Some 1870 questions
Stefan Meinhold
After my first 1870 game I've got some questions I can't clarify from
the rules (perhaps only because I'm German):
Does the company that owns the Mississippi River Bridge Company get
the$40 discount only for it's first tile lay on a Mississippi hex or for
every tile it lays later in the game (as long as the privates are in
game)?
Concerning the connection run: does the destination token once placed by
a company during it's connection run count as a regular station for this
company for the rest of the game, i.e.: can a company run a train on a
route comprising only it’s destination token and none of it’s other
tokens; can the company run a train through it’s destination station
when it’s blocked by other tokens (sometimes this can be worth more than
doubling the destination station) ?
My last question refers to the rules for an auction in most of the 18xx
games. Here in Germany an auction is somehow quite chaotic. Anybody can
bid anytime (sometimes even in any step). What does auction mean in
1830, 1856, 1870 etc., bidding in fixed order and steps or without order
and steps?
Thank you for your help!
Stefan
Stig Hemmer
Stefan Meinhold <Stefan....@post.rwth-aachen.de> writes:
> Does the company that owns the Mississippi River Bridge Company get
> the$40 discount only for it's first tile lay on a Mississippi hex or for
> every tile it lays later in the game (as long as the privates are in
> game)?
Once only.
> Concerning the connection run: does the destination token once
> placed by a company during it's connection run count as a regular
> station for this company for the rest of the game, i.e.: can a
> company run a train on a route comprising only its destination token
> and none of its other tokens; can the company run a train through
> its destination station when it's blocked by other tokens
> (sometimes this can be worth more than doubling the destination
> station) ?
Yes, you can do all this. And yes, it is valuable :-)
> My last question refers to the rules for an auction in most of the 18xx
> games. Here in Germany an auction is somehow quite chaotic. Anybody can
> bid anytime (sometimes even in any step). What does auction mean in
> 1830, 1856, 1870 etc., bidding in fixed order and steps or without order
> and steps?
The only game I can know where this is defined is 1841, where you have
a fixed bidding procedure given in the rules.
I don't think the other games have explict rules for this, but the way
we usually play is this: At any time one player has the highest
current bid. The next involved player to the right of that player
raises(min +$5) or passes. Passing removes you from the auction.
Continue until only one player is left.
Stig Hemmer.
Tim Irvin
>After my first 1870 game I've got some questions I can't clarify from
>the rules (perhaps only because I'm German):
>
>Does the company that owns the Mississippi River Bridge Company get
>the$40 discount only for it's first tile lay on a Mississippi hex or for
>every tile it lays later in the game (as long as the privates are in
>game)?
One hex. As long as the privates are in the game, if you are the
president of the major holding the MRBC you can get the $40
discount on *any one* hex over the Mississippi. As you suggest,
though, this must be done only when (a) the Bridge Company is
owned by a major company and not an individual [in fact, no
bridges can be built over the Mississippi until the Bridge
Company is either closed or owned by a public company], and (b)
the privates are still out; i.e. no 5-trains are out yet.
--
Tim Irvin, zig...@netgate.net
http://www.netgate.net/~ziggy29
Donald Daybell
In article <33A6C6...@post.rwth-aachen.de>, Stefan Meinhold
<Stefan....@post.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
> After my first 1870 game I've got some questions I can't clarify from
> the rules (perhaps only because I'm German):
>
> Does the company that owns the Mississippi River Bridge Company get
> the$40 discount only for it's first tile lay on a Mississippi hex or for
> every tile it lays later in the game (as long as the privates are in
> game)?
>
Only the first.
Also note that if the Missouri Pacific or the St. Louis Southwestern
(Cotton Belt) own this private, their home tile is both free and in
addition to their normal tile lay(s).
> Concerning the connection run: does the destination token once placed by
> a company during it's connection run count as a regular station for this
> company for the rest of the game, i.e.: can a company run a train on a
> route comprising only it’s destination token and none of it’s other
> tokens; can the company run a train through it’s destination station
> when it’s blocked by other tokens (sometimes this can be worth more than
> doubling the destination station) ?
