payload.

Smithy and Village themselves do nothing, they enable other stuff and with 8 cards each turn it's easier to start your chain, finding more Villages and Smithies.

[theblankman]

Prince of Rebuild

Honestly, that would actually probably suck because you are missing a rebuild turn plus you paid $8 to buy a Prince, and how did you get $8 anyway if you're playing Rebuild.

Not to mention you need a cost-reducer to put Rebuild on Prince, so it's a three-card connection plus a delay, and the alternative (plain Rebuild + whatever) is very fast.  As much as we love edge cases around here, I dare say Prince of Rebuild might be too edgy even for us. 

[dondon151]

You would want to Prince a cantrip if your terminal draw costs more than $4. And most terminal draw cost more than $4.

[SirPeebles]

I sort of mentioned this previously -- and LastFootnote seems to have partially confirmed it -- but it seems that is will be difficult to really plan a deck around a specific Prince strategy, in the following sense.  If you want to King's Court a Mountebank, you get one of each and do what you can until they collide.  In the meantime though, you'll play the King's Court with Villages, Smithies, or whatever other card you happen to draw it with.  But with Prince you'd probably just play it immediately with whatever you can as soon as possible.  This seems to make the card extraordinarily swingy.  In fact, it may demand more flexibility from the players, since even mirror matches may suddenly diverge quickly when I Prince a Militia and you Prince a Smithy.

[werothegreat]

I think Prince will be good in engines where you want to draw your whole deck, but there's a lack of +Action - Prince can take care of certain terminals that you don't have any spare +Action to play every turn - like Merchant Guild or Goons or your terminal draw, if you so desire.

[SirPeebles]

Prince of Libraries is a wonderful counter to handsize attacks or in conjunction with Outpost.

[liopoil]

Prince of Libraries is a wonderful counter to handsize attacks or in conjunction with Outpost.

or watchtower or even JOAT if you don't have a cost reducer

[SirPeebles]

Prince of Libraries is a wonderful counter to handsize attacks or in conjunction with Outpost.

or watchtower or even JOAT if you don't have a cost reducer

Right, was just about to edit that post to Watchtower instead.  Keep forgetting the cost restriction.

[Grujah]

Harem Prince.

A true pimp?

It's not an action

[silverspawn]

Prince of Libraries is a wonderful counter to handsize attacks or in conjunction with Outpost.

or watchtower or even JOAT if you don't have a cost reducer

that's not very good though, watchtower likes small hands not big hands, that goes against the concept of prince. you will only draw 1 card, and even if you had to discard, you're only going to draw 3, which is just as much as with smithy. also, you can't use the reaction part of watchtower for anything.

[SirPeebles]

Prince of Libraries is a wonderful counter to handsize attacks or in conjunction with Outpost.

or watchtower or even JOAT if you don't have a cost reducer

that's not very good though, watchtower likes small hands not big hands, that goes against the concept of prince. you will only draw 1 card, and even if you had to discard, you're only going to draw 3, which is just as much as with smithy. also, you can't use the reaction part of watchtower for anything.

The concept of Prince is big hands?  I think that's your own mental construct.  Also, most kingdoms don't have Smithy.

[Awaclus]

The concept of Prince is big hands?  I think that's your own mental construct.  Also, most kingdoms don't have Smithy.

Non-small hands are, though. Unless you're attacked, Princing a Watchtower is as good as Princing a Ruined Library, since the card itself doesn't disappear from your hand.

[blueblimp]

The value of Prince is effectively two things:

• A sort of hybrid City/Alchemist: +2 actions +2 cards that you top-deck after each turn.
• Guaranteeing you get to play a certain card each turn, effectively top-decking it each turn.

Ignoring the "every turn" aspect, 1 is the effect of a one-empty-pile City, and 2 is the effect of a Scheme. Since effect 1 is strictly better than Laboratory, as a card alone it'd cost more than $5 even without the top-decking. On the other hand, we know that Scheme is strong but okay at $3.

Because of that, I argue that the real value of Prince comes from effect 1, which doesn't depend on which card you set aside with it. So as long as you pick a card to set aside that isn't outright bad to play each turn, it doesn't really matter which one you pick, since you still get effect 1.

[SirPeebles]

The concept of Prince is big hands?  I think that's your own mental construct.  Also, most kingdoms don't have Smithy.

Non-small hands are, though. Unless you're attacked, Princing a Watchtower is as good as Princing a Ruined Library, since the card itself doesn't disappear from your hand.

But the context in which we said it was good was precisely in response to discard attacks or with Outpost.  I've played plenty of games where I was bound to be hit with a Militia by at least one of my opponents every turn.  This is only more likely when they have access to Prince as well.

[SirPeebles]

The value of Prince is effectively two things:

• A sort of hybrid City/Alchemist: +2 actions +2 cards that you top-deck after each turn.
• Guaranteeing you get to play a certain card each turn, effectively top-decking it each turn.

Ignoring the "every turn" aspect, 1 is the effect of a one-empty-pile City, and 2 is the effect of a Scheme. Since effect 1 is strictly better than Laboratory, as a card alone it'd cost more than $5 even without the top-decking. On the other hand, we know that Scheme is strong but okay at $3.

Because of that, I argue that the real value of Prince comes from effect 1, which doesn't depend on which card you set aside with it. So as long as you pick a card to set aside that isn't outright bad to play each turn, it doesn't really matter which one you pick, since you still get effect 1.

It is so much more than scheme -- not only do you "top deck" the card, but you effectively make it a cantrip as well.  Starting each turn with a cantrip Militia is significantly better than starting each turn with a Militia.

[eHalcyon]

Prince of Watchtowers to counter the Prince of Militias.

[AJD]

The value of Prince is effectively two things:

• A sort of hybrid City/Alchemist: +2 actions +2 cards that you top-deck after each turn.
• Guaranteeing you get to play a certain card each turn, effectively top-decking it each turn.

Ignoring the "every turn" aspect, 1 is the effect of a one-empty-pile City, and 2 is the effect of a Scheme. Since effect 1 is strictly better than Laboratory, as a card alone it'd cost more than $5 even without the top-decking. On the other hand, we know that Scheme is strong but okay at $3.

Because of that, I argue that the real value of Prince comes from effect 1, which doesn't depend on which card you set aside with it. So as long as you pick a card to set aside that isn't outright bad to play each turn, it doesn't really matter which one you pick, since you still get effect 1.

It is so much more than scheme -- not only do you "top deck" the card, but you effectively make it a cantrip as well.  Starting each turn with a cantrip Militia is significantly better than starting each turn with a Militia.

That's the part (1) of Blueblimp's post.

[SirPeebles]

I think Prince and Outpost are going to really get along well. While you won't Prince the Outpost itself, the Outpost lets you squeeze significantly more value out of your Princes, which in turn provide the support Outpost needs to help you catch up after having diverted Province buys to Prince.

[Awaclus]

But the context in which we said it was good was precisely in response to discard attacks or with Outpost.  I've played plenty of games where I was bound to be hit with a Militia by at least one of my opponents every turn.  This is only more likely when they have access to Prince as well.

Well, in those cases it's very good, but still only as good as Smithy. It's incredibly good against Torturer, though.

[heron]

Prince is sort of like King's Court-Scheme.

[GendoIkari]

There's also a lot of boards that I think will be "too good" for Prince. Things like Scheme, Scrying Pool, or even just Village / Smithy engine with good trashing can build decks capable of reliably drawing itself every turn, and playing every action in the deck every turn. In these decks, Prince doesn't help at all (except increasing reliability; but that should only matter after heavy greening).

[ehunt]

Drawing another dead hand, desperately trying to line it up with your smithy while your opponent has just bought Province no. 3, sighing wistfully:

Some day my Prince will come.

[Davio]

I wonder if Prince will be good enough to open Death Cart for, or whether you're better off with general building.

I mean, I don't open Death Cart to get King's Court, but $8 is significantly harder than $7 (not linearly harder).

[DG]

Prince of coppersmiths could be a thing. The coppersmith gives you 8 coin hands and then the prince of coppersmiths lets you build a drawing deck for the rest of the game.

[LastFootnote]

Prince of coppersmiths could be a thing. The coppersmith gives you 8 coin hands and then the prince of coppersmiths lets you build a drawing deck for the rest of the game.

That's my favorite Prince so far.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10337.msg387793#msg387793

[enfynet]

I just used Coppersmith IRL to get an early Province for Tournament.

[silverspawn]

Prince of coppersmiths could be a thing. The coppersmith gives you 8 coin hands and then the prince of coppersmiths lets you build a drawing deck for the rest of the game.

orly

[SirPeebles]

I can tell that the analysis is maturing when we've moved from "Prince + X would be awesome!"  to "Prince + Y would be good, and Y helps you get Prince / pair them together"

[werothegreat]

So who's going to write the Prince strategy article?

[SirPeebles]

So how's going to write the Prince strategy article?

It's way too soon.

[how]

So how's going to write the Prince strategy article?

Yes, I will be writing it.

[GeoLib]

So how's going to write the Prince strategy article?

Yes, I will be writing it.

Solid first post for a good respect:post ratio

[sudgy]

So how's going to write the Prince strategy article?

Yes, I will be writing it.

Solid first post for a good respect:post ratio

I've seen a lot of first posts get a good respect:post ratio...

[pacovf]

The question is... how is really who?

It could be wero, afterall he was the one that set it up. But my money is on Peebles.

[Witherweaver]

/inbefore Who's on First jokes.

[sudgy]

The question is... how is really who?

It could be wero, afterall he was the one that set it up. But my money is on Peebles.

Theory can figure out.

[werothegreat]

The question is... how is really who?

It could be wero, afterall he was the one that set it up. But my money is on Peebles.

'Twasn't me.  If you'll notice, I fixed my typographical error.

[liopoil]

The question is... how is really who?

It could be wero, afterall he was the one that set it up. But my money is on Peebles.

'Twasn't me.  If you'll notice, I fixed my typographical error.

oh wow, I missed the typo and thought that the "how" username was a play on the Dominion strategy articles written by the website ehow: http://www.ehow.com/how_4671616_use-bureaucrat-dominion.html

[Axxle]

was it eHowcylon?

[WalrusMcFishSr]

Edge case-y question (apologies if this has already been covered):

Suppose I Prince a Mining Village. Next turn, Prince plays it and I choose to trash it for cash. Then I Rogue it out of the trash, draw it back somehow, and play it again, all on the same turn. Does that mean that it will still be set aside for Prince next turn? If so, suppose I have multiple Mining Villages in my deck--how am I to determine which one was the Princely one, or would any old Mining Village do?

[LastFootnote]

Edge case-y question (apologies if this has already been covered):

Suppose I Prince a Mining Village. Next turn, Prince plays it and I choose to trash it for cash. Then I Rogue it out of the trash, draw it back somehow, and play it again, all on the same turn. Does that mean that it will still be set aside for Prince next turn? If so, suppose I have multiple Mining Villages in my deck--how am I to determine which one was the Princely one, or would any old Mining Village do?

Donald actually answered this one for me. When you trash the Mining Village, you lose track. So even if you put it back in play on the same turn, Prince stops setting it aside and playing it.

[Lord Humanton]

Barring discard attacks and trash for benefit or multi-Prince shenanigans, princing a Scheme is strictly better than princing a Smithy because you can always at least Scheme the Smithy and play it as your first action each turn, which is functionally equivalent to princing a Smithy, but you can also choose to play something else first (say, Fishing Village - Watchtower) or scheme another card this turn. Hence a princed Scheme gives you greater flexibility.

I disagree that it's strictly better, because you're essentially sacrificing the Scheme card. In other words, if I'm using Prince of Schemes to play Smithy as my first action each turn, that takes up the Prince, Scheme, and Smithy cards from my deck to do it; whereas if I'm using Prince of Smithy, I still have the Scheme milling around in my deck (which is now fast-cycling) to use additionally on something else.

