Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [18xx] 1841 merger query

Expand Messages
  • Chris Shaffer
    This came up again in a game I was playing and players thought a merged company could have a stock price of 3/298 or 4/284. Any idea when rules revision 2.02
    Message 1 of 20 , May 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      This came up again in a game I was playing and players thought a merged
      company could have a stock price of 3/298 or 4/284. Any idea when rules
      revision 2.02 will be published?

      Chris


      On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 9:30 AM, <Maisnestce@...> wrote:

      > Chris Shaffer wrote:
      >
      > > In Steve Thomas' 1841 strategy commentary at
      > > http://home.earthlink.net/%7Egamecorner/1841stra-st2.html , he refers
      > > to "the L.250 cap on merged corporation prices". The v2.01 rules
      > > state:
      > >
      > > "For a merger of major Corporations, the new value will retain the
      > > position of an old Corporation if it is at least L.250, otherwise it
      > > will be the rightmost value which is less than the sum of the market
      > > values of the old Corporations."
      > >
      > > There is no mention of a cap when the sum of market values exceeds 250
      > > -- the only limit described is when a single merging corporation is
      > > valued at 250 or higher. Thus, by the wording in the v2.01 rules, two
      > > corporations valued at 195 and 160 would have a new market value of
      > > 340. Was it intended to eliminate the L.250 cap in v2.01?
      >
      > This is a known error in the rules. John was going to correct it for new
      > printings and on his web site, and for all I know may have done so. The
      > offending rule should read:
      >
      > "For a merger of major Corporations, the new value will be that of the
      > higher
      > priced of the old Corporations, provided that price is at least L.250,
      > otherwise it will be the rightmost value which is less than the sum of the
      > market
      > values of the old Corporations and less than L.250."
      >
      > The phrasing "retain the position" may cause players to assume,
      > incorrectly,
      > that the new corporation's share price marker won't necessarily be at the
      > bottom of a pile.
      >
      > Steve Thomas maisnestce@a...
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      > This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >


      --
      Chris

      Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • allen
      chris, this rule has not changed in either version, even though other people may claim that it has. the resulting merged value is either: 1: the highest value
      Message 2 of 20 , May 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        chris, this rule has not changed in either version,
        even though other people may claim that it has.
        the resulting merged value is either:
        1: the highest value company that exceeds l242
        2: the sum of both company's that doesn't exceed l242.
        or it's limited to l242, and no higher if both of
        the companies dont originally exceed l242.
        this is what i meant that rules in version 1.5
        are better, than those written in 2.01.
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Chris Shaffer" <chris.shaffer@...>
        To: <18xx@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 7:41 AM
        Subject: Re: [18xx] 1841 merger query


        > This came up again in a game I was playing and players thought a merged
        > company could have a stock price of 3/298 or 4/284. Any idea when rules
        > revision 2.02 will be published?
        >
        > Chris
        >
        >
        > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 9:30 AM, <Maisnestce@...> wrote:
        >
        >> Chris Shaffer wrote:
        >>
        >> > In Steve Thomas' 1841 strategy commentary at
        >> > http://home.earthlink.net/%7Egamecorner/1841stra-st2.html , he refers
        >> > to "the L.250 cap on merged corporation prices". The v2.01 rules
        >> > state:
        >> >
        >> > "For a merger of major Corporations, the new value will retain the
        >> > position of an old Corporation if it is at least L.250, otherwise it
        >> > will be the rightmost value which is less than the sum of the market
        >> > values of the old Corporations."
        >> >
        >> > There is no mention of a cap when the sum of market values exceeds 250
        >> > -- the only limit described is when a single merging corporation is
        >> > valued at 250 or higher. Thus, by the wording in the v2.01 rules, two
        >> > corporations valued at 195 and 160 would have a new market value of
        >> > 340. Was it intended to eliminate the L.250 cap in v2.01?
        >>
        >> This is a known error in the rules. John was going to correct it for new
        >> printings and on his web site, and for all I know may have done so. The
        >> offending rule should read:
        >>
        >> "For a merger of major Corporations, the new value will be that of the
        >> higher
        >> priced of the old Corporations, provided that price is at least L.250,
        >> otherwise it will be the rightmost value which is less than the sum of
        >> the
        >> market
        >> values of the old Corporations and less than L.250."
        >>
        >> The phrasing "retain the position" may cause players to assume,
        >> incorrectly,
        >> that the new corporation's share price marker won't necessarily be at the
        >> bottom of a pile.
        >>
        >> Steve Thomas maisnestce@a...
        >>
        >>
        >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
        >> Yahoo! Groups Links
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >
        >
        > --
        > Chris
        >
        > Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
      • Chris Shaffer
        Allen, As Steve Thomas acknowledged, the rules *as written in v2.01, the version that I am playing* are wrong. I do not care, and will never care, what the
        Message 3 of 20 , May 1, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Allen,

          As Steve Thomas acknowledged, the rules *as written in v2.01, the version
          that I am playing* are wrong.

          I do not care, and will never care, what the earlier versions of the rules
          said. I am playing v2.01 and those are the rules that I am asking questions
          about. References to v1.51 will not sway me, nor will they answer my
          questions.

          Chris


          On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:48 AM, allen <astancius@...> wrote:

          > chris, this rule has not changed in either version,
          > even though other people may claim that it has.
          > the resulting merged value is either:
          > 1: the highest value company that exceeds l242
          > 2: the sum of both company's that doesn't exceed l242.
          > or it's limited to l242, and no higher if both of
          > the companies dont originally exceed l242.
          > this is what i meant that rules in version 1.5
          > are better, than those written in 2.01.
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: "Chris Shaffer" <chris.shaffer@...>
          > To: <18xx@yahoogroups.com>
          > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 7:41 AM
          > Subject: Re: [18xx] 1841 merger query
          >
          >
          > > This came up again in a game I was playing and players thought a merged
          > > company could have a stock price of 3/298 or 4/284. Any idea when rules
          > > revision 2.02 will be published?
          > >
          > > Chris
          > >
          > >
          > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 9:30 AM, <Maisnestce@...> wrote:
          > >
          > >> Chris Shaffer wrote:
          > >>
          > >> > In Steve Thomas' 1841 strategy commentary at
          > >> > http://home.earthlink.net/%7Egamecorner/1841stra-st2.html , he refers
          > >> > to "the L.250 cap on merged corporation prices". The v2.01 rules
          > >> > state:
          > >> >
          > >> > "For a merger of major Corporations, the new value will retain the
          > >> > position of an old Corporation if it is at least L.250, otherwise it
          > >> > will be the rightmost value which is less than the sum of the market
          > >> > values of the old Corporations."
          > >> >
          > >> > There is no mention of a cap when the sum of market values exceeds
          > 250
          > >> > -- the only limit described is when a single merging corporation is
          > >> > valued at 250 or higher. Thus, by the wording in the v2.01 rules, two
          > >> > corporations valued at 195 and 160 would have a new market value of
          > >> > 340. Was it intended to eliminate the L.250 cap in v2.01?
          > >>
          > >> This is a known error in the rules. John was going to correct it for
          > new
          > >> printings and on his web site, and for all I know may have done so.
          > The
          > >> offending rule should read:
          > >>
          > >> "For a merger of major Corporations, the new value will be that of the
          > >> higher
          > >> priced of the old Corporations, provided that price is at least L.250,
          > >> otherwise it will be the rightmost value which is less than the sum of
          > >> the
          > >> market
          > >> values of the old Corporations and less than L.250."
          > >>
          > >> The phrasing "retain the position" may cause players to assume,
          > >> incorrectly,
          > >> that the new corporation's share price marker won't necessarily be at
          > the
          > >> bottom of a pile.
          > >>
          > >> Steve Thomas maisnestce@a...
          > >>
          > >>
          > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >>
          > >>
          > >>
          > >> This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
          > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
          > >>
          > >>
          > >>
          > >>
          > >
          > >
          > > --
          > > Chris
          > >
          > > Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
          > >
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          > >
          > > ------------------------------------
          > >
          > > This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.Yahoo! Groups Links
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >


          --
          Chris

          Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Beard, Bruce D.
          Chris, I admire your determination to play by a set of rules you do not understand. Sort of a metaphor for life. Bruce ________________________________ From:
          Message 4 of 20 , May 1, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Chris,
            I admire your determination to play by a set of rules you do not understand. Sort of a metaphor for life.
            Bruce

            ________________________________

            From: 18xx@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Chris Shaffer
            Sent: Thu 5/1/2008 11:59 AM
            To: 18xx@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [18xx] 1841 merger query



            Allen,

            As Steve Thomas acknowledged, the rules *as written in v2.01, the version
            that I am playing* are wrong.

            I do not care, and will never care, what the earlier versions of the rules
            said. I am playing v2.01 and those are the rules that I am asking questions
            about. References to v1.51 will not sway me, nor will they answer my
            questions.

            Chris

            On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:48 AM, allen <astancius@... <mailto:astancius%40verizon.net> > wrote:

            > chris, this rule has not changed in either version,
            > even though other people may claim that it has.
            > the resulting merged value is either:
            > 1: the highest value company that exceeds l242
            > 2: the sum of both company's that doesn't exceed l242.
            > or it's limited to l242, and no higher if both of
            > the companies dont originally exceed l242.
            > this is what i meant that rules in version 1.5
            > are better, than those written in 2.01.
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: "Chris Shaffer" <chris.shaffer@... <mailto:chris.shaffer%40gmail.com> >
            > To: <18xx@yahoogroups.com <mailto:18xx%40yahoogroups.com> >
            > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 7:41 AM
            > Subject: Re: [18xx] 1841 merger query
            >
            >
            > > This came up again in a game I was playing and players thought a merged
            > > company could have a stock price of 3/298 or 4/284. Any idea when rules
            > > revision 2.02 will be published?
            > >
            > > Chris
            > >
            > >
            > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 9:30 AM, <Maisnestce@... <mailto:Maisnestce%40aol.com> > wrote:
            > >
            > >> Chris Shaffer wrote:
            > >>
            > >> > In Steve Thomas' 1841 strategy commentary at
            > >> > http://home.earthlink.net/%7Egamecorner/1841stra-st2.html <http://home.earthlink.net/%7Egamecorner/1841stra-st2.html> , he refers
            > >> > to "the L.250 cap on merged corporation prices". The v2.01 rules
            > >> > state:
            > >> >
            > >> > "For a merger of major Corporations, the new value will retain the
            > >> > position of an old Corporation if it is at least L.250, otherwise it
            > >> > will be the rightmost value which is less than the sum of the market
            > >> > values of the old Corporations."
            > >> >
            > >> > There is no mention of a cap when the sum of market values exceeds
            > 250
            > >> > -- the only limit described is when a single merging corporation is
            > >> > valued at 250 or higher. Thus, by the wording in the v2.01 rules, two
            > >> > corporations valued at 195 and 160 would have a new market value of
            > >> > 340. Was it intended to eliminate the L.250 cap in v2.01?
            > >>
            > >> This is a known error in the rules. John was going to correct it for
            > new
            > >> printings and on his web site, and for all I know may have done so.
            > The
            > >> offending rule should read:
            > >>
            > >> "For a merger of major Corporations, the new value will be that of the
            > >> higher
            > >> priced of the old Corporations, provided that price is at least L.250,
            > >> otherwise it will be the rightmost value which is less than the sum of
            > >> the
            > >> market
            > >> values of the old Corporations and less than L.250."
            > >>
            > >> The phrasing "retain the position" may cause players to assume,
            > >> incorrectly,
            > >> that the new corporation's share price marker won't necessarily be at
            > the
            > >> bottom of a pile.
            > >>
            > >> Steve Thomas maisnestce@a...
            > >>
            > >>
            > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >>
            > >>
            > >>
            > >> This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
            > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >>
            > >>
            > >>
            > >>
            > >
            > >
            > > --
            > > Chris
            > >
            > > Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
            > >
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            > >
            > > ------------------------------------
            > >
            > > This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >

            --
            Chris

            Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • BrophyM
            Bruce, I didn t know you were a closet philosopher! What makes you think the rules are not understandable...? (The life ones, not the game ones....) Mike In
            Message 5 of 20 , May 1, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Bruce,

              I didn't know you were a closet philosopher! What makes you think the rules are not understandable...? (The life ones, not the game ones....)

