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

Re: [18xx] 1830, 1856, 1870: OO tiles

Expand Messages
  • John David Galt
    ... That s correct. Each of the exits on the original green tile must remain connected to a different one of the two cities on the brown tile. ... Correct.
    Message 1 of 4 , Jul 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Lou Jerkich wrote:

      > In 1830, 1856, 1870 and other games, I have always understood that tile
      > #59, the green OO tile, cannot be ugraded to a brown tile such that the
      > two original track segements of the green tile are directly united in
      > the brown upgrade, thereby displacing one of the two cities so that it
      > no longer connect to its original route.

      That's correct. Each of the exits on the original green tile must remain
      connected to a different one of the two cities on the brown tile.

      > For example, in 1830 hex H18 east of Philadelphia (the Cambden & Amboy
      > hex) is one of the locations for a green OO tile. Suppose the green OO
      > tile is originally placed such that one city connects due west to
      > Philadelphia and the other city connects in a northeast direction to the
      > southern part of New York City.
      >
      > My understanding is that this tile cannot be upgraded to brown tile 67
      > such that Philadelphia and New York City would be directly connected via
      > one city on tile 67 because that would displace the other city to run on
      > track running NW to SE.

      Correct.

      > In 1856 the rules (bottom of page 15) say "When a tile is replaced, all
      > track segements on the replaced tile must be represented in the same
      > orientations on the replacing tile."
      [snip]
      > In 1870 on page 20 of the rules it says "When a tile is upgraded, all
      > track segments on the upgraded tile must be represented in the same
      > orientations on the tile being placed. When a tile is replaced, all
      > station markers and other tokens on the tile must be placed in the same
      > locations as before."

      The "orientation" wording is a little unclear, because the orientation
      (which way the tracks bend between the tile edge and each city) CAN be
      changed as long as the connections are maintained. You got it right the
      first time.

      > Suppose each city on the green OO tile had contained the tokens of two
      > different companies. In such a case in the example I cited above,
      > permitting the two separate cities to be merged into one would
      > inevitably create the dilemma of which token should remain in the single
      > city now connecting Philadelphia and New York City, while the other
      > token would suddenly be disconnected from its former track line because
      > the city it is on had been moved. To me this inevitable problem is
      > avoided by including the cities as part of the track segement.
      [snip]
      > Is my interpretation faulty or is it the norm among 18xx players? If
      > you know of more specific rules on this matter please let me know, even
      > if they occur in other 18xx games as well.

      Any other view is insupportable because it leads to that dilemma.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.