That said, Prince of Scheme is awesome when you have nice $5+ cards.

[Beyond Awesome]

Barring discard attacks and trash for benefit or multi-Prince shenanigans, princing a Scheme is strictly better than princing a Smithy because you can always at least Scheme the Smithy and play it as your first action each turn, which is functionally equivalent to princing a Smithy, but you can also choose to play something else first (say, Fishing Village - Watchtower) or scheme another card this turn. Hence a princed Scheme gives you greater flexibility.

I disagree that it's strictly better, because you're essentially sacrificing the Scheme card. In other words, if I'm using Prince of Schemes to play Smithy as my first action each turn, that takes up the Prince, Scheme, and Smithy cards from my deck to do it; whereas if I'm using Prince of Smithy, I still have the Scheme milling around in my deck (which is now fast-cycling) to use additionally on something else.

That said, Prince of Scheme is awesome when you have nice $5+ cards.

Are you still working for Goko? If so, are you guys working on implementing this card soon?

[Lord Humanton]

Barring discard attacks and trash for benefit or multi-Prince shenanigans, princing a Scheme is strictly better than princing a Smithy because you can always at least Scheme the Smithy and play it as your first action each turn, which is functionally equivalent to princing a Smithy, but you can also choose to play something else first (say, Fishing Village - Watchtower) or scheme another card this turn. Hence a princed Scheme gives you greater flexibility.

I disagree that it's strictly better, because you're essentially sacrificing the Scheme card. In other words, if I'm using Prince of Schemes to play Smithy as my first action each turn, that takes up the Prince, Scheme, and Smithy cards from my deck to do it; whereas if I'm using Prince of Smithy, I still have the Scheme milling around in my deck (which is now fast-cycling) to use additionally on something else.

That said, Prince of Scheme is awesome when you have nice $5+ cards.

Are you still working for Goko? If so, are you guys working on implementing this card soon?

Oh, my profile! No, no, I left Goko last year. But Goko isn't implementing anything for Dominion Online anymore. Making Fun took over hosting it. I've joined Making Fun, because I love Dominion. I'm the only one though: none of the other 30 or so people who were at Goko at one time are involved in Dominion Online now. It's an entirely new team. The code is holding us back is the code :-) but we'll have an announcement on that shortly.

Anyway, one of the things I did is write the AI, so yes, I'm just starting to figure out how Prince should play in order to implement it in the AI. Which cards to play is always interesting... here is a start:

Awful: Prince (duh!), Tactician (>$4), duration cards, Island, a knight (unless you got it from the Black Market deck instead of a knights pile), Feast/Deathcart/other self-trashing cards other than Hermit
Bad because really dangerous: Remake, Rats
Pretty bad because dangerous: Bishop & other forced trashing cards
Might be bad due to forced play of actions: Throne Room
Suboptimal: Shanty Town, Menagerie, Treasury(>$4)/Walled Village, Fortress, Watchtower/Library/JoaT (unless there's a discard attack)
Good: everything else -- Monument, Smithy, Militia, Scheme, etc.
Awesome: Prizes

[KingZog3]

Barring discard attacks and trash for benefit or multi-Prince shenanigans, princing a Scheme is strictly better than princing a Smithy because you can always at least Scheme the Smithy and play it as your first action each turn, which is functionally equivalent to princing a Smithy, but you can also choose to play something else first (say, Fishing Village - Watchtower) or scheme another card this turn. Hence a princed Scheme gives you greater flexibility.

I disagree that it's strictly better, because you're essentially sacrificing the Scheme card. In other words, if I'm using Prince of Schemes to play Smithy as my first action each turn, that takes up the Prince, Scheme, and Smithy cards from my deck to do it; whereas if I'm using Prince of Smithy, I still have the Scheme milling around in my deck (which is now fast-cycling) to use additionally on something else.

That said, Prince of Scheme is awesome when you have nice $5+ cards.

Are you still working for Goko? If so, are you guys working on implementing this card soon?

Oh, my profile! No, no, I left Goko last year. But Goko isn't implementing anything for Dominion Online anymore. Making Fun took over hosting it. I've joined Making Fun, because I love Dominion. I'm the only one though: none of the other 30 or so people who were at Goko at one time are involved in Dominion Online now. It's an entirely new team. The code is holding us back is the code :-) but we'll have an announcement on that shortly.

Anyway, one of the things I did is write the AI, so yes, I'm just starting to figure out how Prince should play in order to implement it in the AI. Which cards to play is always interesting... here is a start:

Awful: Prince (duh!), Tactician, duration cards, Island, a knight (unless you got it from the Black Market deck instead of a knights pile), Feast/Deathcart/other self-trashing cards other than Hermit
Bad because really dangerous: Remake, Rats
Pretty bad because dangerous: Bishop & other forced trashing cards
Might be bad due to forced play of actions: Throne Room
Suboptimal: Shanty Town, Menagerie, Watchtower/Library/JoaT (unless there's a discard attack)
Good: everything else -- Monument, Smithy, Militia, Scheme, etc.
Awesome: Prizes

I'd imagine the forced Throne Room play is really minor. It essentially never happens that you're forced into something you don't want to play because you Throned a Throne Room. KC and TR go in the good category for sure.

[Lord Humanton]

Might be bad due to forced play of actions: Throne Room

I'd imagine the forced Throne Room play is really minor. It essentially never happens that you're forced into something you don't want to play because you Throned a Throne Room.

That's because you have a choice whether or not to play the first Throne Room. But not so after you've chosen a Prince of Throne Rooms. You have to play it regardless, so consider the value of a Prince of Throne Rooms in a deck with a Rats, Remake, etc... Sounds scarier than a Golem.

[Donald X.]

Awful: Prince (duh!), Tactician (>$4), duration cards, Island, a knight (unless you got it from the Black Market deck instead of a knights pile), Feast/Deathcart/other self-trashing cards other than Hermit
Bad because really dangerous: Remake, Rats
Pretty bad because dangerous: Bishop & other forced trashing cards
Might be bad due to forced play of actions: Throne Room
Suboptimal: Shanty Town, Menagerie, Treasury(>$4)/Walled Village, Fortress, Watchtower/Library/JoaT (unless there's a discard attack)
Good: everything else -- Monument, Smithy, Militia, Scheme, etc.
Awesome: Prizes

If you draw Prince with only one possible "suboptimal" target, odds are you want to Prince that card. A minor bonus blows up. Prince of Pearl Divers, that's an extra card and action every turn - it's like starting every turn by playing a Lab and a Village (and hey you get to do the Pearl Diver thing). So I mean. Prince of Fortresses? Go for it. Prince of Watchtowers, that's not what you wanted, but drawing an extra card every turn is a lot better than waiting to draw Prince again and see if you are luckier next time. Okay Prince of Jacks is not good except under attacks, but Prince of Menageries, that's pretty sweet. Prince of Treasuries has no issues when it's possible, you don't get to put it on your deck and hey do not wish to either.

For that matter, one-shots are bad since they don't work, but if you draw Prince with Death Cart and no other targets, man, Prince the Death Cart and hope you keep drawing actions to feed it. When it's not worth it, let it go. You only need it for a few turns to make out.

Forced trashing is sometimes bad, but not Bishop, that's a deck, the Prince of Bishops is making you VP every turn.

Prince of Thrones will usually be great, but obv. you might have a deck where it was too scary. It's not a question of if you'll draw that Remake; it's when, and what with. Well, the game could end before you draw it.

The problem with Prince of Ruined Libraries is that your deck probably has more Ruins and so that extra card is not so hot. I might pass there. Prince of Abandoned Mines I would at least consider, how big is my deck anyway, maybe big enough that I should just live with this.

Sea Hag is a poor target if the Curses are low, and since you have a Sea Hag, they probably are.

[SCSN]

Barring discard attacks and trash for benefit or multi-Prince shenanigans, princing a Scheme is strictly better than princing a Smithy because you can always at least Scheme the Smithy and play it as your first action each turn, which is functionally equivalent to princing a Smithy, but you can also choose to play something else first (say, Fishing Village - Watchtower) or scheme another card this turn. Hence a princed Scheme gives you greater flexibility.

I disagree that it's strictly better, because you're essentially sacrificing the Scheme card. In other words, if I'm using Prince of Schemes to play Smithy as my first action each turn, that takes up the Prince, Scheme, and Smithy cards from my deck to do it; whereas if I'm using Prince of Smithy, I still have the Scheme milling around in my deck (which is now fast-cycling) to use additionally on something else.

That said, Prince of Scheme is awesome when you have nice $5+ cards.

You're right that it just isn't "strictly better", I shouldn't have used that phrase, just imagine it being replaced by "generally preferable".

I'm happy, though, that my sloppiness got you to confirm that you guys are working on implementing Prince

I've joined Making Fun, because I love Dominion. I'm the only one though: none of the other 30 or so people who were at Goko at one time are involved in Dominion Online now. It's an entirely new team. The code is holding us back is the code :-) but we'll have an announcement on that shortly.

That's good to hear. People here have a lot of questions about where, if anywhere, Dominion Online is going, if you guys are still making any effort improving the product (which shouldn't be too hard—commenting out some random code will likely be an improvement), whether the stability issues will be addressed on a fundamental enough level, whether the messy hell that constitutes your codebase is going to be redesigned from scratch, etc.

It would be great if you could shed some light on any of this. Many of us—me included—have grown pretty cynical about the Dominion Online implementation, which often is more fun to bash than it is to use, but I'd be the first to applaud any genuine effort to patch up the sinking ship and take it to the nearest island for a rigorous overhaul.

[thespaceinvader]

But the context in which we said it was good was precisely in response to discard attacks or with Outpost.  I've played plenty of games where I was bound to be hit with a Militia by at least one of my opponents every turn.  This is only more likely when they have access to Prince as well.

Well, in those cases it's very good, but still only as good as Smithy. It's incredibly good against Torturer, though.

Interestingly, prince of torturers is itself a non-awful defence against torturers...

[enfynet]

[...]
That said, Prince of Scheme is awesome when you have nice $5+ cards.

And the percentage of games with good 5-cost cards and no cost reducer is pretty significant. Although, Scheme is only 1 card; Bridge and Highway (and Tournament-Princess) are more likely to show up based on raw numbers.

[liopoil]

[...]
That said, Prince of Scheme is awesome when you have nice $5+ cards.

And the percentage of games with good 5-cost cards and no cost reducer is pretty significant. Although, Scheme is only 1 card; Bridge and Highway (and Tournament-Princess) are more likely to show up based on raw numbers.

Connecting Prince and Scheme is a lot easier than connecting prince, highway/bridge, and a good 5 cost. Also with scheme you get to choose which card you get the prince effect from each turn, if there are multiple good 5-costs. Prince of schemes is almost a prince of BoM-costing-however-much-you-want

[werothegreat]

Sea Hag is a poor target if the Curses are low, and since you have a Sea Hag, they probably are.

But if *somehow* you manage to get to $8 with ~5 Curses left, playing Sea Hag every turn rather than every shuffle sounds baller.  Probably much easier to rig with Scheme, though.