>
Yes. Yes.
>
> My last question refers to the rules for an auction in most of the 18xx
> games. Here in Germany an auction is somehow quite chaotic. Anybody can
> bid anytime (sometimes even in any step). What does auction mean in
> 1830, 1856, 1870 etc., bidding in fixed order and steps or without order
> and steps?
>
Assuming this is for the private companies. You line them up in
increasing order of value. Taking turns around the table, each person may
either place a bid on any private company other than the cheapest one
available, or buy the cheapest one available at face value. All bids must
be in increments of $5, but you may raise a bid by whatever amount you
want.
If the purchase of a private causes another private with at least 1 bid on
it to become the cheapest face value private available, it is immediately
auctioned off. The auction consists of each player who had a bid on the
private when the auction was triggered taking turns making a higher bid,
until everyone but 1 drops out. Note that any player who didn't already
have a bid in on a private when it was exposed, triggering the auction, is
not allowed to participate.
This is an example of what I am saying:
Game is 1870
privates are laid out in the following order
Great River Steamboat ($20)
Mississippi River Bridge ($40)
Cattle Company ($50)
Gulf Shipping ($80)
Frisco Presidency($140)
KATY Private ($160)
4 players in the game.
Player 1 bids $45 on the Bridge
Player 2 bids $165 on the KATY Private
Player 3 bids $85 on the Shipping Co.
Player 4 bids $50 on the Bridge
Player 1 buys the Steamboat, since it's the cheapest available.
This triggers an auction of the Bridge, since it is now the cheapest face
value private and it has at least 1 bid on it. Players 1 and 4 will
participate in the auction. Players 2 and 3 will not, since they didn't
have a bid on it when the auction was triggered.
Player 4 has the high bid, so Player 1 bids $55.
Player 4 bids $65, and player 1 passes.
Player 4 gets the Bridge for $65
It's now Player 2's turn, since auctions do not affect turn order.
Player 2 buys the Cattle Co. for $50, since it's now the cheapest
available private.
This triggers an auction of the Shipping Co., since it has at least 1 bid on it.
Since Player 3 has the only bid, he gets it for $85.
It's now Player 3's turn, and he buys the Frisco Director's share for
$140, setting the par price at $100.
This causes the KATY private to go to Player 2, since he had the only bid on it.
Player 4 goes next and has the first opportunity to buy shares of stock.
Hope this helps clear things up!
Don
> Thank you for your help!
> Stefan
--
Don Daybell
Office of Orientation
University of Southern California
d...@stuaff.usc.edu
Shadow
Stefan Meinhold <Stefan....@post.rwth-aachen.de> writes:
:Does the company that owns the Mississippi River Bridge Company get
:the$40 discount only for it's first tile lay on a Mississippi hex or for
:every tile it lays later in the game (as long as the privates are in
:game)?
Only the first one.
:Concerning the connection run: does the destination token once placed by
:a company during it's connection run count as a regular station for this
:company for the rest of the game, i.e.: can a company run a train on a
:route comprising only it's destination token and none of it's other
:tokens; can the company run a train through it's destination station
:when it's blocked by other tokens (sometimes this can be worth more than
:doubling the destination station) ?
The connection token remains on the board the rest of the game. it is not
placed on one of the city "spots", it is placed on the edge of the tile. It
does not could as a station token, so no trains may use it as its "base" for
a run. The connection run is from the original hex TO the Destination. You
have to stop, even if your train could go further. If you use the tile for
any other runs, it is the face value, NOT doubled.
>My last question refers to the rules for an auction in most of the 18xx
>games. Here in Germany an auction is somehow quite chaotic. Anybody can
>bid anytime (sometimes even in any step). What does auction mean in
>1830, 1856, 1870 etc., bidding in fixed order and steps or without order
>and steps?
Bidding only happens on your own turn. You cannot bid on someone elses turn.
(I don't recall the names right now)
If there are 3 companies, A=$10, B=$20, C=$40
Player one could either buy A for $10, or bid on B for $25, or C for $45
If player one bought A, Player two could buy B for $20, or bid $45 for C.
