MArcomage

BAN the prince. It's a pure broken. This card is a cheat.

You mean Prince of Thieves? I agree, it's probably a bit too powerful. I don't think it needs to be completely scrapped though. It just needs its cost increased and/or its effect lessened.

Prince of Thieves is only useful when enemy resources > you, and now it has a max of 20 cap, so I don't think it's that horrible, although it is an annoying card when used against you. If you manage your deck well and can keep your resources low that card won't be as useful against you. Even if you try to go for Resources win or Big card win, you can discard the prince with 8 resources each (forgot the card name, it's uncommon), take a chance with Tribute, Black market works too

Well actually, even if you have more of every resource than your opponent, it's still an excellent card. You get stock +5, and your opponent gets stock -5, so all together it's like a 30 resource profit for 1 recruit which, even for a rare card, is still extremely powerful. And that's in the worst case. Maybe a good way to balance the card would be to remove the "min 5" restriction.

I believe the only balancing required is to make it minimum 1, instead of 5.

Or you could simply make it a stronger variant of Thievery. Slightly cheaper and steals 2*N+4 resources N= brigands.

But that would completely change the spirit of the card. I think it has an interesting dynamic, being at its strongest when you're farthest behind in resources, which shouldn't be scrapped if it gets balanced.

I still love Brigand cards though. Consider it a card sugestion. ;-)

There is another way to limit the prince's power: creating a new card, something like this: Steal back; uncommon; cost 3 gems, 3 recruits; quick; if last card used by opponent was a brigand, negates the effect of opponent's last turn(s) on your and opponent's stock, your next card will be that brigand.
maybe the text is too long?

Actually, one card that will be added in the third part of this update will have very similiar effect (anti-steal).

(1) It only costs 1 Recruit to pay.
(2) Because of its virtually zero cost, it makes this rare card very flexible. Unlike the other rares, it's useful whether you draw it in beginning, mid-game or late-game.
(3) The most terrific or horrible scene: Imagine your enemy plays first and it's lucky to get this card. The "10 stock difference" (you: +5 stock; enemy: -5 stock) will make you much better off.
(4) The earlier you can draw this card, the more powerful it is. I would say you can win the game easily if you are able to make use of the early "at least 10 stock difference" bonus that you get.

Note1: Playing first is an advantage which shouldn't be ignored. This sort of cards can make very good use of this advantage. That's why the modern card games start to compensate the late player.
Note2: The only one anti-stealing card can only partially offset your loss (your enemy still get more than you). Plus we may not be able to draw this card to counter it. A minor threat only.

Again the problem is the unreasonable cost-power evaluation. Everyone knows good things will cost higher to get in the Economy world. But here we can buy such a useful and flexible card at an incredibly low price tag. What a great seller!

This sort of anomaly is not uncommon. Eg:
- old Necropolis (Powerful but Cost: -5 bricks only),
- old General's army (Powerful but Zero cost. The seller even give you +15 recruits to buy this card LOL),
- new General's army (Still powerful despite the changes. Well, the seller asks you to pay -20 recruits first, but then he will give you back +35 recruits. Again a powerful card with an unreasonable cost [gain?]).

Suggestion:
(A)
Prince of thieves (10 Recruit)
Brigand.
Steals the difference between your resource and enemy's resource (max 20, min 2)

Comment: Even if you are lucky to draw this rare card in the first round, its influence is reduced to 2 (which is equal to the effect of Burglars without attack point)
Reference: Burglars. Brigand. Attack: 4, Stock: +2, Enemy stock: -2 [Note: Don't get me wrong. I only use Burglars as a reference point to set the cost of Prince of Thief!]

(B)
Prince of thieves (21 Recruit)
Brigand.
Steals the difference between your resource and enemy's resource (max 20, min 5)
Recruit +20

Comment: This suggestion is intended to keep as close to the original. The net cost is still 1 Recruit but the initial cost is raised to 21 Recruit. That means you can't play this card too early which can screw up the balance of the game. Depending on the theme of this card, but I think 1 Recruit is generally too cheap. I prefer a higher (net) price tag.

to amaster:

You are not suppose to compare Prince of Thief to Burglar, one is rare, one is common, rare card is meant to be a WHOLE LOT more powerful & cost efficient relative to a common card. Further more the chance to draw Prince
is much lower compare to Burglar due to the rarity.

Of course I'm angry when my stocks are stolen and can't play my card, but that's the function of the Brigand?

Going first going second is another issue, if you think going first gives opponent an advantage, doesn't it make you happier if you can still dominate the game when your turn comes later?

===================================
You are not suppose to compare Prince of Thief to Burglar, one is rare, one is common, rare card is meant to be a WHOLE LOT more powerful & cost efficient relative to a common card. Further more the chance to draw Prince is much lower compare to Burglar due to the rarity.
===================================

Read again. I'm not saying Prince of Thief is too powerful because it's much stronger than Burglar. blah blah... I only use Burglar as the reference point of cost evaluation. As Burglar with "stock: +2 & enemy stock: -2" has a cost of 8 recruits, and I think most agree Prince of Thief is more powerful than Burglar, it makes sense to have a higher price tag than Burglar.

Note: It's simply an example to show how I evaluate and set an appropriate price for different cards with different power. Feel free to adjust the price to suit your model but the concept is there. A more powerful card shouldn't cost even lower than a weaker card.

Maybe you didn't say but from your suggestion A sounds like you are making Prince into a Burglar...

=========================================
Maybe you didn't say but from your suggestion A sounds like you are making Prince into a Burglar...
=========================================

Yes you are right. Sorry for the confusion. I edited the post. Hopefully it is clearer now.

The reason this card has "if not new" on it is to warn the opponent that it is coming, allow for potential discard, etc. This card is SO powerful that it requires the "if not new" restriction to make it fair.

But in hidden games, this drawback is almost not a drawback at all. Is there any way this card could be edited to always be visible, even if in a hidden game? I think this would bring it in line with what the "if not new" restriction originally intended.

Or is this functionality not possible to implement?

Hm. Eric makes a good point, but I'm not sure that making it always visible would be the best solution.

We currently don't support such a feature and I don't think it's a good solution.