[Lord Humanton]

Awful: Prince (duh!), Tactician (>$4), duration cards, Island, a knight (unless you got it from the Black Market deck instead of a knights pile), Feast/Deathcart/other self-trashing cards other than Hermit
Bad because really dangerous: Remake, Rats
Pretty bad because dangerous: Bishop & other forced trashing cards
Might be bad due to forced play of actions: Throne Room
Suboptimal: Shanty Town, Menagerie, Treasury(>$4)/Walled Village, Fortress, Watchtower/Library/JoaT (unless there's a discard attack)
Good: everything else -- Monument, Smithy, Militia, Scheme, etc.
Awesome: Prizes

If you draw Prince with only one possible "suboptimal" target, odds are you want to Prince that card. A minor bonus blows up. Prince of Pearl Divers, that's an extra card and action every turn - it's like starting every turn by playing a Lab and a Village (and hey you get to do the Pearl Diver thing). So I mean. Prince of Fortresses? Go for it. Prince of Watchtowers, that's not what you wanted, but drawing an extra card every turn is a lot better than waiting to draw Prince again and see if you are luckier next time. Okay Prince of Jacks is not good except under attacks, but Prince of Menageries, that's pretty sweet. Prince of Treasuries has no issues when it's possible, you don't get to put it on your deck and hey do not wish to either.

For that matter, one-shots are bad since they don't work, but if you draw Prince with Death Cart and no other targets, man, Prince the Death Cart and hope you keep drawing actions to feed it. When it's not worth it, let it go. You only need it for a few turns to make out.

Forced trashing is sometimes bad, but not Bishop, that's a deck, the Prince of Bishops is making you VP every turn.

Prince of Thrones will usually be great, but obv. you might have a deck where it was too scary. It's not a question of if you'll draw that Remake; it's when, and what with. Well, the game could end before you draw it.

The problem with Prince of Ruined Libraries is that your deck probably has more Ruins and so that extra card is not so hot. I might pass there. Prince of Abandoned Mines I would at least consider, how big is my deck anyway, maybe big enough that I should just live with this.

Sea Hag is a poor target if the Curses are low, and since you have a Sea Hag, they probably are.

By suboptimal I meant that when Prince'd you're not getting the full value of the card, so maybe a $4 card is acting like a $3. (Reaction/Bane cards would be in this category too.) What you said indicates to me that if your Prince is matched up with a $3 card, it's likely you'd want to Prince it immediately than wait around for a $4 card. That makes complete sense to me. Even if it were guaranteed you'd match up your Prince with a better card next time, that's N hands until your Prince comes around again, so that's N hands you won't get be getting the benefit. Normal opportunity costs in Dominion are not this high! (Normally you pass on an opportunity 1 time while it cycles, not N.)

All the rest makes sense also, except that I need to test Bishop OTB to convince myself of that. From when you and I tried out the forced trashing at the start of every turn, I know that this aspect can be a blessing and a curse (but always fun). There is the victory token aspect, but my worry is being forced into a situation where I'm gaining VP every turn trashing small treasures, while my opponent is buying Colonies. Maybe the thing that saves me from this is that by the time I have a Prince, I should also have a large enough deck... Anyway, I've arranged to start trying it out OTB with somebody today, and I'm looking forward to that!

[Asper]

Awful: Prince (duh!), Tactician (>$4), duration cards, Island, a knight (unless you got it from the Black Market deck instead of a knights pile), Feast/Deathcart/other self-trashing cards other than Hermit

Took me some time to realize why it was so bad with durations - you don't discard them the turn they are played, and because of that, don't set them aside that turn, which is why they will not be played again. Ah, those wacky durations...

[popsofctown]

Awful: Prince (duh!), Tactician (>$4), duration cards, Island, a knight (unless you got it from the Black Market deck instead of a knights pile), Feast/Deathcart/other self-trashing cards other than Hermit

Took me some time to realize why it was so bad with durations - you don't discard them the turn they are played, and because of that, don't set them aside that turn, which is why they will not be played again. Ah, those wacky durations...

They wouldn't be that great even if they worked properly, though, since their basic effect is generally "half" as good as a normal card.  Prince of Wishing Wells is better than Prince of Caravans, etc.

[Lord Humanton]

That's good to hear. People here have a lot of questions about where, if anywhere, Dominion Online is going, if you guys are still making any effort improving the product (which shouldn't be too hard—commenting out some random code will likely be an improvement), whether the stability issues will be addressed on a fundamental enough level, whether the messy hell that constitutes your codebase is going to be redesigned from scratch, etc.

It would be great if you could shed some light on any of this. Many of us—me included—have grown pretty cynical about the Dominion Online implementation, which often is more fun to bash than it is to use, but I'd be the first to applaud any genuine effort to patch up the sinking ship and take it to the nearest island for a rigorous overhaul.

+1 addressing on a fundamental enough level, redesigning, rigorous overhaul

The amusing thing about the bashing has been that Dominion Online's backend code is actually pretty well-written; rather, it's that 95% of this code (in fact, the entire core platform layer and db) has nothing at all to do with Dominion. And to understand that, you'd have to understand that Goko wasn't founded to be a game developer or even a game publisher...

I'll respond more next week, including answering about Making Fun's plans, but we need to clear through Rio Grande first.

[Witherweaver]

What happens if you play Prince of Outposts on your Outpost turn?

Wasn't it decided that the second outpost would not stay out, since you can determine it doesn't have an effect?  I guess it would be discarded, set aside with Prince, then played again on your next turn, and then fail to be set aside on that turn.

[KingZog3]

Wait, so what happens if the duration doesn't discard? Is it just left in limbo? Prince doesn't keep playing it, but it's not discarded. Would it just play one more time, then discard as normal leaving the Prince out?

[werothegreat]

And to understand that, you'd have to understand that Goko wasn't founded to be a game developer or even a game publisher...

I'll respond more next week, including answering about Making Fun's plans, but we need to clear through Rio Grande first.

So, what, it was a Ponzi Scheme?

[Witherweaver]

Wait, so what happens if the duration doesn't discard? Is it just left in limbo? Prince doesn't keep playing it, but it's not discarded. Would it just play one more time, then discard as normal leaving the Prince out?

Yes, it's not set aside, so it plays like normal.  Prince is set aside and just chills.

[Davio]

I think Goko's has decent networking code at its core and I actually think the Dominion implementation isn't that terrible. There, I said it.

Bashing Goko is fun, but the game is at least decently playable. That's not to say it doesn't have issues, but they are mainly change requests instead of bug fixes.

Maybe I've grown accustomed to lesser standards, but Goko just doesn't bug me as much as it did. Of course, Dominion Salvager has something to do with that as well.

[Witherweaver]

I think Goko's has decent networking code at its core and I actually think the Dominion implementation isn't that terrible. There, I said it.

Bashing Goko is fun, but the game is at least decently playable. That's not to say it doesn't have issues, but they are mainly change requests instead of bug fixes.

Maybe I've grown accustomed to lesser standards, but Goko just doesn't bug me as much as it did. Of course, Dominion Salvager has something to do with that as well.

I still have very bad lag, consistently.

[Voltaire]

I think Goko's has decent networking code at its core and I actually think the Dominion implementation isn't that terrible. There, I said it.

Bashing Goko is fun, but the game is at least decently playable. That's not to say it doesn't have issues, but they are mainly change requests instead of bug fixes.

Maybe I've grown accustomed to lesser standards, but Goko just doesn't bug me as much as it did. Of course, Dominion Salvager has something to do with that as well.

Goko is playable because of Salvager.

[werothegreat]

I think Goko's has decent networking code at its core and I actually think the Dominion implementation isn't that terrible. There, I said it.

Bashing Goko is fun, but the game is at least decently playable. That's not to say it doesn't have issues, but they are mainly change requests instead of bug fixes.

Maybe I've grown accustomed to lesser standards, but Goko just doesn't bug me as much as it did. Of course, Dominion Salvager has something to do with that as well.

Goko is playable because of Salvager.

I disagree.  When actually playing a game, I'm perfectly fine with Goko's implementation, and prefer over what isotropic was.  My problems with Goko (and I guess now Making Fun) is things like room sizes, loading times, lags, structure of Adventures, etc.

Also, I don't think I'll ever stop calling it Goko.  Just something about the name that "Making Fun" really just doesn't have.

[silverspawn]

iso had a blacklist, so i've heard, and goko doesn't. end of story for me.

[liopoil]

iso had a blacklist, so i've heard, and goko doesn't. end of story for me.

salvager sort of does.

[Witherweaver]

I think Goko's has decent networking code at its core and I actually think the Dominion implementation isn't that terrible. There, I said it.

Bashing Goko is fun, but the game is at least decently playable. That's not to say it doesn't have issues, but they are mainly change requests instead of bug fixes.

Maybe I've grown accustomed to lesser standards, but Goko just doesn't bug me as much as it did. Of course, Dominion Salvager has something to do with that as well.

Goko is playable because of Salvager.

I disagree.  When actually playing a game, I'm perfectly fine with Goko's implementation, and prefer over what isotropic was.  My problems with Goko (and I guess now Making Fun) is things like room sizes, loading times, lags, structure of Adventures, etc.

Also, I don't think I'll ever stop calling it Goko.  Just something about the name that "Making Fun" really just doesn't have.

Would you like some making fun BERSERKER

[sudgy]

Also, I don't think I'll ever stop calling it Goko.  Just something about the name that "Making Fun" really just doesn't have.

Actually, we all have been calling it Making Fun since before they took over, because we were making fun of Goko.

[Beyond Awesome]

I think Goko's has decent networking code at its core and I actually think the Dominion implementation isn't that terrible. There, I said it.

Bashing Goko is fun, but the game is at least decently playable. That's not to say it doesn't have issues, but they are mainly change requests instead of bug fixes.

Maybe I've grown accustomed to lesser standards, but Goko just doesn't bug me as much as it did. Of course, Dominion Salvager has something to do with that as well.

If it weren't for Salvager, Dominion Online would be utter crap and half of us would have probably stopped being on these boards by now.

[eHalcyon]

I think Goko's has decent networking code at its core and I actually think the Dominion implementation isn't that terrible. There, I said it.

Bashing Goko is fun, but the game is at least decently playable. That's not to say it doesn't have issues, but they are mainly change requests instead of bug fixes.

Maybe I've grown accustomed to lesser standards, but Goko just doesn't bug me as much as it did. Of course, Dominion Salvager has something to do with that as well.

If it weren't for Salvager, Dominion Online would be utter crap and half of us would have probably stopped being on these boards by now.

Why would people suddenly stop playing Mafia just because Dominion Online was unsalvaged?

[Polk5440]

And to understand that, you'd have to understand that Goko wasn't founded to be a game developer or even a game publisher...

I'll respond more next week, including answering about Making Fun's plans, but we need to clear through Rio Grande first.

So, what, it was a Ponzi Scheme?

An HTML5 game "platform" if I remember correctly.

Lord Humanton, glad to hear there is still work being done.

[dondon151]

Prince of HT is pretty awful unless you have something to combo it with consistently.

[Davio]

Finally, Prince of Pirate Ships!

Although, not very realistic.

[loppo]

Finally, Prince of Pirate Ships!

Although, not very realistic.

Hmm, coming home from the Austrian Nationals, where there was a game with pirate ship, i think Prince of pirate ship is vialble in 3-player and a real beast in 4-player games.

[Kirian]

I feel like Prince of Hamlets would be surprisingly good.

[soulnet]

I feel like Prince of Hamlets would be surprisingly good.

It could be, or it could not be. That is the question.

[Witherweaver]

I feel like Prince of Hamlets would be surprisingly good.

It could be, or it could not be. That is the question.

*Clap*

[Kirian]

I feel like Prince of Hamlets would be surprisingly good.

It could be, or it could not be. That is the question.

Very well played indeed, sir.

[pacovf]

Although that specific play on words had already been done here:

Has anyone ever met "Prince Hamlet"?

pacovf, digging up original version of jokes since yesterday.

[Axxle]

Although that specific play on words had already been done here:

Has anyone ever met "Prince Hamlet"?

pacovf, digging up original version of jokes since yesterday.

What's past is prologue.