If player one had bid on B or C, player two could buy A for $10, or bid $5
higher on the one Player one had bid on, or bid $5 over the face value of any
other company without a current bid.
If player one had bid $45 on C, player two had bid $25 on B, player three bid
$50 on C, then player four decided to buy A for $10. The following would
occur:
1. Player four deposits $10 in the bank and receives private A.
2. Player two deposits $25 in the bank and receives private B.
3. Players one and three now keep increasing the top bid in multiples of $5
until it is sold. The winner deposits the high bid in the bank, the loser
keeps their cash.
Note: When you bid, you must actually place the money on the table. This
money cannot be used for other bids.
I hope this clears things up a bit. If you have any specifics, please post or
email.
Shadow
pme...@cse.unl.edu
RRI1
>My last question refers to the rules for an auction in most of the 18xx
>games. Here in Germany an auction is somehow quite chaotic. Anybody can
>bid anytime (sometimes even in any step). What does auction mean in
>1830, 1856, 1870 etc., bidding in fixed order and steps or without order
>and steps?
The Auction is SUPPOSED to be done in turns in 1830, 1856 or 1870.
After establishing seating order: the players have these three choices:
- Buying the lowest valued private company immediately for its printed
price.
- Bidding on a company (other than the lowest valued one) at least $5
over printed price or $5 over the current high bid.
- Pass
The round continues until the lowest valued company is sold, then:
- If the next lowest company has no bids on it by any player, then
continue as before.
- If one player has bid on the next lowest comapny, he gets it for the
price he bid.
- If two or more player bid on the next lowest valued property, only
those players may continue bidding on it until it is sold. The rules
aren't too clear on whether it is an open auction or in turn around the
table in 1830 but 1856 and 1875 the eligible player to the left of the
highest bidder bids first around the table, but each bid must be at least
$5 over the highest bid until all eligible players pass.
This procedure above continues on the increasingly valued privates until
either you reach a private with no bids on it or all the items are sold.
Then the player to the left of the player who bought the last low private
can either buy the new lowest private, make an advanced bid on a higher
private (If any privates remain to be sold), buy a share of stock in a
corporation (if all of the privates were sold) or pass.
If all players pass before all of the privates are sold, then one very
short operating round is held. Players who do have a private get their
revenue. If no privates had in fact sold, then the price on the lowest
private is dropped by $5 and offered around the table. If no one buys it
again, it drops by $5 again, until it reaches $0 in which the first player
in the pass sequence gets it for FREE. (But usually this doesn't happen.)
Richard Irving rr...@aol.com
Made with recycled electrons!
a...@dmmh.no
In article <5o76vd$k...@crcnis3.unl.edu>,
pme...@cse.unl.edu (Shadow) wrote:
>Stefan Meinhold <Stefan....@post.rwth-aachen.de> writes:
>:Concerning the connection run: does the destination token once placed by
>:a company during it's connection run count as a regular station for this
>:company for the rest of the game, i.e.: can a company run a train on a
>:route comprising only it's destination token and none of it's other
>:tokens; can the company run a train through it's destination station
>:when it's blocked by other tokens (sometimes this can be worth more than
>:doubling the destination station) ?
>
>The connection token remains on the board the rest of the game. it is not
>placed on one of the city "spots", it is placed on the edge of the tile.
>It does not could as a station token, so no trains may use it as its
>"base" for a run. The connection run is from the original hex TO the
>Destination. You have to stop, even if your train could go further. If
>you use the tile for any other runs, it is the face value, NOT doubled.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
The destination toke _does_ count as a normal token, but does not block
other compaines from running through. It is in all other runs than the
destination run possible to run a train through the destination token.
When you have a connection run you have the possibility to place the
destination token. If you already have a token at the destination it will
cont as a destination token, but it will block other companies from passing
through.
If you chose to place (or have) a token at the destination this town has
doubled revenue for all runs you start or end there.