              Mike

              In a message dated 05/01/08 12:19:26 Eastern Daylight Time, bruce_d_beard@... writes:
              I admire your determination to play by a set of rules you do not understand. Sort of a metaphor for life.


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • BrophyM
              Sorry -- that reply was only supposed to go to Bruce, not the group... Mike In a message dated 05/01/08 12:25:56 Eastern Daylight Time, BrophyM writes: Bruce,
              Message 6 of 20 , May 1, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Sorry -- that reply was only supposed to go to Bruce, not the group...

                Mike

                In a message dated 05/01/08 12:25:56 Eastern Daylight Time, BrophyM writes:
                Bruce,

                I didn't know you were a closet philosopher!


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Chris Shaffer
                Thanks, I think. I m pretty sure I do understand the rules. I m just trying to achieve clarity. I d much prefer to play by a single set of rules, whether I
                Message 7 of 20 , May 1, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thanks, I think.

                  I'm pretty sure I do understand the rules. I'm just trying to achieve
                  clarity.

                  I'd much prefer to play by a single set of rules, whether I understand them
                  or not, than by mixing and matching multiple sets of rules.

                  Chris


                  On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Beard, Bruce D. <bruce_d_beard@...>
                  wrote:

                  > Chris,
                  > I admire your determination to play by a set of rules you do not
                  > understand. Sort of a metaphor for life.
                  > Bruce
                  >
                  > ________________________________
                  >
                  > From: 18xx@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Chris Shaffer
                  > Sent: Thu 5/1/2008 11:59 AM
                  > To: 18xx@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: Re: [18xx] 1841 merger query
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Allen,
                  >
                  > As Steve Thomas acknowledged, the rules *as written in v2.01, the version
                  > that I am playing* are wrong.
                  >
                  > I do not care, and will never care, what the earlier versions of the rules
                  > said. I am playing v2.01 and those are the rules that I am asking
                  > questions
                  > about. References to v1.51 will not sway me, nor will they answer my
                  > questions.
                  >
                  > Chris
                  >
                  > On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:48 AM, allen <astancius@... <mailto:
                  > astancius%40verizon.net <astancius%2540verizon.net>> > wrote:
                  >
                  > > chris, this rule has not changed in either version,
                  > > even though other people may claim that it has.
                  > > the resulting merged value is either:
                  > > 1: the highest value company that exceeds l242
                  > > 2: the sum of both company's that doesn't exceed l242.
                  > > or it's limited to l242, and no higher if both of
                  > > the companies dont originally exceed l242.
                  > > this is what i meant that rules in version 1.5
                  > > are better, than those written in 2.01.
                  > > ----- Original Message -----
                  > > From: "Chris Shaffer" <chris.shaffer@... <mailto:
                  > chris.shaffer%40gmail.com <chris.shaffer%2540gmail.com>> >
                  > > To: <18xx@yahoogroups.com <mailto:18xx%40yahoogroups.com<18xx%2540yahoogroups.com>>
                  > >
                  > > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 7:41 AM
                  > > Subject: Re: [18xx] 1841 merger query
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > > This came up again in a game I was playing and players thought a
                  > merged
                  > > > company could have a stock price of 3/298 or 4/284. Any idea when
                  > rules
                  > > > revision 2.02 will be published?
                  > > >
                  > > > Chris
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 9:30 AM, <Maisnestce@... <mailto:
                  > Maisnestce%40aol.com <Maisnestce%2540aol.com>> > wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > >> Chris Shaffer wrote:
                  > > >>
                  > > >> > In Steve Thomas' 1841 strategy commentary at
                  > > >> > http://home.earthlink.net/%7Egamecorner/1841stra-st2.html <
                  > http://home.earthlink.net/%7Egamecorner/1841stra-st2.html> , he refers
                  > > >> > to "the L.250 cap on merged corporation prices". The v2.01 rules
                  > > >> > state:
                  > > >> >
                  > > >> > "For a merger of major Corporations, the new value will retain the
                  > > >> > position of an old Corporation if it is at least L.250, otherwise
                  > it
                  > > >> > will be the rightmost value which is less than the sum of the
                  > market
                  > > >> > values of the old Corporations."
                  > > >> >
                  > > >> > There is no mention of a cap when the sum of market values exceeds
                  > > 250
                  > > >> > -- the only limit described is when a single merging corporation is
                  > > >> > valued at 250 or higher. Thus, by the wording in the v2.01 rules,
                  > two
                  > > >> > corporations valued at 195 and 160 would have a new market value of
                  > > >> > 340. Was it intended to eliminate the L.250 cap in v2.01?
                  > > >>
                  > > >> This is a known error in the rules. John was going to correct it for
                  > > new
                  > > >> printings and on his web site, and for all I know may have done so.
                  > > The
                  > > >> offending rule should read:
                  > > >>
                  > > >> "For a merger of major Corporations, the new value will be that of
                  > the
                  > > >> higher
                  > > >> priced of the old Corporations, provided that price is at least
                  > L.250,
                  > > >> otherwise it will be the rightmost value which is less than the sum
                  > of
                  > > >> the
                  > > >> market
                  > > >> values of the old Corporations and less than L.250."
                  > > >>
                  > > >> The phrasing "retain the position" may cause players to assume,
                  > > >> incorrectly,
                  > > >> that the new corporation's share price marker won't necessarily be at
                  > > the
                  > > >> bottom of a pile.
                  > > >>
                  > > >> Steve Thomas maisnestce@a...
                  > > >>
                  > > >>
                  > > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > > >>
                  > > >>
                  > > >>
                  > > >> This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
                  > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > > >>
                  > > >>
                  > > >>
                  > > >>
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > --
                  > > > Chris
                  > > >
                  > > > Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > ------------------------------------
                  > > >
                  > > > This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > ------------------------------------
                  > >
                  > > This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  > --
                  > Chris
                  >
                  > Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  --
                  Chris

                  Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Maisnestce@aol.com
                  ... I don t know the answer to Chris question--that s within John Tamplin s purview. But the above formulation isn t right, in at least two respects. If
                  Message 8 of 20 , May 1, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Allen Stancius wrote:

                    > chris, this rule has not changed in either version,
                    > even though other people may claim that it has.
                    > the resulting merged value is either:
                    > 1: the highest value company that exceeds l242
                    > 2: the sum of both company's that doesn't exceed l242.
                    > or it's limited to l242, and no higher if both of
                    > the companies dont originally exceed l242.
                    > this is what i meant that rules in version 1.5
                    > are better, than those written in 2.01.

