$30.00
Recommend
5 
 Thumb up
 Hide
33 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

North American Railways» Forums » Rules

Subject: Questions about Phase III "Receive income" rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Gianluca Lari
Italy
Rimini
(RN)
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
a) Example: a company receive an income of $ 400, and Marion owns 3 shares and Andrea owns 2 shares. How to divide the revenues between the co-owners?

b) Example: a company receive an income of $ 1,100 and only Marion owns 6 shares. How to divide the revenue? Marion gets all of the money ($ 1,100)?

c) Can I pass in the Phase 1 of the game (trade shares) without buy nothing?

Congratulations, really nice game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Ben
Canada
Vancouver
British Columbia
flag msg tools
Of course I've been up all night! Not because of caffeine, it was insomnia. I couldn't stop thinking about coffee.
mbmbmbmbmb
nuvolablu wrote:
a) Example: a company receive an income of $ 400, and Marion owns 3 shares and Andrea owns 2 shares. How to divide the revenues between the co-owners?


Marion gets 100. The director gets 100 of any remainder. In this case the entire 400 is a remainder.
*Note in the final round the director gets half of the remainder, which would be 200 in this case.

Quote:
b) Example: a company receive an income of $ 1,100 and only Marion owns 6 shares. How to divide the revenue? Marion gets all of the money ($ 1,100)?


You still must divide it among the shares. Each share would get 100 in this case. So Marion gets 600 plus 100 of the remainder for a total of 700.

Quote:
c) Can I pass in the Phase 1 of the game (trade shares) without buy nothing?


No, you must take an action in Phase 1.
However, if you attempt to buy a share in a company directed by an opponent and they buy the share, you can pass.
Also, if you have no money you must pass and take 200.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Boisselle
Canada
Boucherville
Quebec
flag msg tools
designer
Within the realm of color, the shadows often assume responsibility for the awkward shine of yellow.
mbmbmbmbmb
JonBen wrote:
nuvolablu wrote:
a) Example: a company receive an income of $ 400, and Marion owns 3 shares and Andrea owns 2 shares. How to divide the revenues between the co-owners?


Marion gets 100. The director gets 100 of any remainder. In this case the entire 400 is a remainder.
*Note in the final round the director gets half of the remainder, which would be 200 in this case.




Marion gets 100$.
The company gets the remaining 300$ in its coffers.
3 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Ben
Canada
Vancouver
British Columbia
flag msg tools
Of course I've been up all night! Not because of caffeine, it was insomnia. I couldn't stop thinking about coffee.
mbmbmbmbmb
richardtempura wrote:
JonBen wrote:
nuvolablu wrote:
a) Example: a company receive an income of $ 400, and Marion owns 3 shares and Andrea owns 2 shares. How to divide the revenues between the co-owners?


Marion gets 100. The director gets 100 of any remainder. In this case the entire 400 is a remainder.
*Note in the final round the director gets half of the remainder, which would be 200 in this case.




Marion gets 100$.
The company gets the remaining 300$ in its coffers.


Thank you for pointing this out.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Boisselle
Canada
Boucherville
Quebec
flag msg tools
designer
Within the realm of color, the shadows often assume responsibility for the awkward shine of yellow.
mbmbmbmbmb
Our first game had an asterisk, as we divided all the revenues and anything leftover was given to the director...

We then played the game according to the rules and what it adds, in the end game where there are more shares and the remainder of the revenue division, is a way to pump in cash into the companies to make last minute purchases without sacrificing your own cash.

Brilliant.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Eisen
United States
Menlo Park
CA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
JonBen wrote:
nuvolablu wrote:
b) Example: a company receive an income of $ 1,100 and only Marion owns 6 shares. How to divide the revenue? Marion gets all of the money ($ 1,100)?


You still must divide it among the shares. Each share would get 100 in this case. So Marion gets 600 plus 100 of the remainder for a total of 700.


I'm not convinced. The first example gives Marion all of the income with no mention of how many shares he or she has.

The rules tell you to divide the money evenly between owned shares, it does not say that each owned share must receive a multiple of $100. And the example points in this way as well.

Probably worth a clear ruling from the designer as indeed many games follow rules along the lines of what you are assuming.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
dkeisen wrote:
I'm not convinced. The first example gives Marion all of the income with no mention of how many shares he or she has.


I agree with this. When there's only one owner, they get it all. The first example says this.