If you chose _not_ to place the destination token it can be placed
somewhere else later (for $100). The only time you want to do that is
probably when you have a 'vice president' and priority :-)
>>My last question refers to the rules for an auction in most of the 18xx
>>games. Here in Germany an auction is somehow quite chaotic. Anybody can
>>bid anytime (sometimes even in any step). What does auction mean in
>>1830, 1856, 1870 etc., bidding in fixed order and steps or without order
>>and steps?
>
>Bidding only happens on your own turn. You cannot bid on someone elses
>turn.
[exsample snipped]
The unclearness comes into play when you have 3 players or more with a bid
on the same company. We always play that the auction continues around the
table the same way as before. like this:
player 1 bids 47 for the bridge (yes it is legal. you just have to rise at
least $5)
Player 2 bids 52 for the bridge
player 3 bids 57 for the bridge
player 4 buyes the $20 company
players 1,2 and 3 now hold an internal auction starting to the left of the
highest bidder.
Håkon
Kevin Karg
While we're asking 1870 questions....
Can "share price protection" be used in cases where the share price is
not being dropped?
It almost sounds ridiculous to ask the question, since the seemingly
obvious answer is "no"; however, apparently some interpreters use SPP in
all "sell" situations--even when the share price is not being affected.
The controversy arises when the pre-sale-share-price is already at the
bottom of the market, OR when only one share is being sold of a company
on the "ledge".
The rules do not cover these cases per se; perhaps because the editors
thought that naming something SHARE PRICE PROTECTION (!) would be clear
enough??
Anyway, I'd be interested to hear what others think, or if there is an
authentic interpretation. Kevin
Nick Wedd
In article <5opcg7$a...@netnews.upenn.edu>, Kevin Karg
<ka...@pobox.upenn.edu> writes
That is a good question.
I have always assumed that the answer is "yes". The rules refer to
shares being sold - not to the price falling as a result.
I could argue that buying shares so as to stop them from being in the
bank pool, so that they will rise at the end of the SR, is a form of
protection. But I shan't. I prefer the argument that the rules mean
what they say, and that names are arbitrary labels - if you run the
Chesapeake and Ohio railroad, you don't have to connect it to the
Chesapeake.
I would like to hear the view of Bill Dixon on this.
Nick
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.demon.co.uk
RRI1
>While we're asking 1870 questions....
>Can "share price protection" be used in cases where the share price is
>not being dropped?
>It almost sounds ridiculous to ask the question, since the seemingly
>obvious answer is "no"; however, apparently some interpreters use SPP in
>all "sell" situations--even when the share price is not being affected.
Not ridiculous at all. The rules do NOT clearly say "If the price of the
sold company would not be forced by a sale, then the president of that
company may not price protect the company." The rules simply say "When a
president purchases shares to protect the price, the share price is not
adjusted for share sales. (CLEAR) If a president chooses not to protect
the company's share price, that company share value token is moved
ACCORDING TO NORMAL SHARE VALUE TOKEN MOVEMENT RULES"
(Which, of course, means no movement at all if on the bottom or on the
ledge if only 1 share is sold.)
>The controversy arises when the pre-sale-share-price is already at the
>bottom of the market, OR when only one share is being sold of a company
>on the "ledge".
>The rules do not cover these cases per se; perhaps because the editors
>thought that naming something SHARE PRICE PROTECTION (!) would be clear
>enough??
But Share price protection is the only way to acquire more than 60% of a
company and may change the turn order. Given that status, I would be
inclined to rule against you (barring an interpretation to the contrary by
Mayfair/ICE or the designer, Bill Dixon) because of those special powers
and because it creates several other loopholes: On the ledge, I can
protect if you sell 2 shares, but not if you sell one?
Any other name for "Share Price Protection" would probably be more
confusing and might muddy the situation rather than clarify it.
"President's Special Purchase Option", "Special Share Acquisition", etc.
>Anyway, I'd be interested to hear what others think, or if there is an
>authentic interpretation.
kat
Kevin Karg (ka...@pobox.upenn.edu) wrote:
: While we're asking 1870 questions....
: Can "share price protection" be used in cases where the share price is
: not being dropped?
: The controversy arises when the pre-sale-share-price is already at the
: bottom of the market, OR when only one share is being sold of a company
: on the "ledge".