                    I don't know the answer to Chris' question--that's within John Tamplin's
                    purview. But the above formulation isn't right, in at least two respects. If
                    either precursor price exceeds L.250, the resulting price is the same as the
                    higher one. Otherwise, the resulting price is the rightmost price less than the
                    lower of the sum of the precursor prices and L.250. For example the price
                    resulting from a merger between companies priced at L.248 and L.248 is L.242,
                    while 12+230 => 230.

                    Steve Thomas maisnestce@a...


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Tim Franklin
                    ... I thought life went: 1. You can t win. 2. You can t even break even. 3. You can t quit. Which actually sounds quite a lot like my attempts at playing 18xx
                    Message 9 of 20 , May 1, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Thu, May 1, 2008 5:17 pm, Beard, Bruce D. wrote:

                      > I admire your determination to play by a set of rules you do not
                      > understand. Sort of a metaphor for life.

                      I thought life went:

                      1. You can't win.
                      2. You can't even break even.
                      3. You can't quit.

                      Which actually sounds quite a lot like my attempts at playing 18xx - and
                      yet I still enjoy both!

                      Regards,
                      Tim.
                    • Beard, Bruce D.
                      Experience. ________________________________ From: 18xx@yahoogroups.com on behalf of BrophyM Sent: Thu 5/1/2008 12:24 PM To: 18xx@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re:
                      Message 10 of 20 , May 1, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Experience.

                        ________________________________

                        From: 18xx@yahoogroups.com on behalf of BrophyM
                        Sent: Thu 5/1/2008 12:24 PM
                        To: 18xx@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [18xx] 1841 merger query



                        Bruce,

                        I didn't know you were a closet philosopher! What makes you think the rules are not understandable...? (The life ones, not the game ones....)

                        Mike

                        In a message dated 05/01/08 12:19:26 Eastern Daylight Time, bruce_d_beard@... <mailto:bruce_d_beard%40mcpsmd.org> writes:
                        I admire your determination to play by a set of rules you do not understand. Sort of a metaphor for life.

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • James Romano
                        While we re on the subject, I also have an 1841 (v. 2.01) question. Consider the merger of two major corporations, A and B, with two different presidents, Alex
                        Message 11 of 20 , May 1, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          While we're on the subject, I also have an 1841 (v. 2.01) question.

                          Consider the merger of two major corporations, A and B, with two
                          different presidents, Alex and Bob. Alex owns 50% of A and nothing
                          else. Bob owns 60% of B and nothing else. A has the higher stock price
                          at the time of the merge, and is the active corporation at the time of
                          the merge, so the merge is "performed by" Alex. (I think the higher
                          stock price is overkill, but that's not the question anyway.)

                          My question is: who winds up becoming president of the new corporation, C?

                          Alex exchanges 40% of A for 20% of C, and he'll pay to upgrade his
                          remaining 10% share of A to a full 10% share of C, so he'll wind up with
                          30% of C eventually.

                          Bob will exchange 60% of B for 30% of C.

                          So Alex and Bob will each get to 30%. Will Bob get there first, even
                          though the merge is performed by Alex? The rules (section 4.7.4.1) seem
                          to have the exchanges happening in two stages: first, pairs of old
                          shares are exchanged for single new shares (first bullet point); then
                          single old shares may be upgraded to single new shares (second bullet
                          point).

                          If there is a presidency check between the two stages, then Bob will
                          become president, because he'll have 30% then while Alex will have only
                          20% at that point. And the presidency will remain with Bob even after
                          Alex increases his holding to 30%, because Bob got there first. Right?

                          If there is no intervening presidency check, or if Alex gets to pay to
                          upgrade his single share before Bob gets to exchange his three full
                          pairs, then Alex will become president and remain president even when
                          Bob catches up. Right?

                          Which is it, or do I have it all wrong?

                          Jim
                        • Lou Jerkich
                          Having been involved in several efforts at revising or clarifying rules in 18xx games, I am aware just how difficult it is to write rules that are so clear
                          Message 12 of 20 , May 1, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Having been involved in several efforts at revising or clarifying rules in
                            18xx games, I am aware just how difficult it is to write rules that are so
                            clear that there is no ambiguity at all. I have seen rules that appeared
                            perfectly clear to one group of players challenged by someone else. For
                            every time that a challenger finds a real flaw that others have missed, I
                            suspect that there is also a time when a rule is clear but the challenger
                            isn't seeing the obvious.

                            At any rate, in my group of players, when a rule isn't clear we search the
                            rule book, check for any later clarifications, and then, if still necessary
                            and it is available, we look at an earlier version of the rules. The truth
                            is that in a rules re-write sometimes the new version doesn't say it as
                            clearly as the previous rules did. (Rules writers have been known on
                            occasion to take a perfectly clear rule and muck it up with a re-write.)
                            Barring any indications that the earlier version of the rule was faulty, in
                            the interest of getting on with the game as quickly as possible and not
                            getting hung up forever on rules differences, we would use that earlier
                            version.

                            Since I have the earlier edition of the 1841 rules as well as the v2.01
                            edition, in the event of an ambiguity in the v2.01 rules, I would consider
                            myself fortunate to have access to a source that might shed some light on
                            the problem. I would do so with all the more confidence because the v2.01
                            rules have a section 7 on page 18 titled "Differences from the original
                            version." Since the issue that is being discussed about merged values
                            isn't one of the stated differences from the earlier version, to my mind
                            the use of an earlier version of the same rule that happens to have an
                            explanation that is clearer makes a lot of sense. At least we could get on
                            with the game.

