Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
5 Posts

Citadels» Forums » General

Subject: Warlord (not) attacking finsihed cities?? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Belgium
-
flag msg tools
It's not very clear to me why the warlord is prohibited from attacking finished cities. That's exactly the moment when he's valuable and could make the ending more tense. Did the winner take the assassin, killing the warlord? Or did he take the bishop? Or the warlord?!

If the warlord could attack closed cities, he'd lengthen the game by only one round. And only IF he was available, wasnt killed, or the winner wasnt the bishop (alive). And if the winner had more than 8 cards built, the warlord still wouldnt change anything to the ending.

I dont see much use for this exception. Anyone played by ignoring this rule?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris May
United States
Fort Worth
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Feeling lucky punk? Well, do ya?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I love this game, but my problem is that with more than 3 people it seems to drag on too long. When you let the warlord destroy one the the finished districts it will drag on more. It could potentially drag on many more rounds if their is only one player with 8 and the warlord destroys that player's district.

I have seen this happen. We changed that rule and tried it. The game drags on even longer and becomes very frustrating. I think that is why they made that rule for the warlord. Also, the warlord is already pretty powerful as the last character to go, so that the player can react to what has been built. If he is able to destroy the 8th district then i think that he becomes too powerful.

Well, that's my opinion anyway.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Travis Hall
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
flag msg tools
The problem I would have with letting the Warlord destroy a completed city is that in many cases - more than half, I would think - players would only be able to end the game when two players both try to complete their citadels. That sets up the game to be decided by forced kingmaking on the part of the Warlord in the last turn - does he destroy a district owned by the leader, thus taking at least 3 points from that player (and more likely 5 or more) and catapulting the second player into the lead, or does he leave the leader alone, often despite being able to harm him at no real cost to himself?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
-
flag msg tools
Chrisgmay wrote:

I have seen this happen. We changed that rule and tried it. The game drags on even longer and becomes very frustrating. I think that is why they made that rule for the warlord.

Also, the warlord is already pretty powerful as the last character to go, so that the player can react to what has been built. If he is able to destroy the 8th district then i think that he becomes too powerful.

You're maybe right that it would lengthen the game, but you're wrong in thinking that going last is a benefit.

The 8th position is actually the worst place in the final round, because everyone will go before you and have a chance to finish. Remember that finished cities are safe from harm! This makes the warlord the least useful char in the final round (unless you have lots of red cards). Which is contradictory to the spirit/role of a warlord. That's why Im placing this rule in doubt.

Like said, there are more ways to avoid the warlord than any other char: assassin, bishop, warlord, building expensively, or even the thief (a robbed warlord may not have the funds to attack) or architect (build 9+ districts and you'll setill end the game)... So it doesnt seem overpowerful, at least until I try it out myself.
 
 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.