: The rules do not cover these cases per se; perhaps because the editors
: thought that naming something SHARE PRICE PROTECTION (!) would be clear
: enough??
Here's an example for you where even if the stock is on the ledge or the
bottom where price protecting would still protect the share price of the
stock. What if the stock was 100% held before the share was sold, in which
case, if the owner does not price protect that share, the stock price will
not go up a space at the end of the stock round.
In any case, it doesn't matter what they named the section of the rules,
since it does not explicitly say that a stock's price has to be going
down to enable price protection purchase, I would say it is allowable
to price protect in any stock sale situation if you are permitted under
all the other conditions.
the rules do state:
"When a company purchases shares to protect the price, the share price is
not adjusted for sales. If a company chooses not to protect the company's
share price, that company's share value token is moved according to the
normal share value token movement rules."
So if a share is sold, you may price protect and the token doesn't move.
If you don't price protect, the token moves according to movement rules
which in the case of being on the ledge or bottom means it still doesn't
move.
I vote you can price protect any slae you can meet all other conditions
for. :)
Dave
Kevin Karg
RRI1 (rr...@aol.com) wrote:
: The rules simply say "When a
^^^^^^
: president purchases shares to protect the price, the share price is not
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: adjusted for share sales.
Richard--
Clearly, this only covers situations where the "president purchases
shares to protect the price", right? KK
Kevin Karg
kat (ro...@saturn.planet.net) wrote:
: Here's an example for you where even if the stock is on the ledge or the
: bottom where price protecting would still protect the share price of the
: stock. What if the stock was 100% held before the share was sold, in which
: case, if the owner does not price protect that share, the stock price will
: not go up a space at the end of the stock round.
Dave--
The president would not be protecting "share price" in your example
above.
The president *might* be protecting "potential future share value", but
not price per se. The "bump" in stock value would only occur after all
opportunity to purchase (i.e., at a "price") would have vanished.
: "When a company purchases shares to protect the price, the share price is
: not adjusted for sales. If a company chooses not to protect the company's
: share price, that company's share value token is moved according to the
: normal share value token movement rules."
Again, "to protect the price", "protect the company's share price"
above. Those are necessary conditions in the rules you cite. KK
ps bill dixon where are you? and if sucking-up shares is in fact the
primary purpose of SPP, why not instead call it "privatization"?
RRI1
RRI1 (rr...@aol.com) wrote:
: The rules simply say "When a
^^^^^^
: president purchases shares to protect the price, the share price is not
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: adjusted for share sales.
>Clearly, this only covers situations where the "president purchases
>shares to protect the price", right?
No. The statement does NOT restrict the president's option if the share
price can't change. It simply says if he excersizes this option, the
price will not change. It may not anyway even if he rejects the option,
but. . .
I think everyone can agree these rules have loopholes that should be
verified.
CafeJay
Kevin asked:
>>Can "share price protection" be used in cases where the share price is
>>not being dropped?
Yes. Although I am NOT Bill Dixon, I was responsible for the final edit
(for better or worse) when I was at Mayfair and the rule was not intended
to be limited to those situations where the price would not change. The
rule is at least equally useful to allow the president to acquire more
than 60% of a company - some players even conspire to help each other do
that - perfectly legal in the rules.
Jay
Kevin Karg
CafeJay (caf...@aol.com) wrote:
: I was responsible for the final edit
: (for better or worse) when I was at Mayfair
Jay--
Wow. That is quite an admission.(!)
Seriously, thank you for the explanation. Although maybe you can answer,
why not call it "privatization" or "buy-back" or something else instead?
And while we have you....
-- Can we assume that page 8, MOVEMENT OF SHARE PRICES, is kinda wrong in
places too?
Specifically, "*Right* one column if, during an operating round, the
company pays a full dividend. The ledge does not affect this movement."
^^^
We pondered over this one, which seems to contradict the symbols on the
stock table. We elected to blissfully assume that the rule is wrong and
the table is right.
