Print

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

[ednever]

I actually thought this was what WW's "Pin" was when I first read it:


Prince's Chamber, $4 ($3?), Action
Choose an Action Card in hand. Play it. Do not clean it or Prince's Chamber up at during your Clean Up Phase. Next turn play the Action Card again.

-=-=-
In some ways it's like Throne Room -you get to play a card twice. But in general I think it's not quite as good - usually playing twice now is better than playing once now and once next turn (although I can think of many exceptions - things like Chapel or Forge or discarding attack cards)

In other ways it's like Scheme (you get to play the card this turn and next turn. It's worse than scheme in that you lose a card the first time you play it. But it's better than Scheme in that you gain an action on your next turn.

Basically it turns a card into a duration card.

I went back and forth on whether it should be $3 or $4. Thoughts?

Maybe there is a "Prince's Court" that leaves cards out for three turns...

Ed

[blueblimp]

For some situations, it's much better than Throne Room, because it turns (for example) a Smithy a super-Wharf minus buys.

[WanderingWinder]

For some situations, it's much better than Throne Room, because it turns (for example) a Smithy a super-Wharf minus buys.

But takes two cards rather than one, and you still need them to collide.
But more importantly, it is not at all clear to me that this is indeed better than double the smithy NOW (which I want to let you know, I mean to shout like that bratty girl from Willy Wonka).

[Grujah]

Heh.

Royal Court Fan Expansion from BGG:
http://boardgamegeek.com/image/874466/royal-court-fan-expansion-to-dominion?size=large

It's the first card in set. 

(not mine, just remembered seeing this)

[LastFootnote]

For some situations, it's much better than Throne Room, because it turns (for example) a Smithy a super-Wharf minus buys.

But takes two cards rather than one, and you still need them to collide.
But more importantly, it is not at all clear to me that this is indeed better than double the smithy NOW (which I want to let you know, I mean to shout like that bratty girl from Willy Wonka).

Veruca Salt.

[ednever]

Nice. "Ideas under the sun"

Ed

[Schlippy]

I have a quite similar card in my expansion, it is a bit different though, as it just puts the card into your hand (can be stronger, can be weaker):



It lost the mandatory discard by now btw, because it was a tad to weak and a tad to similar to scheme.

For some situations, it's much better than Throne Room, because it turns (for example) a Smithy a super-Wharf minus buys.

But takes two cards rather than one, and you still need them to collide.
But more importantly, it is not at all clear to me that this is indeed better than double the smithy NOW (which I want to let you know, I mean to shout like that bratty girl from Willy Wonka).

It often is not, but cards like that shine more with cards like Goons, Bishop, Militia, Island(!) and the like than with carddrawers.

[Kirian]

For some situations, it's much better than Throne Room, because it turns (for example) a Smithy a super-Wharf minus buys.

But takes two cards rather than one, and you still need them to collide.
But more importantly, it is not at all clear to me that this is indeed better than double the smithy NOW (which I want to let you know, I mean to shout like that bratty girl from Willy Wonka).

I want the world/I want the whole world!/I want to wrap it all up in my pocket/it's my bar of chocolate/Give it to me NOW!

Best song in the whole film.

[iangoth]

This card (prince's chamber) could be a lot of fun with durations. Prince's chamber -> Wharf would be +2 cards +1 buy now, +4 cards +2 buys next turn, and +2 cards +1 buy after that. Not strictly better than throne room -> wharf, but you'd prefer the prince's court in a lot of engine settings since six of those cards are from non-terminal draw, and spreading the draws out reduces the odds of a dud turn. Prince's chamber -> Prince's chamber -> X would be pretty crazy, too. The free prince's court play on the second turn is a virtual +action in addition to its effect on the third turn. Also much easier to set up than throne room->throne room -> X, X

[qmech]

Best song in the whole film.

What, there's a film?  You'll be telling me they made a Matrix trilogy next.

[theory]

Best song in the whole film.

What, there's a film?  You'll be telling me they made a Matrix trilogy next.

That idea is as ludicrous as a fourth Star Wars movie.

[WanderingWinder]

Best song in the whole film.

What, there's a film?  You'll be telling me they made a Matrix trilogy next.

That idea is as ludicrous as a fourth Star Wars movie.

But not as ludicrous as a Star Wars Christmas Special.

[blueblimp]

This card (prince's chamber) could be a lot of fun with durations. Prince's chamber -> Wharf would be +2 cards +1 buy now, +4 cards +2 buys next turn, and +2 cards +1 buy after that. Not strictly better than throne room -> wharf, but you'd prefer the prince's court in a lot of engine settings since six of those cards are from non-terminal draw, and spreading the draws out reduces the odds of a dud turn. Prince's chamber -> Prince's chamber -> X would be pretty crazy, too. The free prince's court play on the second turn is a virtual +action in addition to its effect on the third turn. Also much easier to set up than throne room->throne room -> X, X

Ow, trees of PC make my head hurt. Let's say you play PC-PC-PC-X. Then this turn, you get the effect of X, then next turn the effect of X again, plus the ability to play PC on two cards. Right?

[blueblimp]

For some situations, it's much better than Throne Room, because it turns (for example) a Smithy a super-Wharf minus buys.

But takes two cards rather than one, and you still need them to collide.
But more importantly, it is not at all clear to me that this is indeed better than double the smithy NOW (which I want to let you know, I mean to shout like that bratty girl from Willy Wonka).