                            [Caveat: I have not investigated the particular rule in question. I'm just
                            making a general point about using the means at hand to resolve an issue in
                            the interest of getting on with the game. I do not believe there exists
                            any set of 18xx rules that is perfectly clear in all particulars to
                            everyone who plays the game. I personally take the approach that using
                            whatever means will clarify the situation is better than undue delays or
                            letting hard feelings lead to an abrupt game end.]
                            --Lou Jerkich

                            > [Original Message]
                            > From: Chris Shaffer <chris.shaffer@...>
                            > To: <18xx@yahoogroups.com>
                            > Date: 5/1/2008 11:59:59 AM
                            > Subject: Re: [18xx] 1841 merger query
                            >
                            > Allen,
                            >
                            > As Steve Thomas acknowledged, the rules *as written in v2.01, the version
                            > that I am playing* are wrong.
                            >
                            > I do not care, and will never care, what the earlier versions of the rules
                            > said. I am playing v2.01 and those are the rules that I am asking
                            questions
                            > about. References to v1.51 will not sway me, nor will they answer my
                            > questions.
                            >
                            > Chris
                            >
                            >
                            > On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:48 AM, allen <astancius@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > > chris, this rule has not changed in either version,
                            > > even though other people may claim that it has.
                            > > the resulting merged value is either:
                            > > 1: the highest value company that exceeds l242
                            > > 2: the sum of both company's that doesn't exceed l242.
                            > > or it's limited to l242, and no higher if both of
                            > > the companies dont originally exceed l242.
                            > > this is what i meant that rules in version 1.5
                            > > are better, than those written in 2.01.
                            > > ----- Original Message -----
                            > > From: "Chris Shaffer" <chris.shaffer@...>
                            > > To: <18xx@yahoogroups.com>
                            > > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 7:41 AM
                            > > Subject: Re: [18xx] 1841 merger query
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > > This came up again in a game I was playing and players thought a
                            merged
                            > > > company could have a stock price of 3/298 or 4/284. Any idea when
                            rules
                            > > > revision 2.02 will be published?
                            > > >
                            > > > Chris
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 9:30 AM, <Maisnestce@...> wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > >> Chris Shaffer wrote:
                            > > >>
                            > > >> > In Steve Thomas' 1841 strategy commentary at
                            > > >> > http://home.earthlink.net/%7Egamecorner/1841stra-st2.html , he
                            refers
                            > > >> > to "the L.250 cap on merged corporation prices". The v2.01 rules
                            > > >> > state:
                            > > >> >
                            > > >> > "For a merger of major Corporations, the new value will retain the
                            > > >> > position of an old Corporation if it is at least L.250, otherwise
                            it
                            > > >> > will be the rightmost value which is less than the sum of the
                            market
                            > > >> > values of the old Corporations."
                            > > >> >
                            > > >> > There is no mention of a cap when the sum of market values exceeds
                            > > 250
                            > > >> > -- the only limit described is when a single merging corporation is
                            > > >> > valued at 250 or higher. Thus, by the wording in the v2.01 rules,
                            two
                            > > >> > corporations valued at 195 and 160 would have a new market value of
                            > > >> > 340. Was it intended to eliminate the L.250 cap in v2.01?
                            > > >>
                            > > >> This is a known error in the rules. John was going to correct it for
                            > > new
                            > > >> printings and on his web site, and for all I know may have done so.
                            > > The
                            > > >> offending rule should read:
                            > > >>
                            > > >> "For a merger of major Corporations, the new value will be that of
                            the
                            > > >> higher
                            > > >> priced of the old Corporations, provided that price is at least
                            L.250,
                            > > >> otherwise it will be the rightmost value which is less than the sum
                            of
                            > > >> the
                            > > >> market
                            > > >> values of the old Corporations and less than L.250."
                            > > >>
                            > > >> The phrasing "retain the position" may cause players to assume,
                            > > >> incorrectly,
                            > > >> that the new corporation's share price marker won't necessarily be at
                            > > the
                            > > >> bottom of a pile.
                            > > >>
                            > > >> Steve Thomas maisnestce@a...
                            > > >>
                            > > >>
                            > > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            > > >>
                            > > >>
                            > > >>
                            > > >> This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
                            > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                            > > >>
                            > > >>
                            > > >>
                            > > >>
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > --
                            > > > Chris
                            > > >
                            > > > Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > ------------------------------------
                            > > >
                            > > > This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.Yahoo! Groups Links
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > ------------------------------------
                            > >
                            > > This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.Yahoo! Groups Links
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            >
                            >
                            > --
                            > Chris
                            >
                            > Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
                            >
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                            >
                            > ------------------------------------
                            >
                            > This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                          • allen
                            it s during the exchange of each pair of shares, starting with the president of the active corporation that the new director is determined, then single shares
                            Message 13 of 20 , May 2, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              it's during the exchange of each pair of shares,
                              starting with the president of the active corporation
                              that the new director is determined, then single
                              shares are exchanged for either their cash
                              value, or upgraded to another share of
                              the merged company.
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: "James Romano" <romano.james@...>


                              >While we're on the subject, I also have an
                              >1841 (v. 2.01) question.
                              >Consider the merger of two major corporations,
                              >A and B, with two different presidents, Alex and Bob.
                              >Alex owns 50% of A and nothing else.
                              >Bob owns 60% of B and nothing else.
                              >A has the higher stock price at the time of
                              >the merge, and is the active corporation at
                              >the time of the merge, so the merge is
                              >"performed by" Alex.
                              >(I think the higher stock price is overkill, but
                              >that's not the question anyway.)

                              true, allex performs the merger, because he's
                              the president of the active corporation, and the
                              price has nothing to do with it.

                              >My question is: who winds up becoming
                              >president of the new corporation, C?

                              >Alex exchanges 40% of A for 20% of C, and he'll
                              >pay to upgrade his remaining 10% share of A
                              >to a full 10% share of C, so he'll
                              >wind up with 30% of C eventually

                              >Bob will exchange 60% of B for 30% of C.