Quote:
The rules tell you to divide the money evenly between owned shares, it does not say that each owned share must receive a multiple of $100. And the example points in this way as well.


The rules DO suggest that you only divide in units of $100, when you're dividing. They say "place the money accordingly onto the various shares", which you can only do in units of $100. And the second example in the rules has $800 income divided among 3 shares. One approach would be to count this as $266 each, which amounts to $532 to Angelika and $266 to Daniela, rounded down to $500 and $200. But the rules don't do this, they compute the amount per share as $800/3, rounded down to $200.

I think you should just view the case of only one owner as an exception, where there is no dividing. In every other case:

income_per_share = 100 * floor (0.01 * income / total_shares)

remainder = income - income_per_share * total_shares

director_bonus = min (remainder, 100)

treasury_proceeds = (remainder) - director_bonus
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Eisen
United States
Menlo Park
CA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Maybe. I'd like to know how it works if there are two owners, each of whom has 2 shares, and the income is $200.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mikko Saari
Finland
flag msg tools
http://www.lautapeliopas.fi/ - the best Finnish board game resource!
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
I think that's clear, Dave: $100 and $100 gets the sum of the cities evenly divided between shares. The money can be divided completely and evenly, so that's what happens.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I guess if different people have different answers then it's not clear....
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mikko Saari
Finland
flag msg tools
http://www.lautapeliopas.fi/ - the best Finnish board game resource!
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, for me it's clear from reading the rules... I can't really read "divide the money evenly between owned shares" any other sensible way. That's an even division.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
msaari wrote:
Well, for me it's clear from reading the rules... I can't really read "divide the money evenly between owned shares" any other sensible way. That's an even division.


No, you're dividing the money between the owners according to their percentages of ownership, not between the shares. If you divided between the shares no share would get more than $0 because there's not enough money to give each share $100.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mikko Saari
Finland
flag msg tools
http://www.lautapeliopas.fi/ - the best Finnish board game resource!
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm willing to make an exception here, since the same exception applies to the single owner case.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
msaari wrote:
I'm willing to make an exception here, since the same exception applies to the single owner case.


If it's an exception that's not stated in the rules then it's not clear. The case where there's only one owner is stated in the rules, but this isn't.

It also creates weird effects. E.g., if the director has 3 shares and another player has 2 shares then $400 in income doesn't get divided. But if the second player had a third share now they each get $200?

You can play that way but I agree with Dave, it would be nice to just know what the designer thinks the rule is.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Ben
Canada
Vancouver
British Columbia
flag msg tools
Of course I've been up all night! Not because of caffeine, it was insomnia. I couldn't stop thinking about coffee.
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
The case where there's only one owner is stated in the rules...


Is it? The bit about the owner getting all the money is in an example which doesn't detail how many shares the owner has. It isn't clear which way the funds are being divided.

Unless example text is explicit that a new rule is being stated I will assume that's not the case. It's bad form to introduce rules in example text.

However, I do think it would make a whole lot of sense if the owner received all the money in that case.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
JonBen wrote:
It's bad form to introduce rules in example text.


But still very common.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Ben
Canada
Vancouver
British Columbia
flag msg tools
Of course I've been up all night! Not because of caffeine, it was insomnia. I couldn't stop thinking about coffee.
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
JonBen wrote:
It's bad form to introduce rules in example text.


But still very common.


Yes. Perhaps it is a rule in an example. I have no way of knowing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Boisselle
Canada
Boucherville
Quebec
flag msg tools
designer
Within the realm of color, the shadows often assume responsibility for the awkward shine of yellow.
mbmbmbmbmb
b) Example: a company receive an income of $ 1,100 and only Marion owns 6 shares. How to divide the revenue? Marion gets all of the money ($ 1,100)?


My interpretation is that 1100$ divides in 6 parts, which in this case is 100$/share.

Marion is the director, she gets 100$ from the leftover and the rest goes in the company's coffer.

If you do it any other way, it unbalances the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
richardtempura wrote:
If you do it any other way, it unbalances the game.


Seriously? If she had only 5 shares she would get $1100. But with 6 shares she gets $700. And to give her just as much with 6 shares as with 5 shares would unbalance the game?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roel van der Hoorn
Netherlands
Enschede
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
We play with (multiple of $100)/share and although the rules allow both interpretations to be correct, I feel the divide-per-share way of playing is more interesting.

