1830 Rules clarifications from AH
Dave Mitton
1830 Players;
The following is a letter that I sent to Avalon Hill recently,
asking for clarification on a number of "1830" rules issues.
I asked for permission to share this with the network, and they said
"Please do".
I'm rather satisfied with the answers, I didn't get any real surprises,
though I did make a mistake or two along the way.
So here it is. Someone just hand wrote answers on my laser printed
mail and sent it back. Unfortunately they did not sign it, so we don't
know who. I have included their comments with an "AH>" preceding the
lines. My follow-up comments have a "<<" in front.
Dave Mitton,
13-Mar-1992
30-Jan-1992
AH> [date stamp] FEB 13 1992
David Mitton
13 Swan St.
Arlington, MA 02174
617-646-3080
Avalon Hill Company
4517 Hartford Road
Baltimore, MD 21214
Dear Sirs;
I have formed a group friends to play your "1830" game somewhat
regularly, and we have found a number of ambiguities in how the rules
are written. We really enjoy the game, but would like to get some
of these problems out of the way, so we can spend more time playing and
less time interpreting and arguing.
This letter has been written to take advantage of your offer to
answer rules questions by mail. This is also the second rewrite of
this letter. It seems that a number of people that participate in
the Internet/USENET news group "rec.games.board" also come up with
questions about the rules. I have folded some of them into my letter
so that we may have an definitive answer to most of the typical
questions.
A recent contributor mentioned that an interpretation was made
on a particular issue at an "ORIGINS" convention. Unfortunately he
said that it was verbal ruling and he did not have written
recomendation. It would be useful to know of any current rules
conventions typically accepted in tournament play.
Many of the questions are just clarifications. Some I believe are
issues not adequately handled by the text and structure of rules as
published. It is disappointing to not be able to easily figure out the
correct play, as a change in interpretation invalidates the results
of previous games played within the group. So far it has taken us
several games to just get the basics consistently correct. We would
appreciate your guidance in clarifing our confusion with the rules.
I have organized the questions by first stating the issue as
succinctly as possible, then following with discussion, examples, and
potential impact. My sources are of course the rules themselves, and
the Question Box in the General (Vol 23, No.6, page 46) I will
mention rules references with the notation of
R<section>.<subsect>.<paragraph>.
Bidding for Private Companies during the Opening Stock Round (R7.0)
------------------------------------------------------------
1) If you bid on a particular company and someone else bids (the
obligitary $5 more), on a later turn, do you have to call (match) the
other's bid?
AH> No.
My assumption is that your bid once made, it rides until the
auction. Only player's entering the contention must bid an amount $5
AH> Correct
above the current high bid, and only once. If the stock round goes
around without the auction occuring, the player is free to make other
actions (ie: pass, buy, or bid on another) in his turn.
AH> Correct
Operating Round Order (R16.0.2)
-------------------------------
2) If two corporations have the same value and are in the same
column, shouldn't the corporation with upper row token move before
any in rows below?
AH> It does.
The rules clearly state that the corporations move in the order
of higher value, then if equal value, the corporation whose token is
further right. But this ignores the vertical column of equal $67
values below the starting PAR values. So an extra clause is needed.
Track Tile Placement (R18.0)
----------------------------
My group has trouble understanding exactly how rigorous the tile
placement rules are supposed to be interpreted.
AH> Very rigorous
R18.0.4: "A tile may not be placed so that a track runs off the grid,
terminates against a blank side of a grey hexagon, or terminates
against a solid blue hexside in a lake or a river. It may be placed so
as to utilize track on a grey hexagon, but this is not required."
3a) Our confusion stems from situations that often arise along
the coastline or the Great Lakes, where track might be played that
"goes out to sea", with the intent of later upgrading it to a more
useful path. Is this legal?
AH> No
One interpretation that says No, this is an example of "running
off the grid". These "edges" of the grid are dark green hexes or
light blue lake or sea. On the other hand it seems to make some
drastic restrictions on how tiles may be played near the coasts.
AH> Yep. The restrictions are there on purpose.
Other more specific examples follow.
3b) Can the NY tiles indeed only be played in one orientation?
AH> Yes.
ie: is there any orientation where a connector leads off the
coast that is legal given Q3a above?
AH> No.
3c) Can a brown city tile #63 (a track in all 6 directions) be
played on any of city hexes: J14, K15, F22, F4, B16?
AH> No. Also K15 is a grey hex and cannot be played at all.
<< Whoops! I was using a xerox copy of the board and missed that.