Yet another question/situation:
-- If - a director is forced to buy a train for company X;
- X's stock value token is dangling above the closed section;
- the director is forced to sell stock to finance the train;
- the director (without transferring presidency or having more than
50% in the pool etc.) sells enough shares to send the X token into
the "Closed" section;
if all of these things happen, does the ex-director keep as cash the
train-money raised???
We had a game where the X director managed to raise $1,099 ($1089 from
exhausting treasury + personal cash, $10 from sale of 1 share of X) while
closing X.
We searched and searched the rules, and we concluded that he was entitled
to keep the $, and that he pulled off quite an amazing coup (he
ultimately won the game). KK
Nick Wedd
In article <5ou6ap$b...@netnews.upenn.edu>, Kevin Karg
<ka...@pobox.upenn.edu> writes
>-- If - a director is forced to buy a train for company X;
> - X's stock value token is dangling above the closed section;
> - the director is forced to sell stock to finance the train;
> - the director (without transferring presidency or having more than
> 50% in the pool etc.) sells enough shares to send the X token into
> the "Closed" section;
>if all of these things happen, does the ex-director keep as cash the
>train-money raised???
>We had a game where the X director managed to raise $1,099 ($1089 from
>exhausting treasury + personal cash, $10 from sale of 1 share of X) while
>closing X.
>We searched and searched the rules, and we concluded that he was entitled
>to keep the $, and that he pulled off quite an amazing coup (he
>ultimately won the game). KK
I don't think that this can be right. When the company goes down the
plughole, it ought to take its own treasury money with it. Whether it
also takes with it the money which its director has raised, is
debatable.
After all, suppose a company did have a train when it went down the
plughole. The director would not be allowed to extract the train from
it as it vanished. No more should he be allowed to extract its money.
David Michael Kass
In article <5ou6ap$b...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Kevin Karg <ka...@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote:
>CafeJay (caf...@aol.com) wrote:
>: I was responsible for the final edit
>: (for better or worse) when I was at Mayfair
>
>Jay--
>Wow. That is quite an admission.(!)
>
>Seriously, thank you for the explanation. Although maybe you can answer,
>why not call it "privatization" or "buy-back" or something else instead?
If I had to guess, this is for historical reasons. Also, I find that in our
games, half the times price protection occurs, it is specifically to protect
the price of the stock and only half the time is getting extra shares the
reason (and in many of these cases, protecting the price is also important).
>-- Can we assume that page 8, MOVEMENT OF SHARE PRICES, is kinda wrong in
>places too?
>Specifically, "*Right* one column if, during an operating round, the
>company pays a full dividend. The ledge does not affect this movement."
> ^^^
>We pondered over this one, which seems to contradict the symbols on the
>stock table. We elected to blissfully assume that the rule is wrong and
>the table is right.
While I don't have my rules available, I remember looking at this and
deciding that it could be right but was irrelevant. Overriding the
normal movement is movement directed by arrows. Since there are
arrows at all the locations where you could move right to under the
ledge, it never occurs...
>Yet another question/situation:
>
>-- If - a director is forced to buy a train for company X;
> - X's stock value token is dangling above the closed section;
> - the director is forced to sell stock to finance the train;
> - the director (without transferring presidency or having more than
> 50% in the pool etc.) sells enough shares to send the X token into
> the "Closed" section;
>if all of these things happen, does the ex-director keep as cash the
>train-money raised???
>We had a game where the X director managed to raise $1,099 ($1089 from
>exhausting treasury + personal cash, $10 from sale of 1 share of X) while
>closing X.
>We searched and searched the rules, and we concluded that he was entitled
>to keep the $, and that he pulled off quite an amazing coup (he
>ultimately won the game). KK
After looking at several similar problems, we realized that in 1870,
unlike other 18xx games, shares prices do not change until after a
player's "stock turn" This is implicit in how the price protection
rules work (you don't price protect until after the player's stock
turn and the stock price cannot change until after there has been the
opportunity to price protect). Note that if you are over the share
limit, you cannot sell some shares to make a company go yellow to get
under the limit. You have to sell down to the limit, then you will
have open slots once the company moves...