                              >So Alex and Bob will each get to 30%. Will
                              >Bob get there first, even though the merge is
                              >performed by Alex?
                              yes, bob does.

                              >The rules (section 4.7.4.1) seem to have the
                              >exchanges happening in two stages: first, pairs
                              >of old shares are exchanged for single new shares
                              >(first bullet point); then single old shares
                              >may be upgraded to single new shares
                              >(second bullet point).

                              > If there is a presidency check between the two
                              >stages, then Bob will become president,
                              >because he'll have 30% then while Alex
                              >will have only 20% at that point. And the
                              >presidency will remain with Bob even
                              >after Alex increases his holding to 30%,
                              >because Bob got there first. Right?
                              this is correct. the new director is bob due
                              to obtaining 30% after each pair of
                              shares were exchanged.
                              upgrading the single share does not change directorship.

                              you've covered it jim, and the only way alex
                              could get back this company is to be able to buy
                              another share before you do in the next stock round,
                              or you dump it on him.
                            • allen
                              i totally agree here. ... From: Lou Jerkich
                              Message 14 of 20 , May 2, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                i totally agree here.
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: "Lou Jerkich" <gamecorner@...>


                                >Having been involved in several efforts at
                                >revising or clarifying rules in 18xx games,
                                >I am aware just how difficult it is to write rules
                                >that are so clear that there is no ambiguity at all.
                                >I have seen rules that appeared perfectly
                                >clear to one group of players challenged by
                                >someone else. For every time that a challenger
                                >finds a real flaw that others have missed, I
                                >suspect that there is also a time when a rule is clear
                                >but the challenger isn't seeing the obvious.
                                >
                                >At any rate, in my group of players, when a
                                >rule isn't clear we search the rule book, check
                                >for any later clarifications, and then, if still necessary
                                >and it is available, we look at an earlier version of
                                >the rules. The truth is that in a rules re-write
                                >sometimes the new version doesn't say it as
                                >clearly as the previous rules did.
                                >(Rules writers have been known on occasion
                                >to take a perfectly clear rule and muck it up
                                >with a re-write.)
                                >Barring any indications that the earlier version of the
                                >rule was faulty, in the interest of getting on with
                                >the game as quickly as possible and not getting
                                >hung up forever on rules differences, we would
                                >use that earlier version.
                                >
                                >Since I have the earlier edition of the 1841 rules
                                >as well as the v2.01 edition, in the event of an
                                >ambiguity in the v2.01 rules, I would consider
                                >myself fortunate to have access to a source that
                                >might shed some light on the problem. I would
                                >do so with all the more confidence because
                                >the v2.01 rules have a section 7 on page 18
                                >titled "Differences from the original version."
                                >Since the issue that is being discussed about
                                >merged values isn't one of the stated differences
                                >from the earlier version, to my mind the use of
                                >an earlier version of the same rule that happens
                                >to have an explanation that is clearer makes a
                                >lot of sense. At least we could get on with the game.
                                >
                                > [Caveat: I have not investigated the particular
                                >rule in question. I'm just making a general point
                                >about using the means at hand to resolve an issue
                                >in the interest of getting on with the game. I
                                >do not believe there exists any set of 18xx rules
                                >that is perfectly clear in all particulars to
                                >everyone who plays the game. I personally
                                >take the approach that using whatever means will
                                >clarify the situation is better than undue delays
                                >or letting hard feelings lead to an abrupt game end.]
                                > --Lou Jerkich
                                >
                                >> [Original Message]
                                >> From: Chris Shaffer <chris.shaffer@...>
                                >> To: <18xx@yahoogroups.com>
                                >> Date: 5/1/2008 11:59:59 AM
                                >> Subject: Re: [18xx] 1841 merger query
                                >>
                                >> Allen,
                                >>
                                >> As Steve Thomas acknowledged, the rules *as written in v2.01, the version
                                >> that I am playing* are wrong.
                                >>
                                >> I do not care, and will never care, what the earlier versions of the
                                >> rules
                                >> said. I am playing v2.01 and those are the rules that I am asking
                                > questions
                                >> about. References to v1.51 will not sway me, nor will they answer my
                                >> questions.
                                >>
                                >> Chris
                                >>
                                >>
                                >> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:48 AM, allen <astancius@...> wrote:
                                >>
                                >> > chris, this rule has not changed in either version,
                                >> > even though other people may claim that it has.
                                >> > the resulting merged value is either:
                                >> > 1: the highest value company that exceeds l242
                                >> > 2: the sum of both company's that doesn't exceed l242.
                                >> > or it's limited to l242, and no higher if both of
                                >> > the companies dont originally exceed l242.
                                >> > this is what i meant that rules in version 1.5
                                >> > are better, than those written in 2.01.
                                >> > ----- Original Message -----
                                >> > From: "Chris Shaffer" <chris.shaffer@...>
                                >> > To: <18xx@yahoogroups.com>
                                >> > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 7:41 AM
                                >> > Subject: Re: [18xx] 1841 merger query
                                >> >
                                >> >
                                >> > > This came up again in a game I was playing and players thought a
                                > merged
                                >> > > company could have a stock price of 3/298 or 4/284. Any idea when
                                > rules
                                >> > > revision 2.02 will be published?
                                >> > >
                                >> > > Chris
                                >> > >
                                >> > >
                                >> > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 9:30 AM, <Maisnestce@...> wrote:
                                >> > >
                                >> > >> Chris Shaffer wrote:
                                >> > >>
                                >> > >> > In Steve Thomas' 1841 strategy commentary at
                                >> > >> > http://home.earthlink.net/%7Egamecorner/1841stra-st2.html , he
                                > refers
                                >> > >> > to "the L.250 cap on merged corporation prices". The v2.01 rules
                                >> > >> > state:
                                >> > >> >
                                >> > >> > "For a merger of major Corporations, the new value will retain the
                                >> > >> > position of an old Corporation if it is at least L.250, otherwise
                                > it
                                >> > >> > will be the rightmost value which is less than the sum of the
                                > market
                                >> > >> > values of the old Corporations."
                                >> > >> >
                                >> > >> > There is no mention of a cap when the sum of market values exceeds
                                >> > 250
                                >> > >> > -- the only limit described is when a single merging corporation
                                >> > >> > is
                                >> > >> > valued at 250 or higher. Thus, by the wording in the v2.01 rules,
                                > two
                                >> > >> > corporations valued at 195 and 160 would have a new market value
                                >> > >> > of
                                >> > >> > 340. Was it intended to eliminate the L.250 cap in v2.01?
                                >> > >>
                                >> > >> This is a known error in the rules. John was going to correct it
                                >> > >> for
                                >> > new
                                >> > >> printings and on his web site, and for all I know may have done so.
                                >> > The
                                >> > >> offending rule should read:
                                >> > >>
                                >> > >> "For a merger of major Corporations, the new value will be that of
                                > the
                                >> > >> higher
                                >> > >> priced of the old Corporations, provided that price is at least
                                > L.250,
                                >> > >> otherwise it will be the rightmost value which is less than the sum
                                > of
                                >> > >> the
                                >> > >> market
                                >> > >> values of the old Corporations and less than L.250."
                                >> > >>
                                >> > >> The phrasing "retain the position" may cause players to assume,
                                >> > >> incorrectly,
                                >> > >> that the new corporation's share price marker won't necessarily be
                                >> > >> at
                                >> > the
                                >> > >> bottom of a pile.
                                >> > >>
                                >> > >> Steve Thomas maisnestce@a...
                                >> > >>
                                >> > >>
                                >> > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >> > >>
                                >> > >>
                                >> > >>
                                >> > >> This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
                                >> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                                >> > >>
                                >> > >>
                                >> > >>
                                >> > >>
                                >> > >
                                >> > >
                                >> > > --
                                >> > > Chris
                                >> > >
                                >> > > Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
                                >> > >
                                >> > >
                                >> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >> > >
                                >> > >
                                >> > > ------------------------------------
                                >> > >
                                >> > > This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.Yahoo! Groups Links
                                >> > >
                                >> > >
                                >> > >
                                >> >
                                >> >
                                >> > ------------------------------------
                                >> >
                                >> > This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.Yahoo! Groups Links
                                >> >
                                >> >
                                >> >
                                >> >
                                >>
                                >>
                                >> --
                                >> Chris
                                >>
                                >> Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
                                >>
                                >>
                                >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >>
                                >>
                                >> ------------------------------------
                                >>
                                >> This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.Yahoo! Groups Links
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > ------------------------------------
                                >
                                > This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.Yahoo! Groups Links
                                >
                                >
                                >
                              • James Romano
                                Thanks Allen. Jim
                                Message 15 of 20 , May 2, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Thanks Allen.