Each of these cities border on water. (In fact only cities: H16,
H10, H4, F16 don't border on water)
AH> and E19
<< Whoops again. Forgot about Albany, the NYC logo camouflages the city
<< on my copy.
3d) For example, on Hex B10, are there only two positions of tile
#57 that can be played here? (ie: those that connect to the Canadian
West; 30, or 330 deg)
AH> Correct. Only those placements are legal.
O-O tiles:
4a) Do the O-O tiles have to be placed so that no tracks lead into
the water or green? Examples: Erie hex E11, or C&A hex H18.
AH> Correct, or grey hexsides.
<< Hmmm... I thought grey hexsides were explicitly allowed, as I
<< stated in the next paragraph. However, a page break happened here.
(Note: The Detroit/Windsor hex E5 has grey land drawn on the
150-deg. side, part of grey Cleveland hex F6, this is allowed
explicitly by the blank grey side clause of rule 18.0.4 above.)
4b) Do disconnected tracks have to be preserved when upgrading?
(see also question 5a below)
AH> Yes.
4c) Does the connectivity of the O-O tiles have to maintained when
upgraded?
AH> Yes.
The green O-O tiles have two cities with one track each. The
brown O-O tiles have two cities with a through track that creates two
connections per city. It is tempting to upgrade a green O-O tile
with brown tile that connects the original two tracks with one
through track connecting one city. Some people consider this a
change in connectivity and should not be allowed.
AH> [picture drawn]
+ +
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
+ + +
| A | |
==============O |
| | |
+ + O B +
\ / \ \\ / \
\ / \ \\ \
+ + \\ +
| | // |
| ==== |
| | |
AH> Note that each city connects to a different route. If you assume a
AH> token in each location, then any upgrade that connects hex sides A and B
AH> will change an existing route. Therefore, such an upgrade is not allowed.
5) Rule 18.0, para 2, says "...(In the case of tiles which
portray 2 different pieces of track it only necessary for one of them
to form a legal extention.)" From this we can assume that this rule
affects tiles; 1,2,55,69,56, 16,18,19,20,54(NY), 59(O-O), 62(NY),
64-68(O-O).
AH> Yes.
For the tiles that can be upgraded, if the second track is still
disconnected, does the upgrade tile have to preserve the same track
exits? (note that this is a general variant on 4.d above)
AH> Yes.
6a) Some disagreement has come up in our group over the following
issue: Can a corp. lay/upgrade a track tile such that it has a
"trailing point switch"? (eg: a track junction that would require a
reversal or backtrack if you were running a train on that route)
AH> No.
Actually I don't see why not, as I explain below, because you can
reach that tile directly. But the following is harder for people to
accept.
6b) Can a RR corp. continue laying tile extending a track that it
could only reach by reversing or backtracking?
AH> No!
My interpretation of Rule 18.1 para 2, "A Railroad may only
replace a tile if at least part of the track on the new tile is part
of a route which is open to that Railroad. This does not require
that the route be actually in use, _or_even_could_be_used_ with a
train able to travel a sufficent distance, but it must not be closed
to the Railroad." (emphasis mine) is that such an upgrade is allowed
by that phrase. Otherwise, I'm not sure why it is there.
AH> A length of track that backtracks on itself is not a "route" as defined
AH> by 20.1. Therefore, 18.1.2 does not apply as that track is not part of a
AH> route.
The impact of this is a restrain on how one extends your routes.
If they must be reachable in a straightforward manner, then it would
allow some techniques in keeping players on the other side of the
switch points from interfering with track routes under construction
until they make the necessary modifications to reach it. Someone
recently claimed in "rec.games.board" that a ruling made at a recent
Origins convention, could be simplified to saying that you must be
able to run a train route on a piece of a tile to be able to lay or
upgrade it.
AH> Basically correct. You can also extend or upgrade tiles where no route
AH> currently exists. (Example, you can build a route from CanPac in a SW
AH> direction 4 hexes straight. You can then upgrade those tiles, even
AH> thought there may not be a city on the other end.)
<< Ahhh. So I guess that the point of the clause I mention is to indicate
<< that you can extend routes that don't have an end city, not to violate
<< the backtrack restriction.
7) The Erie home hex (E11); Please clarify the following:
7a) Can you run a route from the Erie home base even if a tile is
not placed there yet? (especially if green tiles are not available)
(19.1) In other words, can the Erie be operated for revenue before
green tiles are availible and an O-O tile is placed on E11?
AH> No, No track exists.
