Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

Citadels» Forums » General

Subject: The Warlord and the Bishop rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Reuben Taylor
United Kingdom
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
I have just played my first game of Citadels and really enjoyed it but I cannot understand the extent of the protection the Bishop has against the warlord.

The English rules explain that to the player with the Bishop:

"Your districts may not be destroyed by the Warlord."

Does this mean that all of the districts in the city held by the player who has the Bishop may not be destroyed?

Or does it mean that only the religious (Blue) districts in the city held by the player who has the Bishop may not be destroyed?

I am interested in how this has been understood by others.

BasherT
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
CalicoDave
United States
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re:The Warlord and the Bishop
BasherT (#33392),

My group has always played that all of the bishop's player's districts are safe, not just the blue ones.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Reuben Taylor
United Kingdom
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Re:The Warlord and the Bishop
cnd_77 (#33407),

Thanks you guys. That has solved a debate between my wife and I most amicably (particularly because my interpretation appears to be correct!)

Thanks again

BasherT
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jan w
Belgium
Brussels
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re:The Warlord and the Bishop
BasherT (#34554),

i still have a question concerning these two characters actually:

what if the bishop is assassinated? can the warlord then destroy one of his buildings?
you'd think cause he's dead he can't do nothing, and the warlord's rules state that he may destroy buildings of an assassinated character, but then again, even dead, he IS the bishop so his districts should be protected.... i'm confused...

a lil help?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jan w
Belgium
Brussels
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re:The Warlord and the Bishop
been reading some more and just remembered what happened during our game as well:

the warlord CAN destroy a murdered character's districts, so does this mean that the character has to reveal himself even though he shouldn't cause he's dead... ? *confused*

aaaand if so, is the bishop then a possible target???
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Donnelly
Canada
Comox Valley
British Columbia
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Re:The Warlord and the Bishop
kronik (#39350),
If you're assassinated, you effectively don't have a role for that round. So the dead Bishop wouldn't offer any protection.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edward
United States
Irvine
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
CalicoDave wrote:
BasherT (#33392),

My group has always played that all of the bishop's player's districts are safe, not just the blue ones.

This issue recently came up for me.

My interpretation of the rule is that all of the Bishop's player's districts should be safe, but someone I was playing with understood the rule to mean that only the blue (religious) districts are protected.

I have a question about the Bishop's special power.

Here is the actual text in the rulebook (from the current Fantasy Flight Games edition):

Quote:
5) Bishop

You receive one gold for each religious (blue) district in your city. Your districts may not be destroyed by the Warlord.

The problem is that the rule, as written, is ambiguous. Does anyone an authoritative answer as to which interpretation is correct?

Perhaps the rule is stated more clearly in another edition (possibly in another language)?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Smiles
United States
Dedham
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
admin
The ratio of people to cake is too big.
badge
Excuse me, I believe you have my stapler...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The rule is not ambiguous at all. You recieve extra income for blue districts. All of your districts are protected.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
guillaume dormoy
France
Besançon
Franche comté
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
asmiles wrote:
The rule is not ambiguous at all. You recieve extra income for blue districts. All of your districts are protected.


+1.

About killing a caracter, in the same order if the king is killed, he remain the king (and can choose his caracter first in the next turn)...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dumont Claude
Canada
Montreal
Québec
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The way I see this is:
The rules say that a killed caracter does not reveal himself until the end of the round when every player has played. So he cannot intervene if the warlord destroy one of his building.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Aube
Canada
Ste-Julie
Quebec
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Bruno Faidutti has an FAQ on his site, and the French clearly answers this question:

Quote:
Q: Le Condottiere peut-il détruire un quartier d'un évêque assassiné?
R: Pourquoi pas. L'évêque, assassiné, n'a pas répondu à l'appel et n'est donc pas évêque.... Et puis, c'est moralement satisfaisant.


Which means that yes, the Warlord can destroy a district from the Bishop has he never was activated.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edward
United States
Irvine
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
asmiles wrote:
The rule is not ambiguous at all. You recieve extra income for blue districts. All of your districts are protected.

Thanks for your reply. Although I agree with your interpretation of the rule (and I have been playing that way), I don't agree that the rule is unambiguous as written. Hey, if the rule were really unambiguous, this thread would not exist in the first place.

The problem is in the wording: The rule uses the phrase "your districts". This phrase can be interpreted as either "the districts of the player" or "the districts of the Bishop (i.e., the religious or blue districts)".

As a rules purist, I was hoping for an authoritative answer, either from a different edition/translation of the rules or from Bruno Faidutti himself. In the meantime I'm going to continue to play with all districts protected by the Bishop.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Susie Rogers
United States
Atlanta
Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Spire wrote:

The problem is in the wording: The rule uses the phrase "your districts". This phrase can be interpreted as either "the districts of the player" or "the districts of the Bishop (i.e., the religious or blue districts)".

As a rules purist, I was hoping for an authoritative answer, either from a different edition/translation of the rules or from Bruno Faidutti himself. In the meantime I'm going to continue to play with all districts protected by the Bishop.


You have to remember the theme and set up of the game to get the wording better. You, the player, are trying to build a really awesome city. That's the theme of the game. If you choose the Bishop, that doesn't mean you, the player, are the Bishop, it just means that you contracted the bishop to work on your, the player's, districts. So if you think about it like this and re-read the rules, it's clear what it means.

"You [the player] receive one gold for each religious (blue) district in your city. Your districts may not be destroyed by the Warlord [who has been contracted by another player, but is not in fact the player]."

Does that help with the wording a little more.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Spire wrote:
Thanks for your reply. Although I agree with your interpretation of the rule (and I have been playing that way), I don't agree that the rule is unambiguous as written. Hey, if the rule were really unambiguous, this thread would not exist in the first place.

The problem is in the wording: The rule uses the phrase "your districts". This phrase can be interpreted as either "the districts of the player" or "the districts of the Bishop (i.e., the religious or blue districts)".

As a rules purist, I was hoping for an authoritative answer, either from a different edition/translation of the rules or from Bruno Faidutti himself. In the meantime I'm going to continue to play with all districts protected by the Bishop.

The rule is fine as written. The ambiguity comes from trying to place words there that don't exist. The rule clarifies that you only receive income for your religious districts (and even helps you out further by telling you that the religious ones are blue). When it discusses the protection from the warlord, it just states your districts. No qualifier, therefore the districts aren't qualified, they are all of the distrcts in front of you.

And if it truly meant the bishop's district, then why clarify it for the first action but not the second? But it doesn't refer to the Bishop, like Susie said. The "your" referenced means the player. Otherwise, the Bishop would collect the income - based on your logic - and the income collected should travel with the bishop and not stay with the player when the next turn comes around. So applyying a rule-lawyer logic upsets the game play.

The simpliest interpretation - reading what the card says - is that the Bishop earns you, the player, for each blue district but protects all of them.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
cardbored
Japan
flag msg tools
thanks, guys.
meeple
i agree that the wording is clear enough, in the english version. was using the japanese version, which explicitly says "the Bishop's districts may not be destroyed", but i'll conclude from this discussion that this should in fact be "your [player's] districts"
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.