The game revolves around ensuring others do not get the income they want. As a non-president you want to ensure the income is exactly dividable by the number of shares, so your shares are worth the same as the president's. As a president you want to ensure that the income is not exactly dividable, so you get more than the other shareholders.

The 5-share/6-share example is not a great example, because the president could've ensured the company got $1200 or $1300 as an income. Although maybe the other players played the game well and bought the right cities.

You can even underbid for a share if the president of that company holds a large number of shares, especially in a company with a low number of Coast to Coast-symbols. If you underbid, the president will probably pay you, while at the same time it changes the way the dividends are paid out, since the money flowing into the company is low.

If you play with divide-per-player, these tactics become irrelevant.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Ben
Canada
Vancouver
British Columbia
flag msg tools
Of course I've been up all night! Not because of caffeine, it was insomnia. I couldn't stop thinking about coffee.
mbmbmbmbmb
RvdH83 wrote:
We play with (multiple of $100)/share and although the rules allow both interpretations to be correct, I feel the divide-per-share way of playing is more interesting.

The game revolves around ensuring others do not get the income they want. As a non-president you want to ensure the income is exactly dividable by the number of shares, so your shares are worth the same as the president's. As a president you want to ensure that the income is not exactly dividable, so you get more than the other shareholders.

The 5-share/6-share example is not a great example, because the president could've ensured the company got $1200 or $1300 as an income. Although maybe the other players played the game well and bought the right cities.

You can even underbid for a share if the president of that company holds a large number of shares, especially in a company with a low number of Coast to Coast-symbols. If you underbid, the president will probably pay you, while at the same time it changes the way the dividends are paid out, since the money flowing into the company is low.

If you play with divide-per-player, these tactics become irrelevant.


Excellent points but I don't think the debate is about 'divide-per-player' or 'divide-per-share' in the general, but rather in the specific case of the director owning all the shares.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roel van der Hoorn
Netherlands
Enschede
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
JonBen wrote:
Excellent points but I don't think the debate is about 'divide-per-player' or 'divide-per-share' in the general, but rather in the specific case of the director owning all the shares.

So you're suggesting that there is a difference (when a company gets $300 income), between 2 players holding 2 shares each, and a director owning 4 shares?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Ben
Canada
Vancouver
British Columbia
flag msg tools
Of course I've been up all night! Not because of caffeine, it was insomnia. I couldn't stop thinking about coffee.
mbmbmbmbmb
RvdH83 wrote:
JonBen wrote:
Excellent points but I don't think the debate is about 'divide-per-player' or 'divide-per-share' in the general, but rather in the specific case of the director owning all the shares.

So you're suggesting that there is a difference (when a company gets $300 income), between 2 players holding 2 shares each, and a director owning 4 shares?


That's what people have suggested. There is an example which may be trying to communicate this on page 8

Quote:
The red
company has an income
of $400. Marion is the
only one owning red
shares and therefore
receives the full $400.


The example doesn't say how many shares Marion has so it isn't clear if this is a new rule being introduced or sloppy writing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Boisselle
Canada
Boucherville
Quebec
flag msg tools
designer
Within the realm of color, the shadows often assume responsibility for the awkward shine of yellow.
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
richardtempura wrote:
If you do it any other way, it unbalances the game.


Seriously? If she had only 5 shares she would get $1100. But with 6 shares she gets $700. And to give her just as much with 6 shares as with 5 shares would unbalance the game?


Having all of the income go to the director for once.
If the director has all the bought shares, he will steamroll through.
Then the game bogs down to who has all the shares of each company.
It'll be difficult to buy-in that company.

But now, if the income is dependent on the number of shares, no matter how many players are involved, the director may need to think it through when someone puts a share of his company up for sale.
Because the leftover goes to the company, he doesn't need to pay 1000$ to put 500$ in the company's coffers, leaving his turn to ingest in other companies.
But that said, the income vs number of shares is also important.
It builds a nice tension and ramp up to the game end, to the final city cards being bought.
The more shares are emitted, the more leftovers, the more a company can do, even with all its shares gone.
It can continue to grow.
This cannot happen (or can be hindered) by the director gets everything approach.

We'll wait for Peer's clarification, but the fact that the rules state that "if there's a leftover the director gets a bonus of 100$" seems to point to the game hinging on the leftover going to the company and not the director having all the shares.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peer Sylvester
Germany
Berlin
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Im on the road now, so just qick: Jon is correct
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
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.