7b) Rule 19.1 says "No token may be placed here [presumably by
another player] until the Erie has established its base." Yet the
Question Box, Table 1 item says that if the Erie is operational, that
the Erie free home token is on the hex, and another player can play a
tile and establish the Erie home base city, "because the NYC or Erie
player has passed the opportunity." I believe this means that if the
Erie is not operational, another player can play a tile on hex E11,
but not lay a token there. If the Erie opens, but does not place a
tile in E11, then another player can, and position the Erie token as
well as his own.
AH> Correct.
8) Is it allowable for a competing Corporation to place a tile on
a Private Company (not closed yet) if the owning Corporation has not
done so yet? (perhaps because it does not have a traceable
connection yet)
AH> Yes.
Rule 18.0 para 6 says "...Tiles may be placed there [private
companies] if the Private Company is owned by a Corporation (see
23.1) or closed." This does not say that the Corporation owning the
Private Company has sole rights to that hex.
AH> Correct.
9) B&O tile placement (R18.0.6 & R23.2); If the B&O Private
Company cannot be sold to *any* corporation (including the B&O Corp),
can the B&O Corp play a tile on Baltimore (hex I15) or Hex I13 (Harpers
Ferry) before it buys its first train?
AH> No
This would effectively prevent the B&O Corp. president from
laying track in his first operating turn.
AH> Wrong. General practice is either laying #57 in J14, or either of
AH> tiles 7,8,9 in I17.
<< So, I was right in noticing the restriction. But wrong on the implication
<< that there was no other option.
Train Trade-in (R21.0 & 17.0 #5)
--------------------------------
10a) Multiple trains can be purchased in a Corporate turn. Is
this transaction atomic, or one-at-a-time? If a phase change is
involved does it happen in-between, or afterwords?
AH> [crossed out "atomic", circled "one-at-a-time" and "in-between"]
AH> Another example would be the situation where a player has a 4 Train,
AH> 5 Trains are available, but the first 5 train has not been purchased.
AH> At this moment, a railroad may own three trains. However, this player
AH> may only purchase one train. As soon as that first 5 train is bought,
AH> railroads are limited to 2 trains.
10b) In other words, Could a player trade-in two 4-Trains for
Diesels to get the $800 price? (provided he is the first to break
Diesels)
AH> No. R21.0.4 3rd sentence
Private Co special action
-------------------------
11a) M&H exchange for NYC stock (Table 1, Note 3) If there are
shares availible in both the Bank and the Pool, which gets
preference? Or is it the player's choice?
AH> Players choice.
A player that doesn't want to help the NYC go operational, may
choose a Pool certificate instead of an Initial offering certificate.
AH> Correct.
11b) Note that while R8.1.3 calls out that the purchaser of the
C&A, receives a free share of the PRR which cannot be sold until the
PRR has been opened and has a value. Likewise the if the owner of
the M&H exchages the private company for a free share of the NYC, the
NYC may not be open, and would not have a value at that point it
time. So likewise, the recipient of the share should not be allowed
to sell it until it has a value.
AH> Correct.
More rules questions from Usenet rec.games.board group
12) Does a corp stock always have to go down in the first
operating turn because they couldn't have a train until the end of
the turn? (R8.2)
AH> Yes.
Someone felt that it was unfair that a stock always devalues
after opening. Though most on the network accept this.
AH> Tough. That's the way it is. <g>
13) Are the green and brown tiles ONLY to be played to upgrade
yellow tiles or hexes? ie: they are not to be played directly on
beige board hexes? (R18.1)
AH> Correct.
The rules not are explicit enough for some people.
14) Can a token be moved once played on a city? (R19) (upon
paying the current token fee)
AH> No.
Someone pointed out that there was no rule that outlawed this. I
feel that word "new" in Rule 17.0 #2 indicates the spirit of the
rules, in which this would not be allowed.
AH> That and R19.0.2 3rd sentence.
15) Does the use of a route prevent another corp from running
over it in their turn? (R20.1)
AH> No.
Someone was confused by the restriction that a Railroad cannot
run over the same track during it's operating turn, and generalized
it to all Railroads within an operating round. I don't think
experienced players misunderstand this.
AH> [circled "it's" ]
I appreciate you time and effort in answering these questions. I
hope that you will allow me to distribute your answers to the
newsgroup, that other 1830 players can share in these clarifications.
AH> Please do!
Sincerely,
David Mitton
(signed)
Rob Watkins
Damn, I didn't learn anything. :( A sheet like that would
sure be handy for Empires in Arms! I haven't sent out a questionairre
to a game company since I made a Starfire inquiry of Task Force Games.
It was something like 20 months before I received a response.
Creight Lersing
aka Rob Watkins