Print

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

[pst]

It's obvious that Prince isn't effective with Duration cards, since Prince has a "when you discard it from play". But still, exactly what happens if you do it anyway?

You may set this aside. If you do, set aside an Action card from your hand costing up to $4.

OK, suppose I do that with a Caravan and let's see what happens. This is turn P (as in Prince).

At the start of each of your turns, play that Action, setting it aside again when you discard it from play.

So turn P+1 I play Caravan first. At the end the turn I don't discard Caravan because of the duration effect, so it's not set aside.

Turn P+2 I have the duration effect from Caravan, and at the end of the turn it is discarded. If the above quote was all there was I would say that now when Caravan finally is discarded it should be set aside again, and then the Prince would set it in play again at turn P+3. But there is more:

(Stop playing it if you fail to set it aside on a turn you play it.)

That's what happened at the end of turn P+1, so it shouldn't be played on turn P+3 after all. OK, but still, I see nothing that says it shouldn't be set aside then, so my literal reading is:

Turn P: I play Prince with Caravan
Turn P+1: The Caravan is played and remains in play as Duration card
Turn P+2: I get the duration effect and then the Caravan is set aside again.
Turn P+3 and on: That Caravan is inactive for the rest of the game though, just set aside like on an Island.

Agreed?

[yed]

I think the Caravan is discarded in P+2 but not set aside with Prince. So it works normally in turn P+3 and later.

[pst]

I think the Caravan is discarded in P+2 but not set aside with Prince. So it works normally in turn P+3 and later.

For what it's worth that is exactly what I thought as well before reading the card carefully, so that's why I thought it worthwhile with a "hey, look what it actually says" posting.

[liopoil]

I assume cards set aside, including prince, return to your deck at the end of the game like with island, haven, or horse traders?

[pst]

I assume cards set aside, including prince, return to your deck at the end of the game like with island, haven, or horse traders?

Sure, that's in the rules. ("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.)

[yed]

Prince FAQ by DonaldX:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11284.msg388018#msg388018

[pst]

Prince FAQ by DonaldX:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11284.msg388018#msg388018

Thanks! The FAQ says

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,

supporting the "natural" interpretation but not what I think is the literal reading. I would have preferred "The effect ends if ..." instead of "Stop playing it if ..." (with the same number of letters).

Anyway, a FAQ is good enough for me, so question answered.

[enfynet]

Even though the FAQ has been shown. It does still seem to carry the confusing situation with Duration cards in the effect of:

(Stop playing it if you fail to set it aside on a turn you play it.)

And the Seaside Rules explain Duration as:

Leave the card in front of you until the Clean-up Phase of the last turn in which it does something (discard it before drawing for the following turn). So if the card says "Now and on your next turn," discard it during the Clean-up phase of your next turn.

This seems to say that Duration cards are not "played" on the next turn, but rather they initial "play" affects more than one turn. However, Peddler does care about Duration cards as they are "in play" which, in a sense, tells you that they are "played" that turn.

At this point can we assume "in-play" is nearly synonymous with "played;" barring cases of card instructions directing them away from the "in play" area?

[SCSN]

At this point can we assume "in-play" is nearly synonymous with "played;" barring cases of card instructions directing them away from the "in play" area?

No. Conspirator cares about the number of actions you played this turn, which does not include durations from previous turn.

[enfynet]

Ironic that I forgot about that one considering the current title under my username. Thanks.

[Holger]

Prince FAQ by DonaldX:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11284.msg388018#msg388018

Thanks! The FAQ says

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,

supporting the "natural" interpretation but not what I think is the literal reading. I would have preferred "The effect ends if ..." instead of "Stop playing it if ..." (with the same number of letters).

Anyway, a FAQ is good enough for me, so question answered.

I don't quite see the question answered from this FAQ; it doesn't explicitly state whether the Duration card is uselessly set aside together with the "dispossessed" Prince or not (the first quoted sentence, when taken literally, doesn't apply to Durations since they are discarded, only a turn late). And according to Donald, the FAQ is only meant to explain the rules, not change them.

From the card text alone, I agree with your interpretation from the OP, since the Duration is indeed discarded from play on turn P+2, and the parantheses (unfortunately) only prevent the playing, not the setting aside. (One might argue that Prince loses track of its target at the beginning of turn P+2 when it tries to play it, but the parentheses prevent Prince from even trying to play it.)
This would make Prince of Durations even worse than thought. The parantheses should really read "The effect ends if ..." or even better (to make it reasonably useful with Durations): "Don't play it if...".

[Donald X.]

I don't quite see the question answered from this FAQ; it doesn't explicitly state whether the Duration card is uselessly set aside together with the "dispossessed" Prince or not (the first quoted sentence, when taken literally, doesn't apply to Durations since they are discarded, only a turn late). And according to Donald, the FAQ is only meant to explain the rules, not change them.

From the card text alone, I agree with your interpretation from the OP, since the Duration is indeed discarded from play on turn P+2, and the parantheses (unfortunately) only prevent the playing, not the setting aside. (One might argue that Prince loses track of its target at the beginning of turn P+2 when it tries to play it, but the parentheses prevent Prince from even trying to play it.)
This would make Prince of Durations even worse than thought. The parantheses should really read "The effect ends if ..." or even better (to make it reasonably useful with Durations): "Don't play it if...".

The intention is that you don't need the FAQs, but they are still rules.

I feel like I have been over this already. If you play a duration card with Prince, when you fail to set it aside on your next turn you will therefore fail to set it aside ever again with that Prince (so I don't recommend doing that). You stop playing it if you fail to set aside on the very turn you played it. That's the intention and that's my ruling. The card is not quite that clear but I can't fix it now.

[Holger]

The intention is that you don't need the FAQs, but they are still rules.

I feel like I have been over this already. If you play a duration card with Prince, when you fail to set it aside on your next turn you will therefore fail to set it aside ever again with that Prince (so I don't recommend doing that). You stop playing it if you fail to set aside on the very turn you played it. That's the intention and that's my ruling. The card is not quite that clear but I can't fix it now.

Thanks for the ruling! I can't remember you having answered this specific question on f.DS, I'm sorry if I missed it.

Would you (resp. Jay) consider "fixing" the card text for any reprints or translations of Prince? You've said that you don't want errata that change the way cards are played, but such a fix would only bring the card in line with the ruling. (Probably the problem hardly ever comes up in practice because Princing Durations is so bad either way, but still...)

[Donald X.]

Thanks for the ruling! I can't remember you having answered this specific question on f.DS, I'm sorry if I missed it.

Would you (resp. Jay) consider "fixing" the card text for any reprints or translations of Prince? You've said that you don't want errata that change the way cards are played, but such a fix would only bring the card in line with the ruling. (Probably the problem hardly ever comes up in practice because Princing Durations is so bad either way, but still...)

I don't think changing the card is on the table. Potentially the FAQ could be changed. That doesn't affect people who already got the piece of paper though (assuming there are any such people), and for online people it comes down to me editing in this ruling into a post on BGG somewhere.

[silverspawn]

I think it's safe to assume that a lot of people will get it wrong, but so what? I'm sure a lot of people are making a lot of mistakes, like drawing twice when throning madman. they'll usually settle for a specific way of doing it in their group of players, and even if that's the wrong way, it doesn't really matter much. They'll have fun anyway.