[cluckyb]

Awful: Prince (duh!), Tactician (>$4), duration cards, Island, a knight (unless you got it from the Black Market deck instead of a knights pile), Feast/Deathcart/other self-trashing cards other than Hermit
Bad because really dangerous: Remake, Rats
Pretty bad because dangerous: Bishop & other forced trashing cards
Might be bad due to forced play of actions: Throne Room
Suboptimal: Shanty Town, Menagerie, Treasury(>$4)/Walled Village, Fortress, Watchtower/Library/JoaT (unless there's a discard attack)
Good: everything else -- Monument, Smithy, Militia, Scheme, etc.
Awesome: Prizes

Why is Island in the awful category? The Island sets itself aside, but that is good enough for the Prince to let you play it again. Its no more dangerous than Rats or Remake (though doesn't have any benefit), but the redeeming factor is how Prince + Island + G + G + S (while hard to setup) is nice golden deck that becomes attack resistant once you've Prince'd the island.

Prince of Tacticians is so hilariously awful though it deserves its own category. There is no way out of it once you've started. Everything else bad is either dangerous or wasteful. Tactician... you don't even get the +5 cards +1 buy before discarding your hand again, do you?

[sudgy]

Awful: Prince (duh!), Tactician (>$4), duration cards, Island, a knight (unless you got it from the Black Market deck instead of a knights pile), Feast/Deathcart/other self-trashing cards other than Hermit
Bad because really dangerous: Remake, Rats
Pretty bad because dangerous: Bishop & other forced trashing cards
Might be bad due to forced play of actions: Throne Room
Suboptimal: Shanty Town, Menagerie, Treasury(>$4)/Walled Village, Fortress, Watchtower/Library/JoaT (unless there's a discard attack)
Good: everything else -- Monument, Smithy, Militia, Scheme, etc.
Awesome: Prizes

Why is Island in the awful category? The Island sets itself aside, but that is good enough for the Prince to let you play it again. Its no more dangerous than Rats or Remake (though doesn't have any benefit), but the redeeming factor is how Prince + Island + G + G + S (while hard to setup) is nice golden deck that becomes attack resistant once you've Prince'd the island.

Prince of Tacticians is so hilariously awful though it deserves its own category. There is no way out of it once you've started. Everything else bad is either dangerous or wasteful. Tactician... you don't even get the +5 cards +1 buy before discarding your hand again, do you?

Both Island and Tactitian fail to be set aside with Prince after the first play, so they only each get used once.

[SirPeebles]

Awful: Prince (duh!), Tactician (>$4), duration cards, Island, a knight (unless you got it from the Black Market deck instead of a knights pile), Feast/Deathcart/other self-trashing cards other than Hermit
Bad because really dangerous: Remake, Rats
Pretty bad because dangerous: Bishop & other forced trashing cards
Might be bad due to forced play of actions: Throne Room
Suboptimal: Shanty Town, Menagerie, Treasury(>$4)/Walled Village, Fortress, Watchtower/Library/JoaT (unless there's a discard attack)
Good: everything else -- Monument, Smithy, Militia, Scheme, etc.
Awesome: Prizes

Why is Island in the awful category? The Island sets itself aside, but that is good enough for the Prince to let you play it again. Its no more dangerous than Rats or Remake (though doesn't have any benefit), but the redeeming factor is how Prince + Island + G + G + S (while hard to setup) is nice golden deck that becomes attack resistant once you've Prince'd the island.

Prince of Tacticians is so hilariously awful though it deserves its own category. There is no way out of it once you've started. Everything else bad is either dangerous or wasteful. Tactician... you don't even get the +5 cards +1 buy before discarding your hand again, do you?

Both Island and Tactitian fail to be set aside with Prince after the first play, so they only each get used once.

Yeah, the wording is a bit tricky.  It isn't enough to be set aside, the card has to not fail to be set aside, since it is a failure which triggers the parenthetical statement.

[DG]

I think we can have some good edge case thinking on when you would want to play prince with island.

[sudgy]

I think we can have some good edge case thinking on when you would want to play prince with island.

You don't want the Prince in your deck for some reason, so you play it on the island.

[shark_bait]

Alright, it appears that I'm 14 pages late to this party.  But that's okay I hope some people value my opinion and I apologize if I repeat anything that's been said about this card already.

Initial Thoughts - Wow, $8 is a hefty price tag.  A one-shot that eats an action from your deck allowing you to play said card at the start of every turn.  I can see why it gets this expensive. 

The penalty for having Prince miss an action is devastating.  Depending on how large your deck is it could be some 3-5 turns before you get to it again.  In which those turns could all have been vastly improved.

The $4-cost limitation puts a clamp down on all of the high powered $5-cost cards.  Obviously Bridge, Princess and Highway circumvent this but in order to do that you need cost reducer, Prince and said $5-cost card.  While extremely powerful, this will be difficult to pull off and both players can go for it so I see no issues with balance.

In regards to cards played, a cantrip is essentially +2 Actions, +2 Cards (and whatever other bonus it had).  Villages become akin to +3 Actions, +2 Cards.  Draw is similar to +1 Action, +X Cards.  Smithy would be like playing 3 Labs at the start of your turn.  Attacks seem slightly less desirable as they have much less benefit to your own turn.  Cursing attacks would most likely already have depleted Curses so they are weak.  Militia by far seems to be the strongest $4 or less attack to hit.

This is clearly both an engine card and slog card.  In an engine, the high opportunity cost warrants large payload.  Especially because Prince does nothing to give it's own payload.  That needs to come from other cards.  What you want Prince to do for your engine is to give you the power to get going.  Starting each hand with either a Village or Smithy will do miles for your engine reliability.

The difference between this card and the other high cost engine powerhouse (KC) is that KC promotes explosiveness whereas Prince gives powerful reliability.  KC can overcome huge deficits by making huge trees of actions.  Prince does not have that ability.  Instead of giving you a few humongous turns Prince will give consistently better hands.  Prince needs to insure that engines start out with a good hand that is capable of better hands.

While KC will attempt to end the game all at once a Prince player wants to extend the game.  If you have an advantage on Prince'd actions then each extra turn of the game will give the better Prince player an advantage.  So while KC usually ends in a few explosive turns, Prince will do better with extending the game via alt-VP.  Colonies help this as do other things like Fairgrounds, SR, Gardens, etc... It's in this paradox where I believe Prince will shine best.  You initially build up a powerful deck but then extend the game to extend Prince's benefit to your deck.

[Beyond Awesome]

It keeps getting mentioned that princing a curser is a bad idea, which it is, but Followers would by far the exception to the rule. Man, that would hurt. Of course, if you get Followers on a non-cursing board, chances are your opponent has already resigned.

[silverspawn]

It keeps getting mentioned that princing a curser is a bad idea, which it is, but Followers would by far the exception to the rule. Man, that would hurt. Of course, if you get Followers on a non-cursing board, chances are your opponent has already resigned.

yea followers is good because it will empty 2 piles all by its own, and make 2 points each turn, so all you have to do is emtpy a third pile and keep a VP lead, both of which is likely to be doable

[eHalcyon]

It keeps getting mentioned that princing a curser is a bad idea, which it is, but Followers would by far the exception to the rule. Man, that would hurt. Of course, if you get Followers on a non-cursing board, chances are your opponent has already resigned.

The thing with this is that Followers also means Tournament, and Tournament means you probably want to be using your $8 hands for Province rather than Prince.  I expect Tournament games will move too fast for Prince to be worthwhile, most of the time.

[cluckyb]

Awful: Prince (duh!), Tactician (>$4), duration cards, Island, a knight (unless you got it from the Black Market deck instead of a knights pile), Feast/Deathcart/other self-trashing cards other than Hermit
Bad because really dangerous: Remake, Rats
Pretty bad because dangerous: Bishop & other forced trashing cards
Might be bad due to forced play of actions: Throne Room
Suboptimal: Shanty Town, Menagerie, Treasury(>$4)/Walled Village, Fortress, Watchtower/Library/JoaT (unless there's a discard attack)
Good: everything else -- Monument, Smithy, Militia, Scheme, etc.
Awesome: Prizes

Why is Island in the awful category? The Island sets itself aside, but that is good enough for the Prince to let you play it again. Its no more dangerous than Rats or Remake (though doesn't have any benefit), but the redeeming factor is how Prince + Island + G + G + S (while hard to setup) is nice golden deck that becomes attack resistant once you've Prince'd the island.

Prince of Tacticians is so hilariously awful though it deserves its own category. There is no way out of it once you've started. Everything else bad is either dangerous or wasteful. Tactician... you don't even get the +5 cards +1 buy before discarding your hand again, do you?

Both Island and Tactitian fail to be set aside with Prince after the first play, so they only each get used once.

Yeah, the wording is a bit tricky.  It isn't enough to be set aside, the card has to not fail to be set aside, since it is a failure which triggers the parenthetical statement.

I'm not sure I follow for Island. Does "fail to set aside" mean "You did not set it aside" or "You tried to set it aside but couldn't due to lose track"?
I think its the first, otherwise this would work with one shots which it clearly doesn't. Regardless, I both succeed in setting island aside during the turn I played it and also never fail setting island aside so either way the Prince of Island's survives.

Turn 0: I play Prince, Set aside Island.

Turn 1: I play Island. I set aside Island and another card per the text of the Island.

I cleanup. Island is set aside so its not discarded. "fail to set it aside on a turn you play it" is false, so I get to keep playing Island.

Turn 2-N: Repeat

[sudgy]

Awful: Prince (duh!), Tactician (>$4), duration cards, Island, a knight (unless you got it from the Black Market deck instead of a knights pile), Feast/Deathcart/other self-trashing cards other than Hermit
Bad because really dangerous: Remake, Rats
Pretty bad because dangerous: Bishop & other forced trashing cards
Might be bad due to forced play of actions: Throne Room
Suboptimal: Shanty Town, Menagerie, Treasury(>$4)/Walled Village, Fortress, Watchtower/Library/JoaT (unless there's a discard attack)
Good: everything else -- Monument, Smithy, Militia, Scheme, etc.
Awesome: Prizes

Why is Island in the awful category? The Island sets itself aside, but that is good enough for the Prince to let you play it again. Its no more dangerous than Rats or Remake (though doesn't have any benefit), but the redeeming factor is how Prince + Island + G + G + S (while hard to setup) is nice golden deck that becomes attack resistant once you've Prince'd the island.

Prince of Tacticians is so hilariously awful though it deserves its own category. There is no way out of it once you've started. Everything else bad is either dangerous or wasteful. Tactician... you don't even get the +5 cards +1 buy before discarding your hand again, do you?

Both Island and Tactitian fail to be set aside with Prince after the first play, so they only each get used once.

Yeah, the wording is a bit tricky.  It isn't enough to be set aside, the card has to not fail to be set aside, since it is a failure which triggers the parenthetical statement.

I'm not sure I follow for Island. Does "fail to set aside" mean "You did not set it aside" or "You tried to set it aside but couldn't due to lose track"?
I think its the first, otherwise this would work with one shots which it clearly doesn't. Regardless, I both succeed in setting island aside during the turn I played it and also never fail setting island aside so either way the Prince of Island's survives.

Turn 0: I play Prince, Set aside Island.

Turn 1: I play Island. I set aside Island and another card per the text of the Island.

I cleanup. Island is set aside so its not discarded. "fail to set it aside on a turn you play it" is false, so I get to keep playing Island.

Turn 2-N: Repeat

You cleanup, and Prince fails to set it aside.  You do not get to keep playing it.