Under this interpretation, the company won't actually close until
after the train purchase is made. Thus in the above scheme, the
player had to sell something else and actually buy the train. Then
the company would close, putting the train in the pool.
Furthermore, when doing a forced train purchase, all of the money is
in the company, not the player's hands. Thus even if the company had
closed before he was forced to buy the train, the money would just go
to the bank (see the section under closing companies). The location
of the money is also implied by the bankrupcy rules...
--
David Kass Caltech Grad Student
E-Mail: dk...@cco.caltech.edu Planetary Science
Research: dk...@venus1.gps.caltech.edu
Scotty D.
In article <dnFO+JAj...@maproom.demon.co.uk>, Ni...@maproom.demon.co.uk
says...
>
>In article <5opcg7$a...@netnews.upenn.edu>, Kevin Karg
><ka...@pobox.upenn.edu> writes
>
>>Can "share price protection" be used in cases where the share price is
>>not being dropped?
>>
>>obvious answer is "no"; however, apparently some interpreters use SPP in
>>
>>The controversy arises when the pre-sale-share-price is already at the
>>bottom of the market, OR when only one share is being sold of a company
>>on the "ledge".
>
>shares being sold - not to the price falling as a result.
>
>I could argue that buying shares so as to stop them from being in the
>bank pool, so that they will rise at the end of the SR, is a form of
>protection. But I shan't. I prefer the argument that the rules mean
>what they say, and that names are arbitrary labels - if you run the
>Chesapeake and Ohio railroad, you don't have to connect it to the
>Chesapeake.
>
this question with my players we would say that event tho the share price
doesn't change the president of the company might be worried that the selling
might start a trend and therefore buy it to keep public interest in the stock.
I don't have a good train example but look at the great stock market crash.
A few start selling, then they see that and sell, and so on and so on till
everything go *poof*. Just my .02$
Scotty D.
Fight Intolerance and Discrimination,
Boycot the Southern Baptist Church
Nick Wedd
Kevin Karg <ka...@pobox.upenn.edu> writes
>CafeJay (caf...@aol.com) wrote:
>: I was responsible for the final edit
>: (for better or worse) when I was at Mayfair
>Wow. That is quite an admission.(!)
I have heard the following claims about the ledge. I did not recall who
they were from, but all claimed to represent the authors of 1870.
1. The rules governing the operation of the ledge make perfect sense,
but you must divert the movements in accordance with the arrows
_before_ applying the printed rules to them.
2. The printed rules are misleading.
3. The correct rules are [my paraphrase]
Tokens trying to move downwards through the ledge do so normally
except if this would cause them to stop immediately below it, when
they instead stop immediately above it. Tokens trying to move
upwards through the ledge do so normally. Tokens trying to move
rightwards through the ledge get diverted upwards by arrows. Tokens
trying to move leftwards through the ledge do so normally.
Personally, I tend to believe 2 and 3, and to regard 1 as fudge.
Tim Irvin
> We always use SPP even if the the share price will not change. Talking over
> this question with my players we would say that event tho the share price
> doesn't change the president of the company might be worried that the selling
> might start a trend and therefore buy it to keep public interest in the stock.
> I don't have a good train example but look at the great stock market crash.
> A few start selling, then they see that and sell, and so on and so on till
> everything go *poof*. Just my .02$
True as it goes, but the difference is that in the "real" stock market,
huge downward movement in a particular stock likely triggers downward
movement in *other* stocks and the broad market. In 18xx stock markets,
at least the ones I'm aware of, there is no such factor. That is,
in a game of 1830 if someone sells a lot of B&O to drag its stock
from 90 to 68, other stocks don't fall in "sympathy" as usually
happens in real stock markets.
There's only so much you can simulate in a board game. :)
--
Tim Irvin, zig...@netgate.net ::: http://www.netgate.net/~ziggy29/
Now coming at ya from our new house...
