Editing Talk:Prince

There seems to be a bit of an edit war going on regarding the interaction between Prince and Scheme. Is a Scheming Prince vulnerable to top-card attack cards, like Spy or Bureaucrat? 

I think not. Here's what I see happening: I have a Prince of Schemes, and I have played a valuable action card (like Goons). At the end of my turn, I discard the Scheme, but the Prince sets it aside. I discard the Goons, but the Scheme returns it to the top of my deck. I then draw my hand of 5 (including the Goons). At this point, the top card on my deck is unknown to me, and the critical Goons is safely in my hand. I can be hit with a Sea Hag, a Bureaucrat, a Spy, etc, without disrupting my scheme.

Is there something I'm missing, that would justify saying a Scheming Prince's scheme is vulnerable to top-of-deck attacks?
--[[User:Blaisepascal|Blaisepascal]] ([[User talk:Blaisepascal|talk]]) 16:00, 28 August 2014 (EDT)

----

I actually removed then re-added the bit about top card attacks on further reflection. [[User:Blaisepascal|Blaisepascal]] is correct in his analysis. However the article was talking about the difference between something like Prince of Goons vs Price of Schemes + Goons. In the case of the former, you would draw five cards plus have goons at the start of your turn. In the case of the latter you essentially have Goons,  4 cards, and  +1 card + 1 action at the start of your turn. Because the 5th card is drawn from your deck, top deck attacks take effect 1 turn sooner than with Prince of Goons alone. It is not a deal breaker, but it is a difference. I actually like the wording of the 1 turn sooner vs outright vulnerability and will make that change to the wording.
--[[User:Murphy|Murphy]] ([[User talk:Murphy|talk]]) 16:11, 29 August 2014 (EDT)--[[User:Murphy|User:Murphy]] ([[User User:Murphy|talk]])

Pretty sure that [[Card|Gear]] doesn't work the way the recent addition says. For starters you can't not set aside two cards. Also prince "loses track" of the gear when it plays surely?
@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 I actually removed then re-added the bit about top card attacks on further reflection. [[User:Blaisepascal|Blaisepascal]] is correct in his analysis. However the article was talking about the difference between something like Prince of Goons vs Price of Schemes + Goons. In the case of the former, you would draw five cards plus have goons at the start of your turn. In the case of the latter you essentially have Goons,  4 cards, and  +1 card + 1 action at the start of your turn. Because the 5th card is drawn from your deck, top deck attacks take effect 1 turn sooner than with Prince of Goons alone. It is not a deal breaker, but it is a difference. I actually like the wording of the 1 turn sooner vs outright vulnerability and will make that change to the wording.
---[[User:Murphy|Murphy]] ([[User talk:Murphy|talk]]) 16:11, 29 August 2014 (EDT)--[[User:Murphy|User:Murphy]] ([[User talk:Murphy|talk]])
+--[[User:Murphy|Murphy]] ([[User talk:Murphy|talk]]) 16:11, 29 August 2014 (EDT)--[[User:Murphy|User:Murphy]] ([[User User:Murphy|talk]])
+Pretty sure that [[Card|Gear]] doesn't work the way the recent addition says. For starters you can't not set aside two cards. Also prince "loses track" of the gear when it plays surely?
---
-Pretty sure that Gear doesn't work the way the recent addition says. For starters you can't not set aside two cards. Also prince "loses track" of the gear when it plays surely?
-[[User:Cammuppet|Cammuppet]] ([[User talk:Cammuppet|talk]]) 06:41, 12 June 2015 (EDT)
---
-* Durations aren't lost track of; they are put into play, which is fine by Prince.  The problem is that Durations aren't (usually) discarded at the end of turn, so Prince can't set them aside again, and thus can't play them again.  The only exceptions are Tactician that didn't discard anything, and Haven and Gear that didn't set anything aside.  The only one of those that can reliably not stay in play from being played at the start of turn is Gear, because of the wording "up to 2 cards" which means you can set aside 0 cards, as it says right there in the Official FAQ.  [[User:Werothegreat|Werothegreat]] ([[User talk:Werothegreat|talk]]) 08:24, 12 June 2015 (EDT)
---
-Not sure I agree with the classification of villages as "rather bad".  Having one Princed village means you start every turn with 3 actions, which reduces your chances of terminal collisions to just about zero.   Anyone who's built a great engine only to have shuffle luck spit them a villageless hand would see how having those two extra actions each turn is beneficial.  Plus, most of the villages are +1 card as well, which helps engines even more.
-[[Special:Contributions/99.9.38.185|99.9.38.185]] 19:04, 25 June 2015 (EDT)
-The idea is that given a choice, you'd most likely be better to prince a suitable terminal or cantrip than the village. If all you have to prince is a village, do it, but if you have a choice, more often than not, the non-village will be better. --[[User:Murphy|Murphy]] ([[User talk:Murphy|talk]]) 12:57, 23 July 2015 (EDT)
-----
-I don't think the idea of the strategy is to list all cards that might be good when princed, especially if cost modifiers are needed to get it to work, otherwise we could list half the cards in the game (with enough bridges / highways you could play prince of kings court).--[[User:Murphy|Murphy]] ([[User talk:Murphy|talk]]) 12:57, 23 July 2015 (EDT)