[cluckyb]

Awful: Prince (duh!), Tactician (>$4), duration cards, Island, a knight (unless you got it from the Black Market deck instead of a knights pile), Feast/Deathcart/other self-trashing cards other than Hermit
Bad because really dangerous: Remake, Rats
Pretty bad because dangerous: Bishop & other forced trashing cards
Might be bad due to forced play of actions: Throne Room
Suboptimal: Shanty Town, Menagerie, Treasury(>$4)/Walled Village, Fortress, Watchtower/Library/JoaT (unless there's a discard attack)
Good: everything else -- Monument, Smithy, Militia, Scheme, etc.
Awesome: Prizes

Why is Island in the awful category? The Island sets itself aside, but that is good enough for the Prince to let you play it again. Its no more dangerous than Rats or Remake (though doesn't have any benefit), but the redeeming factor is how Prince + Island + G + G + S (while hard to setup) is nice golden deck that becomes attack resistant once you've Prince'd the island.

Prince of Tacticians is so hilariously awful though it deserves its own category. There is no way out of it once you've started. Everything else bad is either dangerous or wasteful. Tactician... you don't even get the +5 cards +1 buy before discarding your hand again, do you?

Both Island and Tactitian fail to be set aside with Prince after the first play, so they only each get used once.

Yeah, the wording is a bit tricky.  It isn't enough to be set aside, the card has to not fail to be set aside, since it is a failure which triggers the parenthetical statement.

I'm not sure I follow for Island. Does "fail to set aside" mean "You did not set it aside" or "You tried to set it aside but couldn't due to lose track"?
I think its the first, otherwise this would work with one shots which it clearly doesn't. Regardless, I both succeed in setting island aside during the turn I played it and also never fail setting island aside so either way the Prince of Island's survives.

Turn 0: I play Prince, Set aside Island.

Turn 1: I play Island. I set aside Island and another card per the text of the Island.

I cleanup. Island is set aside so its not discarded. "fail to set it aside on a turn you play it" is false, so I get to keep playing Island.

Turn 2-N: Repeat

You cleanup, and Prince fails to set it aside.  You do not get to keep playing it.

It's not "fail to set aside (when you cleanup)" its "fail to set it aside (on a turn you play it)"

[sudgy]

Awful: Prince (duh!), Tactician (>$4), duration cards, Island, a knight (unless you got it from the Black Market deck instead of a knights pile), Feast/Deathcart/other self-trashing cards other than Hermit
Bad because really dangerous: Remake, Rats
Pretty bad because dangerous: Bishop & other forced trashing cards
Might be bad due to forced play of actions: Throne Room
Suboptimal: Shanty Town, Menagerie, Treasury(>$4)/Walled Village, Fortress, Watchtower/Library/JoaT (unless there's a discard attack)
Good: everything else -- Monument, Smithy, Militia, Scheme, etc.
Awesome: Prizes

Why is Island in the awful category? The Island sets itself aside, but that is good enough for the Prince to let you play it again. Its no more dangerous than Rats or Remake (though doesn't have any benefit), but the redeeming factor is how Prince + Island + G + G + S (while hard to setup) is nice golden deck that becomes attack resistant once you've Prince'd the island.

Prince of Tacticians is so hilariously awful though it deserves its own category. There is no way out of it once you've started. Everything else bad is either dangerous or wasteful. Tactician... you don't even get the +5 cards +1 buy before discarding your hand again, do you?

Both Island and Tactitian fail to be set aside with Prince after the first play, so they only each get used once.

Yeah, the wording is a bit tricky.  It isn't enough to be set aside, the card has to not fail to be set aside, since it is a failure which triggers the parenthetical statement.

I'm not sure I follow for Island. Does "fail to set aside" mean "You did not set it aside" or "You tried to set it aside but couldn't due to lose track"?
I think its the first, otherwise this would work with one shots which it clearly doesn't. Regardless, I both succeed in setting island aside during the turn I played it and also never fail setting island aside so either way the Prince of Island's survives.

Turn 0: I play Prince, Set aside Island.

Turn 1: I play Island. I set aside Island and another card per the text of the Island.

I cleanup. Island is set aside so its not discarded. "fail to set it aside on a turn you play it" is false, so I get to keep playing Island.

Turn 2-N: Repeat

You cleanup, and Prince fails to set it aside.  You do not get to keep playing it.

It's not "fail to set aside (when you cleanup)" its "fail to set it aside (on a turn you play it)"

Each card that sets aside a card means a different type of setting aside.  So, its "fail to set it aside (on a turn you play it)" has been activated, because Prince wasn't able to set it aside.

[SCSN]

It keeps getting mentioned that princing a curser is a bad idea, which it is, but Followers would by far the exception to the rule. Man, that would hurt. Of course, if you get Followers on a non-cursing board, chances are your opponent has already resigned.

The thing with this is that Followers also means Tournament, and Tournament means you probably want to be using your $8 hands for Province rather than Prince.  I expect Tournament games will move too fast for Prince to be worthwhile, most of the time.

In most Tournament games you want one early Province and then build a lot more before you start adding additional green. Prince being on board and the prospect of princing a Prize only encourages building.

[SCSN]

It's not "fail to set aside (when you cleanup)" its "fail to set it aside (on a turn you play it)"

You're wrong and this has been discussed earlier in the thread. In particular in the FAQ posted by Donald:

If you don't discard the Action then you stop playing it with Prince; Prince at that point is just set aside doing nothing for the rest of the game. That won't normally happen but will happen for example if the Action is a Feast or Mining Village and you trashed it, or if it's a duration card and so it stayed in play, or if it's a Madman and was returned to its pile, or if it's an Island and was set aside, or if it's a card you put back on your deck with Scheme.

[cluckyb]

It's not "fail to set aside (when you cleanup)" its "fail to set it aside (on a turn you play it)"

You're wrong and this has been discussed earlier in the thread. In particular in the FAQ posted by Donald:

If you don't discard the Action then you stop playing it with Prince; Prince at that point is just set aside doing nothing for the rest of the game. That won't normally happen but will happen for example if the Action is a Feast or Mining Village and you trashed it, or if it's a duration card and so it stayed in play, or if it's a Madman and was returned to its pile, or if it's an Island and was set aside, or if it's a card you put back on your deck with Scheme.

I mean sure, if Donald wants to clarify "The text on this card is all a red herring. When you play this card, you actually just draw two cards" then he can do whatever he wants. I'm just saying that judging strictly from the wording on the card, you should get to keep playing Island multiple times. Should've gone with something like "fail to set this aside in this manner" if he didn't want it to work with Island.

[sudgy]

It's not "fail to set aside (when you cleanup)" its "fail to set it aside (on a turn you play it)"

You're wrong and this has been discussed earlier in the thread. In particular in the FAQ posted by Donald:

If you don't discard the Action then you stop playing it with Prince; Prince at that point is just set aside doing nothing for the rest of the game. That won't normally happen but will happen for example if the Action is a Feast or Mining Village and you trashed it, or if it's a duration card and so it stayed in play, or if it's a Madman and was returned to its pile, or if it's an Island and was set aside, or if it's a card you put back on your deck with Scheme.

I mean sure, if Donald wants to clarify "The text on this card is all a red herring. When you play this card, you actually just draw two cards" then he can do whatever he wants. I'm just saying that judging strictly from the wording on the card, you should get to keep playing Island multiple times. Should've gone with something like "fail to set this aside in this manner" if he didn't want it to work with Island.

The thing is, this is a universal rule of Dominion, not just for Prince.  He didn't need to make anything else special.

[Beyond Awesome]

It's not "fail to set aside (when you cleanup)" its "fail to set it aside (on a turn you play it)"

You're wrong and this has been discussed earlier in the thread. In particular in the FAQ posted by Donald:

If you don't discard the Action then you stop playing it with Prince; Prince at that point is just set aside doing nothing for the rest of the game. That won't normally happen but will happen for example if the Action is a Feast or Mining Village and you trashed it, or if it's a duration card and so it stayed in play, or if it's a Madman and was returned to its pile, or if it's an Island and was set aside, or if it's a card you put back on your deck with Scheme.

I mean sure, if Donald wants to clarify "The text on this card is all a red herring. When you play this card, you actually just draw two cards" then he can do whatever he wants. I'm just saying that judging strictly from the wording on the card, you should get to keep playing Island multiple times. Should've gone with something like "fail to set this aside in this manner" if he didn't want it to work with Island.

The wording of Prince is a bit tricky, but it says stop playing it if you are unable to set aside the card. Island is not set aside by Prince. Island sets itself aside.

Let's look at this like a typical action.
Smithy
Play Prince: set aside Smithy
Next turn: Prince plays Smithy
Cleanup: Smithy is still in play, Smithy is set aside by Prince

Now, here is Island
Play Prince: set aside Island
Next turn: Prince Plays Island
Island sets aside itself and another card
Cleanup: Island set itself aside so Prince lost track of it, therefore, Prince can not set it aside.

[dondon151]

This is clearly both an engine card and slog card.

I'm not so sure this is a slog card. It is way too likely for Prince to fail a collision in a slog.

[Witherweaver]

I think the wording is fine, too. Prince says to set a card aside then gas an "If you do..." clause.  The clause is not "if the card is not set aside", it is 'if you do (the previous thing)" and the previous thing is to set it aside with Prince. So "in this manner" is not needed.

[cluckyb]

It's not "fail to set aside (when you cleanup)" its "fail to set it aside (on a turn you play it)"

You're wrong and this has been discussed earlier in the thread. In particular in the FAQ posted by Donald:

If you don't discard the Action then you stop playing it with Prince; Prince at that point is just set aside doing nothing for the rest of the game. That won't normally happen but will happen for example if the Action is a Feast or Mining Village and you trashed it, or if it's a duration card and so it stayed in play, or if it's a Madman and was returned to its pile, or if it's an Island and was set aside, or if it's a card you put back on your deck with Scheme.

I mean sure, if Donald wants to clarify "The text on this card is all a red herring. When you play this card, you actually just draw two cards" then he can do whatever he wants. I'm just saying that judging strictly from the wording on the card, you should get to keep playing Island multiple times. Should've gone with something like "fail to set this aside in this manner" if he didn't want it to work with Island.

The wording of Prince is a bit tricky, but it says stop playing it if you are unable to set aside the card. Island is not set aside by Prince. Island sets itself aside.

Let's look at this like a typical action.
Smithy
Play Prince: set aside Smithy
Next turn: Prince plays Smithy
Cleanup: Smithy is still in play, Smithy is set aside by Prince

Now, here is Island
Play Prince: set aside Island
Next turn: Prince Plays Island
Island sets aside itself and another card
Cleanup: Island set itself aside so Prince lost track of it, therefore, Prince can not set it aside.

Sure. But the wording specifically says "set aside this turn", rather than indicating it was set aside by the prince. Seems to me that any valid way it was set aside should be good enough going off just the wording of the card.

[Witherweaver]

If Island set it aside, then Prince did not, so clause fails.  It is written correctly.

[eHalcyon]

It keeps getting mentioned that princing a curser is a bad idea, which it is, but Followers would by far the exception to the rule. Man, that would hurt. Of course, if you get Followers on a non-cursing board, chances are your opponent has already resigned.

The thing with this is that Followers also means Tournament, and Tournament means you probably want to be using your $8 hands for Province rather than Prince.  I expect Tournament games will move too fast for Prince to be worthwhile, most of the time.

In most Tournament games you want one early Province and then build a lot more before you start adding additional green. Prince being on board and the prospect of princing a Prize only encourages building.

Hmmm, OK then.

[Beyond Awesome]

It's not "fail to set aside (when you cleanup)" its "fail to set it aside (on a turn you play it)"

You're wrong and this has been discussed earlier in the thread. In particular in the FAQ posted by Donald:

If you don't discard the Action then you stop playing it with Prince; Prince at that point is just set aside doing nothing for the rest of the game. That won't normally happen but will happen for example if the Action is a Feast or Mining Village and you trashed it, or if it's a duration card and so it stayed in play, or if it's a Madman and was returned to its pile, or if it's an Island and was set aside, or if it's a card you put back on your deck with Scheme.

