>From: John David Galt <jdg@...>
>
>Steve Thomas writes:
>
>>> 4.  Am I right in thinking that I can play tile #436 (brown Vienna)
>>> in any orientation I like?
>>
>

<snip>

>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
>


There is a pink piece of paper titled 'Loks & Auswirkungen'
(trains and effects).
In the lower half, there are some 'Besondere Hinweise' (special notes).

The 9th point reads:
'Die Strecke Wien-Wien ist nicht moeglich. Durch das braune Wien wird
aus den drei k.k-Bahnhoefen einer.'
(The route vienna-vienna is not legal. The brown vienna piece
combines the three k.k. stations into one).

Werner.

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

>From: Steve Thomas <Steve.Thomas@...>
>
>Werner Baer wrote:
>
>> >Thus, if I own all five Ug minors which have between them no
>> >cash whatever, and also buy all five Ug shares, and own nothing
>> >else, then if the only train left to buy when the Ug first
>> >operates is a 4G, I go bust.  At that point 100% of the Ug hits
>> >the pool in one lump.
>
>> Your example is not correct.
>> Shares of the Suedbahn, the k.k. and the Ungarn
>> can be sold as soon as they are declared open.
>> It isn't necessary that the company has operated.
>
>The only rule I can find (in Paul Work's translation)
>which inhibits the sale of shares in corporations which
>have not operated is XIV.6.3, which says:
>
> -  No shares may be sold in a company which has not
>    yet operated.
>
>It does not make an exception for the three state
>railways.  Can you point out the rule you are using?
>(In German would do at a pinch, though I'd appreciate
>a translation!)
>
>Even if it turns out that there is such a rule buried,
>I can change my example to owning 80% of the
>Siebenburgischebahn (for example) by buying 60% in a
>stock round and converting both coal companies.  Or
>even, more prosaically, by buying 60% of any of the
>"normal" major corporations.
>




I seemed to remember it was pretty clear in the rules.
But after a close look, it isn't clear at all.
(I don't know whether the englich edition contains
the german rules, thus i quote them).


--- First problem:
The quotation above is not a proper translation
of the german rules. When playing with the english
rules, your point of view seems to be correct
(at least at the first glance; don't know the complete rules).

The corresponding german rules reads:
  '... eine Gesellschaft noch nicht in Betrieb ist.'
That doesn't state the corporation has to be operated,
but 'put into operation' or 'floated' or something like that.


--- Second problem:
In the german version it is stated:
'Grundsaetzlich gelten die 1835 Regeln.'
[In general the 1835 rules apply]
At the start of the rules, it reads:
'Kursiv gedruckt sind alle Regeln, die sich von
denen in 1835 unterscheiden'
[all rules that differ from 1835 are printed in italic].

In 1835 is is clearly stated that stock may not
be sold in same the stock round it is floated
(no word about the following operation round),
except the Preussen, which can be sold as soon
as it is put into operation.

That clear 1835 rules are missing in 1837,
but there is no rule (printed in italic or else) that
states there is a diffenence, thus i think all german players
play with rules similar to 1835.


--- Now how exactly is it stated in the german rules

-- First, the (clear) 1835 rules

XV 7.3:
'Waehrend seines Spielzuges in einer Aktienrunde kann
ein Spieler eine beliebige Anzahl Aktien verkaufen.
Ausgenommen, wenn
- ...
- eine Gesellschaft noch nicht in Betrieb ist.
- eine Gesellschaft erst in dieser Aktionerunde in Betrieb
gegangen ist (Ausnahme Preussen, sie ist sofort mit der
Inbetriebnahme handelbar).'
[During his turn in a stock round, a player may sell
any number of shares. Exceptions:
- ...
- if a company is not put into operation
- if a company is put into operation in this stock round
(except the prussian, which can be traded as soon
as it is put into operation)]

XV 5.1
'Sobald erstmalig 50% einer Aktiengesellschaft
gekauft wurden, geht diese in Betrieb.'
[As soon as 50% of a company are sold for the
first time, it is put into operation]

And in XIII 3. 'Inbetriebnahme der Preussen'
it is stated the the Prussian is put into
operation when the owner of the 2 trades
his share.

-- summary for 1835
Normal companies are operational as soon as there
are 50% sold, but shares cannot be sold in
the same stock round.
The Prussian is operational when declared so,
and can be sold after that.


-- Now, the (bad) 1837 rules

XIV 6.3
(sale of shares)
'Ausgenommen wenn
- ...
- eine Gesellschaft noch nicht in Betrieb ist.'
[A company has not been put into operation]:
The point about companies which are floated
in this stock round is missing, as well as the
exception for the state companies.

