I just purchased the Citadels game, and was reading the rules, when I hit a point of confusion: The Warlord's special ability.

(A) Can the Warlord destroy districts in another player's city (it's not specifically mentioned, though it does say the Warlord can destroy districts in his/her own city).

(B) Why would a Warlord want to destroy a district in his/her own city? I don't see the strategy behind such a tactic.

Thx

Yes, the warlord can destroy districts in other players cities (wouldn't be much of a warlord otherwise I guess).

One reason that I can think of that you might want to blow up your own stuff would be close to the end of the game when you have a worthless, low-point district and you want to replace it with something better, but don't want to move the game toward the finish line yet (i.e. by building your 8th district).

a) Yes, he can.

b) To free up space for better buildings.

Let's think you have built 7 districts 3 of them worth 2 and the other 4 just 1, you have 10 points, and if you end the game you are getting less points than another player with just 3 districts built, maybe you would like to remove one of your 1-point-districts and build another one bigger. Unless you wanna lose.

(Sorry for my english... i hope you understand what i'm trying to say )

Also, it might be worthwhile to blow up that third "green" district (that was only worth one or two anyway) and play a different color to help give you the color bonus instead.

twonkbot said:

uhm... you could just build it in addition to the cards you allready have. i think you will very seldom (basically never) want to blow up your own stuff !

I have seen some tactics where players do some "Urban redevelopment" with the Warlord. It's been a while since I've seen it executed properly, but I know it can happen. Really, the Warlord card says that you can destroy your own stuff if you want in just those circumstances where someone might have that opportunity and wants a rules clarification. Better to just have it written out ahead of time rather than have the circumstance come up and the game stall out while players argue over what the card "Should also say".

Well, whatever the reasons to destroy own city, the Warlord is usually employed to bombard the opponent´s one.

I'm pretty sure that in my rules it is writen that warlord CAN'T destroy its own buildings. I'll check later to see.

bikinilord said:

No, Crash is right. Anyone who chooses the Warlord may destroy one of his own buildings to make room for a higher cost (or different color) district. It's a difficult strategy, especially when you could be in danger of losing a lot of gold while you implement it, but it can be worth it sometimes.

The Warlord is one of the more fun players to be. He goes last and is usually employed to stop someone from getting to the finish line. Of course, you could destroy your own building, and the reasons stated above are valid and good, but I haven't come across that situation yet. Meaning, I always have someone to smite more than my own buildings to crush and rebuild.

Additionally there can be a tactical advantage

If you happen to have two or three early turns where you get a really fast start, and everything meshes for you, depending on who you're playing with, you may turn into a target.

By voluntarily "chopping off a hand", you "bring yourself back in line" on your terms, as opposed to someone else's.

Again, not an obvious thing that you would want to do on a regular basis, as stated above, but simply it's a gambit and an option to employ at the right time.

I'd rather keep both of my hands. It makes holding the cards much easier

We just played Citadels tonight. I never knew that destroying your own district was even an option! Grrr. Oh well, I learned something today then.

That warlord is such a brutal fellow! Also remember that the warlord cannot be employed on a city that has built its eighth district already - as I have found out to my cost a few times...