I mean sure, if Donald wants to clarify "The text on this card is all a red herring. When you play this card, you actually just draw two cards" then he can do whatever he wants. I'm just saying that judging strictly from the wording on the card, you should get to keep playing Island multiple times. Should've gone with something like "fail to set this aside in this manner" if he didn't want it to work with Island.

The wording of Prince is a bit tricky, but it says stop playing it if you are unable to set aside the card. Island is not set aside by Prince. Island sets itself aside.

Let's look at this like a typical action.
Smithy
Play Prince: set aside Smithy
Next turn: Prince plays Smithy
Cleanup: Smithy is still in play, Smithy is set aside by Prince

Now, here is Island
Play Prince: set aside Island
Next turn: Prince Plays Island
Island sets aside itself and another card
Cleanup: Island set itself aside so Prince lost track of it, therefore, Prince can not set it aside.

Sure. But the wording specifically says "set aside this turn", rather than indicating it was set aside by the prince. Seems to me that any valid way it was set aside should be good enough going off just the wording of the card.

Do you have the DA rule book? If so, it has the lose track rule in it. You should read up on it.

[Witherweaver]

Oh. I was wrong in that the "If you do.." Part is for setting Prince itself aside.  In any case, lose track rule covers it well.

[SirPeebles]

This is clearly both an engine card and slog card.

I'm not so sure this is a slog card. It is way too likely for Prince to fail a collision in a slog.

Also, one of the biggest perks of Prince is that you can get free +cards or +actions much of the time, but those are significantly less valuable in slogs.  Of course, there are also cards which would be great in a slog, like Remodel or a solid +$.

[soulnet]

This is clearly both an engine card and slog card.

I'm not so sure this is a slog card. It is way too likely for Prince to fail a collision in a slog.

If you are slogging actions, like a Vineyards slog or Fairgrounds slog with Ruins and/or Knights, you may have a decent enough action density. Also in Gardens games with gainers, but you won't get to $8 and the game is most likely a rush and not a slog for Prince to matter.

[allanfieldhouse]

It's not "fail to set aside (when you cleanup)" its "fail to set it aside (on a turn you play it)"

You're wrong and this has been discussed earlier in the thread. In particular in the FAQ posted by Donald:

If you don't discard the Action then you stop playing it with Prince; Prince at that point is just set aside doing nothing for the rest of the game. That won't normally happen but will happen for example if the Action is a Feast or Mining Village and you trashed it, or if it's a duration card and so it stayed in play, or if it's a Madman and was returned to its pile, or if it's an Island and was set aside, or if it's a card you put back on your deck with Scheme.

I mean sure, if Donald wants to clarify "The text on this card is all a red herring. When you play this card, you actually just draw two cards" then he can do whatever he wants. I'm just saying that judging strictly from the wording on the card, you should get to keep playing Island multiple times. Should've gone with something like "fail to set this aside in this manner" if he didn't want it to work with Island.

The wording of Prince is a bit tricky, but it says stop playing it if you are unable to set aside the card. Island is not set aside by Prince. Island sets itself aside.

Let's look at this like a typical action.
Smithy
Play Prince: set aside Smithy
Next turn: Prince plays Smithy
Cleanup: Smithy is still in play, Smithy is set aside by Prince

Now, here is Island
Play Prince: set aside Island
Next turn: Prince Plays Island
Island sets aside itself and another card
Cleanup: Island set itself aside so Prince lost track of it, therefore, Prince can not set it aside.

Sure. But the wording specifically says "set aside this turn", rather than indicating it was set aside by the prince. Seems to me that any valid way it was set aside should be good enough going off just the wording of the card.

Do you have the DA rule book? If so, it has the lose track rule in it. You should read up on it.

"setting it aside again when you discard it from play."

From that phrase, I would argue that since the Island wasn't discarded, the Prince doesn't even try to set it aside (and thus doesn't trigger a failure). Then because the parenthetical "stop playing it" phrase doesn't actually specify that the setting aside has to be from the prince itself, I'm inclined to agree with cluckyb that the text indicates that you would try to play Island again.

I think the real saving grace for the "unprinceable island" is the lose track rule from Dark Ages. At the start of the next turn, prince has lost track of the Island, so it can't play it again.

[enfynet]

That same argument would equate Durations being set aside on the next turn, because they were discarded. Island never gets discarded, so it cannot be "set aside when discarded."

[Witherweaver]

That same argument would equate Durations being set aside on the next turn, because they were discarded. Island never gets discarded, so it cannot be "set aside when discarded."

How would that argument work?  The Duration does not get discarded, so Prince does not set it aside, so Prince cannot play it the next turn, so Prince cannot set it aside the next turn.

[AJD]

I think the real saving grace for the "unprinceable island" is the lose track rule from Dark Ages. At the start of the next turn, prince has lost track of the Island, so it can't play it again.

The lose-track rule does not stop you from playing a card.

[enfynet]

That same argument would equate Durations being set aside on the next turn, because they were discarded. Island never gets discarded, so it cannot be "set aside when discarded."

How would that argument work?  The Duration does not get discarded, so Prince does not set it aside, so Prince cannot play it the next turn, so Prince cannot set it aside the next turn.

You may set this aside. If you do, set aside an Action card from your hand costing up to ( 4 ). At the start of each of your turns, play that Action, setting it aside again when you discard it from play. (Stop playing it if you fail to set it aside on a turn you play it.)

If Island gets to ignore the bold, durations can ignore the paranthetical.

[Witherweaver]

That same argument would equate Durations being set aside on the next turn, because they were discarded. Island never gets discarded, so it cannot be "set aside when discarded."

How would that argument work?  The Duration does not get discarded, so Prince does not set it aside, so Prince cannot play it the next turn, so Prince cannot set it aside the next turn.

You may set this aside. If you do, set aside an Action card from your hand costing up to ( 4 ). At the start of each of your turns, play that Action, setting it aside again when you discard it from play. (Stop playing it if you fail to set it aside on a turn you play it.)

If Island gets to ignore the bold, durations can ignore the paranthetical.

Huh?  I don't follow.  Island is not ignoring anything.  It is lost track of, so the bold fails, so you stop playing it.

Similarly, Durations fail the bold because they are not discarded.

[enfynet]

Island fails the bold, durations fail the parenthetical. Island is not discarded. Durations are not discarded on the turn they are played.)

[Witherweaver]

Island fails the bold, durations fail the parenthetical. Island is not discarded. Durations are not discarded on the turn they are played.)

Duration fails the bold.  You play Prince, setting aside a Duration.  At the start of your next turn, you play that Duration, setting it aside again when you discard it from play.  You do not discard it from play, so you do not set it aside again. 

Or maybe we're saying the same thing.  It fails to do what's in the bold, so the parenthetical applies to it.

[BadAssMutha]

You may set this aside. If you do, set aside an Action card from your hand costing up to ( 4 ). At the start of each of your turns, play that Action, setting it aside again when you discard it from play. (Stop playing it if you fail to set it aside on a turn you play it.)

Duration fails the bold.  You play Prince, setting aside a Duration.  At the start of your next turn, you play that Duration, setting it aside again when you discard it from play.  You do not discard it from play, so you do not set it aside again. 

Or maybe we're saying the same thing.  It fails to do what's in the bold, so the parenthetical applies to it.

Durations fail the bold only on the turn they're played, and not on the following turn. Without the parenthetical, I think Prince would play the duration every other turn, setting it aside again when it's discarded on the turn after it's played. But with the parenthesis, it's clear that the duration shouldn't be Princed again because it was not set aside.

[Witherweaver]

You may set this aside. If you do, set aside an Action card from your hand costing up to ( 4 ). At the start of each of your turns, play that Action, setting it aside again when you discard it from play. (Stop playing it if you fail to set it aside on a turn you play it.)

Duration fails the bold.  You play Prince, setting aside a Duration.  At the start of your next turn, you play that Duration, setting it aside again when you discard it from play.  You do not discard it from play, so you do not set it aside again. 

Or maybe we're saying the same thing.  It fails to do what's in the bold, so the parenthetical applies to it.

Durations fail the bold only on the turn they're played, and not on the following turn. Without the parenthetical, I think Prince would play the duration every other turn, setting it aside again when it's discarded on the turn after it's played. But with the parenthesis, it's clear that the duration shouldn't be Princed again because it was not set aside.

Durations are only played one turn, so that's the only turn they can fail.  On the following turn, the Duration has its normal duration effect and is discarded as normal.  The card you set aside with Prince is not played the turn you play Prince; it's played the next turn. 

The parenthetical isn't really needed here, it's just to clarify.  You fail to set the duration aside, because it is not discarded.  Because you failed to set it aside, you're going to fail to play it again the next turn with Prince.  That would be the natural interpretation even if the parenthetical wasn't there. 

[Gherald]

The parenthetical is necessary.

It is necessary because without it, the duration card would still be discarded from play on the next turn.  It is not clear that Prince shouldn't resume playing it on the following turn.  I would argue that it should resume playing the duration and that this was the natural intent of the Prince card's behavior with durations -- essentially a permanent duration effect.  Which is not terribly powerful because durations are already designed to give a modest effect on two turns, and getting the effect on every odd turn due to the card itself rather than due to Prince is actually not taking full advantage of Prince's benefit.

So I'm surprised that the parenthetical was included, but it does have the effect of making Prince rather useless with a certain type of card and I guess some people will like that twist for whatever reason.

[Witherweaver]

The parenthetical is necessary.

It is necessary because without it, the duration card would still be discarded from play on the next turn.  It is not clear that Prince shouldn't resume playing it on the following turn.  I would argue that it should resume playing the duration and that this was the natural intent of the Prince card's behavior with durations -- essentially a permanent duration effect.  Which is not terribly powerful because durations are already designed to give a modest effect on two turns, and getting the effect on every odd turn due to the card itself rather than due to Prince is actually not taking full advantage of Prince's benefit.

So I'm surprised that the parenthetical was included, but it does have the effect of making Prince rather useless with a certain type of card and I guess some people will like that twist for whatever reason.

I don't really agree about the parenthetical.  I think from "set aside an Action card from your hand costing up to ( 4 ). At the start of each of your turns, play that Action, setting it aside again when you discard it from play." it's clear that you play the card from being "set aside".  If it's not set aside, you lose track of it and can't play it.

I mean without the parenthetical, it's clear it does not work correctly with Durations.  Play Prince on a Caravan.  Next turn, play Caravan from Prince.  At the end of your turn, Caravan does not get discarded.  Next turn, what happens?  I see no reason to think that Prince would play Caravan... why would it?  Carvan should do it's regular duration effect, since it was played the previous turn.  So, Caravan draws a card, and at the end of that turn, it is discarded as normal.  Does Prince set it aside?  No, why would it?  Prince did not play Caravan this turn, so why would it set it aside?

[Gherald]

You can argue about my interpretation of the card without the parenthetical (I disagree, I don't see Prince losing track of a card just because its duration is more than one turn.)

But you cannot argue that the parenthetical isn't necessary to clarify the situation.  It obviously is.

[Witherweaver]

You can argue about my interpretation of the card without the parenthetical (I disagree, I don't see Prince losing track of a card just because its duration is more than one turn.)

It's duration is more than one turn?  I don't understand what that means.  Prince loses track because it's not set aside.  How can Prince play a card if it's in-play form its duration effect?

But you cannot argue that the parenthetical isn't necessary to clarify the situation.  It obviously is.

I'm saying yes, it helps clarify, but I think the interpretation must be the same with or without it.

[eHalcyon]

I think the parenthetical is necessary.  Here is my interpretation.

Breaking it down, Prince says:

1. Set aside an Action card from your hand costing up to $4.
2. At the start of each of your turns, play that Action.
3. Set that action aside again when you discard it from play.
4. Stop playing that action if you fail to set it aside on a turn you play it.