Virtual Tour: http://www.netgate.net/~ziggy29/hometour.html
RRI1
>True as it goes, but the difference is that in the "real" stock market,
>huge downward movement in a particular stock likely triggers downward
>movement in *other* stocks and the broad market. In 18xx stock markets,
>at least the ones I'm aware of, there is no such factor. That is,
>in a game of 1830 if someone sells a lot of B&O to drag its stock
>from 90 to 68, other stocks don't fall in "sympathy" as usually
>happens in real stock markets.
That only happens in the real world because you can see the stock price
change every day--you see two companies in the same industry drop and you
assume that are necessarily related. It may indeed be economic factor
that affects an entire industry (such as rising fuel prices affecting the
airline industry) or it may be two companies may both had news that
affected them (one a negative earnings report, the other a loss of a
contract.) or it may be a large investor (or a number of large investors)
decided to sell stock in both companies (usually described by the
business reports as "profit-taking"). Over the long haul these effects
will balance out--and the price of the stock will reflect its performance
and prospects.
18XX turns represent a couple of years, so all of the minor variations
filter out.
I have yet to see a business report say, "Today, the Dow is down because
more people want to sell stock than were willing to buy it." Which is
really what is always going on.
CafeJay
Nick wrote:
I have heard the following claims about the ledge. I did not recall who
they were from, but all claimed to represent the authors of 1870.
1. The rules governing the operation of the ledge make perfect sense,
but you must divert the movements in accordance with the arrows
_before_ applying the printed rules to them.
2. The printed rules are misleading.
3. The correct rules are [my paraphrase]
Tokens trying to move downwards through the ledge do so normally
except if this would cause them to stop immediately below it, when
they instead stop immediately above it. Tokens trying to move
upwards through the ledge do so normally. Tokens trying to move
rightwards through the ledge get diverted upwards by arrows. Tokens
trying to move leftwards through the ledge do so normally.
He suggested 2 and 3 were correct and he is right.
Jay
Klaus Ole Kristiansen
rr...@aol.com (RRI1) writes:
>>True as it goes, but the difference is that in the "real" stock market,
>>huge downward movement in a particular stock likely triggers downward
>>movement in *other* stocks and the broad market. In 18xx stock markets,
>>at least the ones I'm aware of, there is no such factor. That is,
>>in a game of 1830 if someone sells a lot of B&O to drag its stock
>>from 90 to 68, other stocks don't fall in "sympathy" as usually
>>happens in real stock markets.
>That only happens in the real world because you can see the stock price
>change every day--you see two companies in the same industry drop and you
>assume that are necessarily related. It may indeed be economic factor
>that affects an entire industry (such as rising fuel prices affecting the
>airline industry) or it may be two companies may both had news that
>affected them (one a negative earnings report, the other a loss of a
>contract.) or it may be a large investor (or a number of large investors)
>decided to sell stock in both companies (usually described by the
>business reports as "profit-taking").
Or buyers will go for the cheaper stock, reducing demand for the more expensive
ones. Or buyers will suspect that if one company has trouble, similar
companies may soon be in similar trouble. Ot holders of stock in those other
companies may react to the drop in price by bailing out of that industry.
Klaus O K
John David Galt
I agree with Jay except for the last sentence of 3., which should read:
Tokens attempting to move leftwards through the ledge don't move.
This is in the printed rules, and was widely discussed when it came out.
(Some of us feel it makes more sense to have the token move _down_ rather
than left, and that is a common house rule.)
John David Galt
Steve Thomas
John David Galt wrote:
> I agree with Jay except for the last sentence of 3., which should read:
> Tokens attempting to move leftwards through the ledge don't move.
> This is in the printed rules, and was widely discussed when it came out.
The rules state that the ledge affects leftward-moving tokens, but
doesn't say how. This is immediately after a statement that the
ledge does not affect rightward-moving tokens by causing them to
follow the arrows. It doesn't take much nous to deduce that a couple
of sentences got swapped. Jay, who wrote the rules, and Bill Dixon,
who designed the game, have on numerous occasions confirmed that
this was the case.
> (Some of us feel it makes more sense to have the token move _down_ rather
> than left, and that is a common house rule.)
I think it makes most sense to have the tokens move left, like
the designer and rules-writer intended.
Steve