                                  Jim

                                  allen wrote:
                                  >
                                  > it's during the exchange of each pair of shares,
                                  > starting with the president of the active corporation
                                  > that the new director is determined, then single
                                  > shares are exchanged for either their cash
                                  > value, or upgraded to another share of
                                  > the merged company.
                                  > ----- Original Message -----
                                  > From: "James Romano" <romano.james@...
                                  > <mailto:romano.james%40gmail.com>>
                                  >
                                  > >While we're on the subject, I also have an
                                  > >1841 (v. 2.01) question.
                                  > >Consider the merger of two major corporations,
                                  > >A and B, with two different presidents, Alex and Bob.
                                  > >Alex owns 50% of A and nothing else.
                                  > >Bob owns 60% of B and nothing else.
                                  > >A has the higher stock price at the time of
                                  > >the merge, and is the active corporation at
                                  > >the time of the merge, so the merge is
                                  > >"performed by" Alex.
                                  > >(I think the higher stock price is overkill, but
                                  > >that's not the question anyway.)
                                  >
                                  > true, allex performs the merger, because he's
                                  > the president of the active corporation, and the
                                  > price has nothing to do with it.
                                  >
                                  > >My question is: who winds up becoming
                                  > >president of the new corporation, C?
                                  >
                                  > >Alex exchanges 40% of A for 20% of C, and he'll
                                  > >pay to upgrade his remaining 10% share of A
                                  > >to a full 10% share of C, so he'll
                                  > >wind up with 30% of C eventually
                                  >
                                  > >Bob will exchange 60% of B for 30% of C.
                                  >
                                  > >So Alex and Bob will each get to 30%. Will
                                  > >Bob get there first, even though the merge is
                                  > >performed by Alex?
                                  > yes, bob does.
                                  >
                                  > >The rules (section 4.7.4.1) seem to have the
                                  > >exchanges happening in two stages: first, pairs
                                  > >of old shares are exchanged for single new shares
                                  > >(first bullet point); then single old shares
                                  > >may be upgraded to single new shares
                                  > >(second bullet point).
                                  >
                                  > > If there is a presidency check between the two
                                  > >stages, then Bob will become president,
                                  > >because he'll have 30% then while Alex
                                  > >will have only 20% at that point. And the
                                  > >presidency will remain with Bob even
                                  > >after Alex increases his holding to 30%,
                                  > >because Bob got there first. Right?
                                  > this is correct. the new director is bob due
                                  > to obtaining 30% after each pair of
                                  > shares were exchanged.
                                  > upgrading the single share does not change directorship.
                                  >
                                  > you've covered it jim, and the only way alex
                                  > could get back this company is to be able to buy
                                  > another share before you do in the next stock round,
                                  > or you dump it on him.
                                  >
                                  >
                                • Beard, Bruce D.
                                  I m still liking the religion analogy. Chris is struggling for understanding. Jehovah (played by Allen) appears in a blaze of glory and offers total
                                  Message 16 of 20 , May 5, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I'm still liking the religion analogy. Chris is struggling for understanding. Jehovah (played by Allen) appears in a blaze of glory and offers total enlightenment, eternal life, happiness, etc. Chris says: "I am playing the Muslim game now and I do not care to learn any of this older stuff. All I want to know is how many angels, according to Allah, can stand on the head of a pin."