1 determines the princed action.
2 tells you to play that action repeatedly.
3 tells you when to set it aside again, for the purpose of bookkeeping.
4 tells you when the action stops getting played.

Let's consider what happens with Caravan.

On the turn you play Prince, you set aside Caravan according to 1.
On the second turn, you play Caravan according to 2.
At the end of that turn, you do not discard Caravan so 3 doesn't even trigger.  Caravan does not get set aside.
Because you fail to set it aside on this turn on which you played Caravan, 4 stops Prince from playing Caravan again.

If you remove the parenthetical, then there is no 4 and Prince never says to stop playing Caravan.  Number 3 does not say "stop".  Even though you fail to set it aside, Caravan will continue to be played.  Instead of the above, the following would happen:

1. Set Caravan aside with Prince on turn 1.
2. Play Caravan on turn 2.
3. Get duration effects of Caravan AND play it again.  Repeat this step for every subsequent turn.

It's only because of the parenthetical that you need to set aside the card to play it again with Prince.  If not for that, the card would get played no matter what.  Even if the card is already in play or if the card trashed itself, it would still get played again, just like it works with Throne Room when the throned card is already in play (most cases) or when it trashes itself.

[Witherweaver]

I don't quite agree with #3.

"3 tells you when to set it aside again, for the purpose of bookkeeping."

3 tells you when to set it aside again so that Prince is able to play it the next turn.  It can't just be in limbo, and it can't be discarded or left in play.

I don't see why the lose track rule would not apply in your scenario with no #4.

[GeoLib]

I don't quite agree with #3.

"3 tells you when to set it aside again, for the purpose of bookkeeping."

3 tells you when to set it aside again so that Prince is able to play it the next turn.  It can't just be in limbo, and it can't be discarded or left in play.

I don't see why the lose track rule would not apply in your scenario with no #4.

For the same reason the lose track rule doesn't apply to a throned feast. You don't need to know where something is in order to play it. Lose track only applies to moving something from one place to another. Basically a card cannot move another card (or itself) if the target card isn't in the place the acting card expects it to be.

[Witherweaver]

I don't quite agree with #3.

"3 tells you when to set it aside again, for the purpose of bookkeeping."

3 tells you when to set it aside again so that Prince is able to play it the next turn.  It can't just be in limbo, and it can't be discarded or left in play.

I don't see why the lose track rule would not apply in your scenario with no #4.

For the same reason the lose track rule doesn't apply to a throned feast. You don't need to know where something is in order to play it. Lose track only applies to moving something from one place to another. Basically a card cannot move another card (or itself) if the target card isn't in the place the acting card expects it to be.

Hm, well I guess I'm thinking of Prince's playing as "move from set aside to in play".

[Witherweaver]

Okay so I was all kinds of wrong with just about everything I said in this thread

[Lord Humanton]

The $4-cost limitation puts a clamp down on all of the high powered $5-cost cards.  Obviously Bridge, Princess and Highway circumvent this but in order to do that you need cost reducer, Prince and said $5-cost card.  While extremely powerful, this will be difficult to pull off and both players can go for it so I see no issues with balance.

I tried a game this weekend with Prince+Highway+Bridge in the supply. (Actually using the Duke to stand in for Prince.) It wasn't so much of a gamble to go for the big combo, because buying/using the cost reducers was a good strategy anyway. There were no villages for multiple Bridges, yet that didn't seem like an obstacle, because worst case would be that a Prince of some-$3-can-trip would fulfill the role of a village.

What happened in the game was that both my opponent and I first got a Prince of Bridges. But all the same, it didn't end up with that high-powered $5 card. Rather, with a Bridge automatically played every turn, plus cost reducers in my hand, I immediately bought $6 cards and easily ended up with a Prince of Hunting Grounds. Due to the extra buys and nice free $3 cards, the game actually ended by 3-piling.

I also tried a game intentionally with Prince+Bishop. In the first game, we each got Prince of Bishops and it was awesome. But there were a number of ways we got extra cards other than the normal single buy (Squire, Market Square...) So in the second Prince+Bishop I made sure there were no such cards. Still, the Prince of Bishops remained nice (although the ending hands were a lot smaller at the end of the game). I think there were two factors that helped the Bishop out. 1) It takes time to build up the economy for the Prince so there are more cards to Bishop. 2) I added a second Prince (some can-trip I think) and it gave me a bigger starting hand: having 6 cards to trash from rather than 4 makes a big difference for hitting the cards you prefer to trash.

Other first thoughts from my first playing:
* Very fun. It's like I'm playing Prosperity for the first time!
* Prince seemed well worth it at $8. The caveat is I was only playing Colony games.
* Since duration cards trigger at the same time you could choose the order, but there is no point at all -- whatever order you play them in you'll get the same result. But when playing Princes (or Princes plus duration cards), choosing the right order is critical. For example, I was choosing to gain a card, before activating my Prince of Bishops.

[SirPeebles]

Prince of Chancellors would make for an interesting game. Start with a freshly shuffled deck each hand.  I first thought of it in conjunction with Counting House, but it is interesting regardless.

[silverspawn]

Prince of Chancellors would make for an interesting game. Start with a freshly shuffled deck each hand.  I first thought of it in conjunction with Counting House, but it is interesting regardless.

well, each counting house is a terminal {number of coppers in your deck - number of coppers in your hand}$ if you prince a chancellor. that's pretty good, considering you also get +2$ every turn

[Witherweaver]

Prince of Chancellors would make for an interesting game. Start with a freshly shuffled deck each hand.  I first thought of it in conjunction with Counting House, but it is interesting regardless.

I was also thinking of Prince of Scavengers to pseduo-Prince another card.  (In the sense that you could draw it every turn with a Cantrip or every other turn.)

[A Drowned Kernel]

Another rules question: if you throne room a prince, does the throne room get set aside? Technically you did play the Prince twice, even though the second time none of its effects happened. I also realized when thinking about this that I don't know if TR gets set aside if you play it on outpost.

[eHalcyon]

Another rules question: if you throne room a prince, does the throne room get set aside? Technically you did play the Prince twice, even though the second time none of its effects happened. I also realized when thinking about this that I don't know if TR gets set aside if you play it on outpost.

Throne Room doesn't set itself aside.  Perhaps you are thinking of the rule for Durations that says TR stays in play when it is used on a Duration (as a reminder for next turn that TR applies).  This only applies when it directly affects a Duration; if you TR a TR and use the second TR for a Duration, the top-level TR gets cleaned up that turn as normal.

When you play TR on Prince, the following happens:

1. Play TR.  Choose Prince.

2. You play Prince.  You may set aside Prince.  If you do, you may set aside another action card costing up to $4 from your hand and all the Princely things apply to it.

3. You play Prince again.  If you set aside Prince already, you can't set it aside again so this second Prince does nothing.  If you hadn't set aside Prince the first time, you could do it now, and if you do then you can choose a card to Prince as usual.

4. At the end of the turn, you clean up TR and other cards as normal.  If Prince was set it aside, it stays set aside.  If you set aside a card with Prince, that stays set aside.  If you didn't set Prince aside, it also gets cleaned up.

As for Outpost, I am pretty sure that TR-Outpost will cause TR to stay in play into the Outpost turn.  The double Outpost doesn't help you out at all though.  Edge case: you are about to reshuffle and you want to guarantee that TR isn't in your Outpost turn.

[GeoLib]

As for Outpost, I am pretty sure that TR-Outpost will cause TR to stay in play into the Outpost turn.  The double Outpost doesn't help you out at all though.  Edge case: you are about to reshuffle and you want to guarantee that TR isn't in your Outpost turn.

This is critical for the TR, TR, Minion, Outpost, Masquerade pin.

[Beyond Awesome]

Just got my Prince promo in the mail today. Got it as a birthday present for myself which is this Tuesday. Now, I just need someone to play with irl.

[enfynet]

Are you inviting f.ds over for your birthday?

[Beyond Awesome]

Are you inviting f.ds over for your birthday?

Yes.

Anyone remotely near Rancho Cucamonga, California want to come out and play with me?

[Kirian]

Are you inviting f.ds over for your birthday?

Yes.

Anyone remotely near Rancho Cucamonga, California want to come out and play with me?

That can't possibly be the name of a real place.

[Beyond Awesome]

Are you inviting f.ds over for your birthday?

Yes.

Anyone remotely near Rancho Cucamonga, California want to come out and play with me?

That can't possibly be the name of a real place.

But, it is. 

[TrojH]

That can't possibly be the name of a real place.

I know, right? It sounds like a punchline from a Jack Benny show, or something.

[WalrusMcFishSr]

I'm in Mission Viejo! That's pretty close.

[Beyond Awesome]

I'm in Mission Viejo! That's pretty close.

Cool. I'm sending you a PM.

[amalloy]

Are you inviting f.ds over for your birthday?

Yes.

Anyone remotely near Rancho Cucamonga, California want to come out and play with me?

I'm in Santa Monica.

[Beyond Awesome]

Are you inviting f.ds over for your birthday?

Yes.

Anyone remotely near Rancho Cucamonga, California want to come out and play with me?

I'm in Santa Monica.

If you want to join us, we were thinking of meeting up tomorrow.

[Kirian]

That can't possibly be the name of a real place.

I know, right? It sounds like a punchline from a Jack Benny show, or something.

Or like Macho Grande.

...I'll never get over Macho Grande.

[Beyond Awesome]

So, walrus and I got together and played 3 games with Prince. We did cherry pick our kingdoms. On some boards, it won't get bought, but when it is worth buying, IT IS WORTH BUYING. Teaming it up with any draw card is pretty much game over for your opponent if they can't get a Prince themselves. Prince of Schemes is also good. Prince of Highway looks good on paper, but it is hard to get things lined up. Also, Prince of Oracles is really solid.

Anyway, not playing a card for a turn is no big deal because the benefit is so huge. Prince is a really solid card overall. Walrus can probably say more about Prince since he pretty much owned me with the card.

[WalrusMcFishSr]

Yeah it was a great time! Prince seems like a really fun card and I had a blast, I agree it's definitely worth getting. I don't know if "owned" is the right word, we only played 3 games and it was 2-1!

Bear in mind we (haphazardly) designed these games to be relatively interesting for Prince, and in all the games I went a little Prince happy haha. As is appropriate when playing with a new card!

The first game BA got unlucky with a 5/2 split, on a board that we created with no 5s or 2s. Then I hit 6 in the second shuffle and got a Goons, and from there he was playing catch up all game. Goons sort of overshadowed Prince here, but Goons sort of overshadows everything. Prince of Envoys was very lovely though for setting up those quintuple Goons turns. I was less impressed with my Prince of Stewards...it sounds great but I got it up a bit late and I needed more +Action. I would have rather had BA's Prince of Heralds.

That game was really Goonsy and took ages. The second one had Stonemason and HoP and was much quicker. To the point that I overdepleted the piles and BA took the win. Prince didn't really have much of an impact on this game honestly. Although I was amused by Stonemasoning two Princes...and then the next shuffle, I didn't really want a Prince of Stonemasons, so I Stonemasoned the Prince into two Grand Markets lol.

The third game was where Prince really shone IMO. It seems that a Prince of damn near anything is quite good. But I was most impressed tonight with the synergy with Scheme. Scheme really makes it possible to line up those important hands, especially because the first thing I wanted to do was Prince a Scheme. Which makes it even easier to line up other hands. A Prince of Oracles followed and that was also very delightful.

And then Highway was in the kingdom, so it was relatively easy to get that to line up and even get a Prince of Festivals! I chose that over Prince of Jesters (both rather entertaining Princes now that I think of it) because I wanted the consistent +Buy, but functionally it didn't much matter--with Prince of Schemes it's sort of like I got to Prince the Jester as well, because I was constantly Scheming him back on my deck! So constant attacks. BA's deck quickly got bloated with Copper, and I bought 7 Colonies.