IMO it is better than a double-Smithy whenever there is no source of +actions. In these kingdoms, you really want to hit TR-TR-Smithy, but that is unlikely. PC-Smithy gives you a really good chance of having nice combo potential next turn.

[Schlippy]

This card (prince's chamber) could be a lot of fun with durations. Prince's chamber -> Wharf would be +2 cards +1 buy now, +4 cards +2 buys next turn, and +2 cards +1 buy after that. Not strictly better than throne room -> wharf, but you'd prefer the prince's court in a lot of engine settings since six of those cards are from non-terminal draw, and spreading the draws out reduces the odds of a dud turn. Prince's chamber -> Prince's chamber -> X would be pretty crazy, too. The free prince's court play on the second turn is a virtual +action in addition to its effect on the third turn. Also much easier to set up than throne room->throne room -> X, X

This is one of the reasons why my card puts the card into your hand. Actually it is also a bit wonky for most duration cards, because you could choose to play the on start effect of prince chamber at the start of your turn before the one from Wharf and what happens then? Because you play the Wharf again before its bonus from the start of your turn happens, it is actually not in play from your last turn anymore, so logically you should not get the bonus twice for that turn in that situation. But you would also get the bonus three times this way.
It is ok to have duration cards that care about the order in which you play them at the start of your next turn (after all, it is in the official rules that you choose the order in which you play them) but there is probably a reason why the official duration cards nearly never care about that order at all. I am relatively sure that DXV had a duration Throne Room up for playtesting for a time, because the idea is obvious, and a problem like this might be the reason why it didn't make the cut.
The Baldachin card I posted lost the clause that made the order in which to resolve durations at the start of your turn matter more or less by accident, and partially because of this it plays out a lot better and smoother now.

[AJD]

In the <a href="http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=117.0">Secret History of Seaside</a>, Donald X writes that he developed this card but cut it because it was "confusing and weak".

[popsofctown]

Throne Room is weak too, though.  I think Prince's Chambers ( I like a seaside name like Admiral's Cabin) would be a good card.  If you PC a smithy, the first three cards are dead, but the next 3 are live, whereas Throne Rooming a smithy only gives you 6 dead cards.  You probably have villages in that type of deck anyway but I think it would be a little more consistent because of that. 

It gets better with deck control, you can choose to PC a Village instead of a Woodcutter if you know you'll draw Smithy next turn.

[iangoth]

There's no denying it'd be confusing, though. Probably too confusing for anything but a niche fan expansion.

[popsofctown]

No, I definitely can't deny that.  But that is indeed why I think it is good as a fan card, the drawback is mitigated.

[market squire]

I've also had this idea. Now that we have Prince (edit: just have a look for the name in the OP ), maybe it could work like this:

Flagship (Action-Duration) Cost $2 (?)

You may play an Action from your hand.
When you would discard it from play in this Cleanup phase, set it aside instead and play it again at the start of your next turn.

So it doesn't work on Durations (if they have a future effect) and on self-trashers.
I think it might work at $2, but I did not try it out. Otherwise I'll go back to $3-4.

[silverspawn]

I actually think the card is much better than throne room, and should probably cost 4$ if not 5$. definitely not 2$.

[LastFootnote]

I actually think the card is much better than throne room, and should probably cost 4$ if not 5$. definitely not 2$.

Apparently not. Donald tested this card for $3 in Seaside and it was weak (in addition to being confusing). I doubt it's strong enough at $2 either. I'd add +1 Card (just when you play it) and try that at $3 or $4.

[silverspawn]

I actually think the card is much better than throne room, and should probably cost 4$ if not 5$. definitely not 2$.

Apparently not. Donald tested this card for $3 in Seaside and it was weak (in addition to being confusing). I doubt it's strong enough at $2 either. I'd add +1 Card (just when you play it) and try that at $3 or $4.

really? I find that very hard to believe. You use it on a smithy, now the smithy is better than a wharf. you can prepare your next turn, that's infinitely valuable. You just can't use it like a throne room, it can't be the core element of your engine, you need to add it to an engine that's already going. If you buy two and use one of them on a draw each turn, they have the powerlevel of basic villages, with the addition of adding a lot of reliability. More specifically, it's like a scheme with +1 action next turn. but scheme is already 3$.

is there something I'm missing? or is it possible that they just didn't know enough about the game at that time to use it correctly? because if you use it just like you're using tr, it's not good.

[LastFootnote]

What you're missing is that it's basically a Ruined Village on the turn played. Hence my suggestion of +1 Card.

[silverspawn]

What you're missing is that it's basically a Ruined Village on the turn played. Hence my suggestion of +1 Card.

right, but you already get a phantom card the following turn.

Flagship: I play Flagship, I target a smithy. Now I have 6 cards in hand. Next turn the Flagship comes into play and I start with 8 cards, and 1 action left.
Scheme: I play Scheme, then I play Smithy. Now I have 7 cards in hand. I scheme the smithy. Next turn I play the Smithy. Now i have 7 cards in hand, and 0 actions left.

So it's still like scheme with a phantom action, except it's -1 card in the turn you play it, and +1 card in the following turn. That shouldn't really make it much worse though.

It does have the disadvantage of being a duration card, and therefore you need two instead of one for the effect. You could also argue that it's a worse variant of scheme, which may be true. But worse =/= weaker.