                                    ________________________________

                                    From: 18xx@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Chris Shaffer
                                    Sent: Thu 5/1/2008 12:45 PM
                                    To: 18xx@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: Re: [18xx] 1841 merger query



                                    Thanks, I think.

                                    I'm pretty sure I do understand the rules. I'm just trying to achieve
                                    clarity.

                                    I'd much prefer to play by a single set of rules, whether I understand them
                                    or not, than by mixing and matching multiple sets of rules.

                                    Chris

                                    On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Beard, Bruce D. <bruce_d_beard@... <mailto:bruce_d_beard%40mcpsmd.org> >
                                    wrote:

                                    > Chris,
                                    > I admire your determination to play by a set of rules you do not
                                    > understand. Sort of a metaphor for life.
                                    > Bruce
                                    >
                                    > ________________________________
                                    >
                                    > From: 18xx@yahoogroups.com <mailto:18xx%40yahoogroups.com> on behalf of Chris Shaffer
                                    > Sent: Thu 5/1/2008 11:59 AM
                                    > To: 18xx@yahoogroups.com <mailto:18xx%40yahoogroups.com>
                                    > Subject: Re: [18xx] 1841 merger query
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Allen,
                                    >
                                    > As Steve Thomas acknowledged, the rules *as written in v2.01, the version
                                    > that I am playing* are wrong.
                                    >
                                    > I do not care, and will never care, what the earlier versions of the rules
                                    > said. I am playing v2.01 and those are the rules that I am asking
                                    > questions
                                    > about. References to v1.51 will not sway me, nor will they answer my
                                    > questions.
                                    >
                                    > Chris
                                    >
                                    > On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:48 AM, allen <astancius@... <mailto:astancius%40verizon.net> <mailto:
                                    > astancius%40verizon.net <astancius%2540verizon.net>> > wrote:
                                    >
                                    > > chris, this rule has not changed in either version,
                                    > > even though other people may claim that it has.
                                    > > the resulting merged value is either:
                                    > > 1: the highest value company that exceeds l242
                                    > > 2: the sum of both company's that doesn't exceed l242.
                                    > > or it's limited to l242, and no higher if both of
                                    > > the companies dont originally exceed l242.
                                    > > this is what i meant that rules in version 1.5
                                    > > are better, than those written in 2.01.
                                    > > ----- Original Message -----
                                    > > From: "Chris Shaffer" <chris.shaffer@... <mailto:chris.shaffer%40gmail.com> <mailto:
                                    > chris.shaffer%40gmail.com <chris.shaffer%2540gmail.com>> >
                                    > > To: <18xx@yahoogroups.com <mailto:18xx%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:18xx%40yahoogroups.com<18xx%2540yahoogroups.com>>
                                    > >
                                    > > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 7:41 AM
                                    > > Subject: Re: [18xx] 1841 merger query
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > > This came up again in a game I was playing and players thought a
                                    > merged
                                    > > > company could have a stock price of 3/298 or 4/284. Any idea when
                                    > rules
                                    > > > revision 2.02 will be published?
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Chris
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 9:30 AM, <Maisnestce@... <mailto:Maisnestce%40aol.com> <mailto:
                                    > Maisnestce%40aol.com <Maisnestce%2540aol.com>> > wrote:
                                    > > >
                                    > > >> Chris Shaffer wrote:
                                    > > >>
                                    > > >> > In Steve Thomas' 1841 strategy commentary at
                                    > > >> > http://home.earthlink.net/%7Egamecorner/1841stra-st2.html <http://home.earthlink.net/%7Egamecorner/1841stra-st2.html> <
                                    > http://home.earthlink.net/%7Egamecorner/1841stra-st2.html <http://home.earthlink.net/%7Egamecorner/1841stra-st2.html> > , he refers
                                    > > >> > to "the L.250 cap on merged corporation prices". The v2.01 rules
                                    > > >> > state:
                                    > > >> >
                                    > > >> > "For a merger of major Corporations, the new value will retain the
                                    > > >> > position of an old Corporation if it is at least L.250, otherwise
                                    > it
                                    > > >> > will be the rightmost value which is less than the sum of the
                                    > market
                                    > > >> > values of the old Corporations."
                                    > > >> >
                                    > > >> > There is no mention of a cap when the sum of market values exceeds
                                    > > 250
                                    > > >> > -- the only limit described is when a single merging corporation is
                                    > > >> > valued at 250 or higher. Thus, by the wording in the v2.01 rules,
                                    > two
                                    > > >> > corporations valued at 195 and 160 would have a new market value of
                                    > > >> > 340. Was it intended to eliminate the L.250 cap in v2.01?
                                    > > >>
                                    > > >> This is a known error in the rules. John was going to correct it for
                                    > > new
                                    > > >> printings and on his web site, and for all I know may have done so.
                                    > > The
                                    > > >> offending rule should read:
                                    > > >>
                                    > > >> "For a merger of major Corporations, the new value will be that of
                                    > the
                                    > > >> higher
                                    > > >> priced of the old Corporations, provided that price is at least
                                    > L.250,
                                    > > >> otherwise it will be the rightmost value which is less than the sum
                                    > of
                                    > > >> the
                                    > > >> market
                                    > > >> values of the old Corporations and less than L.250."
                                    > > >>
                                    > > >> The phrasing "retain the position" may cause players to assume,
                                    > > >> incorrectly,
                                    > > >> that the new corporation's share price marker won't necessarily be at
                                    > > the
                                    > > >> bottom of a pile.
                                    > > >>
                                    > > >> Steve Thomas maisnestce@a...
                                    > > >>
                                    > > >>
                                    > > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    > > >>
                                    > > >>
                                    > > >>
                                    > > >> This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
                                    > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    > > >>
                                    > > >>
                                    > > >>
                                    > > >>
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > --
                                    > > > Chris
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > ------------------------------------
                                    > > >
                                    > > > This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > ------------------------------------
                                    > >
                                    > > This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > --
                                    > Chris
                                    >
                                    > Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
                                    >
                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > ------------------------------------
                                    >
                                    > This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >

                                    --
                                    Chris

                                    Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.