My overall impression based on these few games is that Prince is a really cool card, just as much fun as I expected and probably more powerful than I expected. Although perhaps situational. A lot of times you hit those early 8's before you'd want a Province, and it gives you something fun to consider. Especially considering the bonuses are actually amazing, and there's a really cool megalithic superweapon feeling to the gameplay. It may be sort of swingy in the way that Tournament and Prizes can be, for example, but we discussed that we didn't think it felt quite as bad as that.

Thanks again for the games BA! Cool to meet someone from the forums in person.

[Holger]

I don't quite agree with #3.

"3 tells you when to set it aside again, for the purpose of bookkeeping."

3 tells you when to set it aside again so that Prince is able to play it the next turn.  It can't just be in limbo, and it can't be discarded or left in play.

I don't see why the lose track rule would not apply in your scenario with no #4.

For the same reason the lose track rule doesn't apply to a throned feast. You don't need to know where something is in order to play it. Lose track only applies to moving something from one place to another. Basically a card cannot move another card (or itself) if the target card isn't in the place the acting card expects it to be.

This. That's why Prince needs its own stronger "lose track" rule in parantheses in order not to play Feast from the trash every turn, or play a schemed card that can be anywhere in your deck. So Prince of Islands only works properly if the "set it aside" in the parantheses is replaced by (or meant to read) "set it aside this way".

The parenthetical is necessary.

It is necessary because without it, the duration card would still be discarded from play on the next turn.  It is not clear that Prince shouldn't resume playing it on the following turn.  I would argue that it should resume playing the duration and that this was the natural intent of the Prince card's behavior with durations -- essentially a permanent duration effect.  Which is not terribly powerful because durations are already designed to give a modest effect on two turns, and getting the effect on every odd turn due to the card itself rather than due to Prince is actually not taking full advantage of Prince's benefit.

So I'm surprised that the parenthetical was included, but it does have the effect of making Prince rather useless with a certain type of card and I guess some people will like that twist for whatever reason.

The parantheses are necessary to prevent Prince from playing Feast (or Madman, or Death Cart) every turn; making Durations useless is rather a side effect of this (presumably necessary) nerf. 
I'd also prefer if Prince worked with Durations; you could accomplish this by replacing the parantheses by "(Don't play it if it is not set aside this way)", or even shorter:

"You may set this aside. If you do, set aside an Action card from your hand costing up to $4. At the start of each of your turns, if that Action is set aside this way, play it, setting it aside again when you discard it from play. "

[Lord Humanton]

In my mind I'd been thinking of a princed card as a sort of infinite duration card, but then I got Conspirator in the kingdom and realized this is not so. Both princed cards and duration cards come into play at the start of the turn, but princed cards are counted towards a Conspirator's ability, whereas duration cards that come out are not counted. Correct?

[amalloy]

In my mind I'd been thinking of a princed card as a sort of infinite duration card, but then I got Conspirator in the kingdom and realized this is not so. Both princed cards and duration cards come into play at the start of the turn, but princed cards are counted towards a Conspirator's ability, whereas duration cards that come out are not counted. Correct?

You're right that Princed cards impact Conspirator (because you've played an action this turn) and duration cards don't (because you played it last turn). But it's not true that duration cards come into play at the start of the turn: they remain in play starting from the time you play them until the cleanup phase of the turn in which they "finished" doing what the card text says to do (for all existing duration cards, this is the next turn). Goko/MF's interface kinda makes them look not-in-play by moving them to a separate mat-looking area, but that's just so that the computer can reuse the same screen real estate for your play area and your opponent's: really those cards are still right in front of you in your play area during your opponent's turn.

[Donald X.]

In my mind I'd been thinking of a princed card as a sort of infinite duration card, but then I got Conspirator in the kingdom and realized this is not so. Both princed cards and duration cards come into play at the start of the turn, but princed cards are counted towards a Conspirator's ability, whereas duration cards that come out are not counted. Correct?

You're right that Princed cards impact Conspirator (because you've played an action this turn) and duration cards don't (because you played it last turn). But it's not true that duration cards come into play at the start of the turn: they remain in play starting from the time you play them until the cleanup phase of the turn in which they "finished" doing what the card text says to do (for all existing duration cards, this is the next turn). Goko/MF's interface kinda makes them look not-in-play by moving them to a separate mat-looking area, but that's just so that the computer can reuse the same screen real estate for your play area and your opponent's: really those cards are still right in front of you in your play area during your opponent's turn.

Correct. Duration cards stay in play until discarded on the next turn. Peddler cares about that and counts them; Conspirator only cares about what you played the same turn, and you didn't play last turn's duration cards this turn, so it doesn't count them. Prince plays a card and so that card counts for both Conspirator and Peddler.

[Lord Humanton]

In my mind I'd been thinking of a princed card as a sort of infinite duration card, but then I got Conspirator in the kingdom and realized this is not so. Both princed cards and duration cards come into play at the start of the turn, but princed cards are counted towards a Conspirator's ability, whereas duration cards that come out are not counted. Correct?

You're right that Princed cards impact Conspirator (because you've played an action this turn) and duration cards don't (because you played it last turn). But it's not true that duration cards come into play at the start of the turn: they remain in play starting from the time you play them until the cleanup phase of the turn in which they "finished" doing what the card text says to do (for all existing duration cards, this is the next turn). Goko/MF's interface kinda makes them look not-in-play by moving them to a separate mat-looking area, but that's just so that the computer can reuse the same screen real estate for your play area and your opponent's: really those cards are still right in front of you in your play area during your opponent's turn.

Correct. Duration cards stay in play until discarded on the next turn. Peddler cares about that and counts them; Conspirator only cares about what you played the same turn, and you didn't play last turn's duration cards this turn, so it doesn't count them. Prince plays a card and so that card counts for both Conspirator and Peddler.

That's what I thought but I hadn't seen it discussed before. Thanks for the quick reply.

[Kirian]

In my mind I'd been thinking of a princed card as a sort of infinite duration card, but then I got Conspirator in the kingdom and realized this is not so. Both princed cards and duration cards come into play at the start of the turn, but princed cards are counted towards a Conspirator's ability, whereas duration cards that come out are not counted. Correct?

You're right that Princed cards impact Conspirator (because you've played an action this turn) and duration cards don't (because you played it last turn). But it's not true that duration cards come into play at the start of the turn: they remain in play starting from the time you play them until the cleanup phase of the turn in which they "finished" doing what the card text says to do (for all existing duration cards, this is the next turn). Goko/MF's interface kinda makes them look not-in-play by moving them to a separate mat-looking area, but that's just so that the computer can reuse the same screen real estate for your play area and your opponent's: really those cards are still right in front of you in your play area during your opponent's turn.

Correct. Duration cards stay in play until discarded on the next turn. Peddler cares about that and counts them; Conspirator only cares about what you played the same turn, and you didn't play last turn's duration cards this turn, so it doesn't count them. Prince plays a card and so that card counts for both Conspirator and Peddler.

Prince doesn't count for Peddler though, right?  It is set aside as soon as it's played, and thus is never "in play"?

But it would count for Conspirator on the turn it was first played, right?

[AJD]

Prince doesn't count for Peddler though, right?  It is set aside as soon as it's played, and thus is never "in play"?

But it would count for Conspirator on the turn it was first played, right?

Right. (Well, setting aside Prince is in principle optional; if you play Prince but decide not to actually use it, then it's in play and counts for Peddler.)

[SirPeebles]

Prince doesn't count for Peddler though, right?  It is set aside as soon as it's played, and thus is never "in play"?

But it would count for Conspirator on the turn it was first played, right?

Right. (Well, setting aside Prince is in principle optional; if you play Prince but decide not to actually use it, then it's in play and counts for Peddler.)

But then, this isn't the principal Prince principle.

[Witherweaver]

So you could Prince a Prince and choose not to set aside the Prince Princed every turn in order to have an automatic -$2 to Peddler every turn.  Which is somehow better than Princing any other card because of some weird edge case...?

[LastFootnote]

So you could Prince a Prince and choose not to set aside the Prince Princed every turn in order to have an automatic -$2 to Peddler every turn.

No.

[Witherweaver]

So you could Prince a Prince and choose not to set aside the Prince Princed every turn in order to have an automatic -$2 to Peddler every turn.

No.

Why?

[LastFootnote]

So you could Prince a Prince and choose not to set aside the Prince Princed every turn in order to have an automatic -$2 to Peddler every turn.

No.

Why?

Wait…yes. I see what you mean now. Assuming you got Prince down to $4, you could do that. Weird.

[SirPeebles]

So you could Prince a Prince and choose not to set aside the Prince Princed every turn in order to have an automatic -$2 to Peddler every turn.

No.

Why?

Wait…yes. I see what you mean now. Assuming you got Prince down to $4, you could do that. Weird.

That shouldn't be terribly difficult.  Prince only costs $5 on BGG.

[amalloy]

So you could Prince a Prince and choose not to set aside the Prince Princed every turn in order to have an automatic -$2 to Peddler every turn.  Which is somehow better than Princing any other card because of some weird edge case...?

Seems like it could theoretically be possible, in a game with mostly alt-vp kingdom cards and Horn of Plenty. Like, you want your Horns to be worth a Province, but there aren't enough unique cards that you can legally play, without including Prince. But I suppose Prince of Bridges is strictly better than Prince of Princes in that case, and you need a cost-reducer in the kingdom to make this possible. Maybe your opponent Swindled all your Bridges into Gardens, but you anticipated this by Princeing a Prince? Certainly hard to imagine, but probably not impossible.

[GeoLib]

Has someone gotten an answer on why it's optional to set aside prince? Golem/Herald/TR-TR edge cases or something? Hardly seems worth the extra wording. Wouldn't "Set aside this and an action card from your hand costing up to $4" be a lot simpler?

[scott_pilgrim]

Has someone gotten an answer on why it's optional to set aside prince? Golem/Herald/TR-TR edge cases or something? Hardly seems worth the extra wording. Wouldn't "Set aside this and an action card from your hand costing up to $4" be a lot simpler?

The Golem/Herald/TR edge cases could lead to accountability issues (Prince forces you to set aside an action card from your hand, you claim not to have any because you don't want to set it aside for some reason, and your opponent can't verify that you really don't have any action cards to set aside).

[Donald X.]

Has someone gotten an answer on why it's optional to set aside prince? Golem/Herald/TR-TR edge cases or something? Hardly seems worth the extra wording. Wouldn't "Set aside this and an action card from your hand costing up to $4" be a lot simpler?

It has to say "if you do" to stop you from Throning Prince successfully, and "if you do" makes more sense with a "you may" in there. I go back and forth on keeping you honest for things like Throne but where possible I still prefer it. Prince does cost $8, so it's nice not to be forced to set it aside pointlessly via Herald/Golem.

[GeoLib]

Ok. Both good points. Thanks!

[enfynet]

So you could Prince a Prince and choose not to set aside the Prince Princed every turn in order to have an automatic -$2 to Peddler every turn.

No.

Why?

Wait…yes. I see what you mean now. Assuming you got Prince down to $4, you could do that. Weird.

That shouldn't be terribly difficult.  Prince only costs $5 on BGG.

I paid $6. There was an option to overpay by $1 to gain the card after I bought it.

[theory]

So you could Prince a Prince and choose not to set aside the Prince Princed every turn in order to have an automatic -$2 to Peddler every turn.

No.

Why?

Wait…yes. I see what you mean now. Assuming you got Prince down to $4, you could do that. Weird.

That shouldn't be terribly difficult.  Prince only costs $5 on BGG.

I paid $6. There was an option to overpay by $1 to gain the card after I bought it.

Just like Nomad Camp, overpay to put it on top of your deck.