Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

1830: Railways & Robber Barons» Forums » Rules

Subject: Selling trains between Companies rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Toby Hales
United Kingdom
London
Unspecified
flag msg tools
If a player owns two Companies, can he forever sell one train between them for $1, therefore avoiding a mandatory train purchase from the unsold train stock? I know that such a move would mean that the train would never "run", but it seems to me to be an unacceptable method of avoiding bankruptcy.

I have always played that a company cannot sell its last train to another company, but I cannot find a rule that reflects this. Any thoughts?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Werner Bär
Germany
Karlsruhe
Baden
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, it is allowed. It is however rare that this play will win him the game, although there are some exceptions. In normal play, the player will finish last if he does so, so why should he prolong the game?

(note: better write 'buy a train across them' than 'sell', since the action always happens at the buying cooperations turn, not of the selling one)

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Wright
United Kingdom
Stockton-on-tees
Teesside
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In the situation where a player owns 2 companies and his trains are rusted by the purchase of a train by another company he could use this method to limp to the share dealing round. Where if he acted before other major share holders he could dump his stock passing the no train problem onto someone else.
This is the 18xx players dream, passing the company to the deadbeat who holds the largest holding after you. You cash out and buy some decent shares that are going some place.
It is customary in this situation to ensure that the company to be dumped has an empty treasury. Ettiquette dictates that leaving $1 is an insult.
If you really want to be mean spend the treasury of the company to be dumped on pointless token play and make track placements that actually hamper the company. You need to be really unpleasant to do this. Or the target of the dump has to deserve this as it is a you will not win move.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Toby Hales
United Kingdom
London
Unspecified
flag msg tools
You see, I don't agree. The most skilful and significant endgame is via bankruptcy, and most importantly placing someone in that invidious position by careful share dealing. Effectively, the rule as stands means that someone who controls two companies can never be bankrupt so long as at least one of the companies owns a train that won't become obsolete. More importantly, it also insulates that person against selling everything they own to fund an enforced train purchase, which may have a significant effect upon the share prices of other companies, and therefore a knock-on effect on the outcome of the game. Anticipating enforced selling of stock is another important element of the latter part of the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Wright
United Kingdom
Stockton-on-tees
Teesside
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
But in your scenario the share price will go backwards every operating round. This is a two space loss to an operating company who moves forward. So effectively you are loosing 6 spaces on the share price track every three operating rounds. If you don't sell out everyone else will when they see that the companies are basket cases taking the price down even further.

The only likely benefit or way out is to take the hit buy the train for one and with priority deal and the shares in the brown buy up all of the shares. Thus operating for all of the revenue and share price gain. You could get large steps if you are playing some versions. As you share limit only applies in the stock round you could come up smellying of roses. But what a strategy, take the company to the edge, hang it over so everyone gets off and then reel it in and ride it home.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael B
United States
Sarasota
Florida
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
That move will save you from bankruptcy, but I've never seen someone do that more than a turn or two and still win unless they also owned a third company that was doing well.

Personally if I am that far out of it I will just go with the forced train purchase to make me go bankrupt and end the game unless doing so ruins the game for everyone else.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 11 23-25 Feb 2018 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tobyhales wrote:
If a player owns two Companies, can he forever sell one train between them for $1, therefore avoiding a mandatory train purchase from the unsold train stock?


Well, technically you don't sell trains, you buy them. The timing matters.

Quote:
I have always played that a company cannot sell its last train to another company, but I cannot find a rule that reflects this. Any thoughts?


There is no such rule, and by inventing it you are avoiding the sheer nastiness that is 1830. Nastiness is good here.

(My main complaint about 1830 - other than that many people are more successfully nasty than I am, at least in this case - is when I've built a good value generating machine that stands a good chance of winning if it runs for the length of the game, but I have to stop when someone goes bankrupt. Why should I have to stop my march to victory just because someone else blows it?)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.