Print

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

[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.