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

Re: 1837 Questions

Expand Messages
  • John David Galt
    ... VI.3 and VI.4 seem to be an attempt at a maintain connectivity rule, and I ve been assuming such a rule since 1835 has it (and is referenced in the intro
    Message 1 of 9 , Jun 30, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Steve Thomas writes:

      >> 4. Am I right in thinking that I can play tile #436 (brown Vienna)
      >> in any orientation I like?
      >
      > The answer is "no", but that depends on a rule which appears
      > to be missing 8-(. When you upgrade a city tile, you must keep
      > the connectivity of the various stations on it and replace any
      > tokens on the tile. At least, you do this in every other 18xx
      > game, but the rules for 1837 omit this clause. Because its
      > omission is clearly an oversight and not an attempt to sow
      > confusion, we can conclude that the only legitimate way to
      > upgrade Vienna is to merge the three k.k. stations.

      VI.3 and VI.4 seem to be an attempt at a "maintain connectivity" rule,
      and I've been assuming such a rule since 1835 has it (and is referenced
      in the intro as a source of precedent). I agree that its omission is
      clearly an oversight.

      But that in itself does not dictate how tile #436 should be oriented.
      The green Vienna tile is perfectly symmetrical six ways, and none of its
      six stations is connected to the others; therefore any way of placing
      #436 preserves the connectivity as well as any other.

      The only problem is how to handle the disappearance of two station
      marker positions -- an event that does not happen in any other 18xx game
      (to my knowledge) and does not seem to be anticipated in the rules.
      (VI.5 anticipates marker positions appearing, but not disappearing.)
      Indeed, the last sentence of VI.3 can be read as banning the tile from
      being placed at all.

      What I think I'm hearing from you, then, is a rule that the tile can't
      be placed in a way that would cause the existing station markers of two
      different companies to "fight over" the one spot where stations have
      been combined. This makes sense, though it ought to be written down.

      But even if this is so, if the only station markers in Vienna are the
      four that start the game there, then I can see FOUR possible ways to
      place the tile without making two of the stations "fight" for one spot.

      a) Combine the three k.k. stations.
      b) Combine the k.k. #1, #3, and the station that points east.
      c) Combine the k.k. #1 and the stations that point east and south.
      d) Combine the Sd #1 and the stations that point east and south.

      Geometrically, all of these work. The only reason I can see to require
      a) is an "oral tradition" that all three k.k. stations must combine.
      And if that is a rule, it also ought to be written down.

      John David Galt
    • Steve Thomas
      ... It s even stronger than that. The rule should be that a tile can t be placed in a way that might ever cause station markers of different companies to
      Message 2 of 9 , Jul 1, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        John David Galt wrote:

        > What I think I'm hearing from you, then, is a rule that the tile can't
        > be placed in a way that would cause the existing station markers of two
        > different companies to "fight over" the one spot where stations have
        > been combined. This makes sense, though it ought to be written down.

        It's even stronger than that. The rule should be that a
        tile can't be placed in a way that might ever cause station
        markers of different companies to fight over one spot. So,
        because upgrading Vienna the "wrong" way would cause a
        fight if the two initially-free spots had tokens in them,
        you cannot upgrade Vienna the "wrong" way even if those
        spots are empty.

        I freely admit that this rule isn't explicit in any 18xx
        rule set with which I'm familiar (though to be fair it's
        irrelevant in most). In 1830 for example, my C&A page
        reads:

        When replacing tile #59 (a green OO tile) with one of #64,
        #65, or #67, it is physically possible to do so such that
        the broad curve on the brown tile connects the two edges
        of the green tile which had track on them. Doing so at
        least arguably maintains existing track though it clearly
        disturbs the connectivity of the two cities on the tile
        and leads to difficulties should either or both of the
        cities bear a token. Most groups, including mine, forbid
        such upgrades. I am not aware of any authoritative ruling
        on the matter or what the PC does.

        There's a similar section in my 1856 page.

        And as Werner remarks, there's a separate piece of paper,
        in German, which clears the point up nicely. If you
        haven't lost it, and if you can read German that well.

        Steve
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.