Now it depends on the term 'in Betrieb gehen'.
Looking at XIV 2.9, we find:
'2.9 Die Aktiengesellschaften teilen sich in zwei Gruppen:
1) K.K.-Staatsbahn, Suedbahn und ungarische Staatsbahn
2) alle uebrigen Gesellschaften
2.10 Fuer die zweite Gruppe gelten folgende Bedingungen:
2.10.1 ...
2.10.2 Sind von einer Gesellschaft mindestens 50% erstmalig
  verkauft, geht die Gesellschaft in Betrieb.
2.11 Fuer die erste Gruppe gelten folgende Bedingungen:
2.11.1 ...
2.11.2 Die Gesellschaft geht dann in Betrieb, wenn der
  Besitzer der jeweiligen 1er-Privatbahn seine Aktie umtauscht.'
[2.9 The companies are divided in two groups:
1) k.k., Suedbahn and Ug
2) all other companies
2.10 Rules for the second group:
2.10.2 As soon as 50% of a company are sold for the first
time, the company is put into operation.
2.11. Rules for the first group:
2.11.2 The company is put into operation when the owner of
the corresponding 1 private exchanges his share.

-- summary 1
- The state companies can be sold as soon as the
  are declared open
- But (big surpise) the other companies can be sold
  as soon as they are floated !??

But then, there is another rule:
'XIV 4 Inbetriebnahme einer Aktiengesellschaft
Fuer die Inbetriebnahme der k.k ... siehe Kapitel XIII.
Fuer die uebrigen Aktiengesellschaften gilt folgendes:
4.1. Sobald erstmalig 50% einer Aktiengesellschaft gekauft
wurden, geht diese zu Beginn der naechsten Betriebsrunde
in Betrieb.'
[XIV Putting a company in operation
For tke k.k, the Sued and the Ug see chapter XIII.
For the remaining companies:
4.1 As soon as 50% of a company are sold for the first
time, the company is put into operation at the start of
the following operation round.]

- The reference to chapter XIII isn't updated for 1837.
The rules in 1835-XIII are in 1837-XII.
It's about the floating of the state companies,
when the corresponding trains are sold.
- The rule 4.1 is copied from 1835 XV 5.1 (see above),
but changed (1835: immediately, 1837: next op round).
However, since the change isn't printed in italic,
its easy to overlook for german players.

-- summary 2
- The state companies can be sold as soon as the
  are declared open
- Normal companies are considered operational at the begin
  of the operation round, after 50% are sold.
  Thus their stock can be sold when forced by buying a train.


--- Summary ---

1. The english translation states that stock of normal
companies can only be sold after they have operated.
(This may be also the case for state companies.)

2. Acconding to all (?) possible interpretation of the
german rules, stock of state companies can be sold
after they are declared as open.

3. According to XIV 2.10.2, stock of normal companies
may be sold after 50% are bought for the first time.
This could even be in the same stock round.

4. According to XIV 4.1, stock for normal companies
can be sold after the start of the corresponding
first operation round. It could be sold to help buy a train.

5. According to the general term 'the 1835 rules apply',
stock for normal companies can not be sold before the
next stock round. (As long as you dont compare the rules
exactly, you dont notice the differences.)
AFAIK this is the way the game is usually played.

- It seems necessary to ask Leonhard what variant was
intended, and add the answer to the FAQ.


Werner.

Subject: Re: [18xx] 1837 Questions (Vienna)
>From: John David Galt <jdg@...>
>Steve Thomas writes:
>>> 4.  Am I right in thinking that I can play tile #436 (brown Vienna) in
any orientation I like?
<snip>
>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

In the german rules, I have is  written in  VII.9.

....  Beim braunen Wien-Plättchen werden die drei k.k.-Marker durch einen
einzigen ersetzt, der auf den Kreis zu liegen kommt, von dem drei Gleise
wegführen.  .....

.... At the brown Viena tile the three privat k.k. station markers will be
replaced by only one, which must be positioned on the point which connects
the three pieces of track leading out of Viena

Joscha wrote:

> In the german rules, I have is  written in  VII.9.
>
> ....  Beim braunen Wien-Plättchen werden die drei k.k.-Marker durch einen
> einzigen ersetzt, der auf den Kreis zu liegen kommt, von dem drei Gleise
> wegführen.  .....
>
> .... At the brown Viena tile the three privat k.k. station markers will be
> replaced by only one, which must be positioned on the point which connects
> the three pieces of track leading out of Viena

That clause is in the translation I have.  However, this
does not in itself constrain the orientation of the
Vienna tile, which might in principle be placed in some
non-standard orientation.  Doing that shuffles any other
tokens on the tile, but that isn't explicitly prohibited.

I agree that it takes a rather eccentric notion of
reasonableness to believe that the effects of putting
Vienna in the "wrong" way are reasonable - but that
doesn't stop people (mis)interpreting the rules by
reading the letter of the rules and not the spirit.

(I know that some people find detailed rules discussions
tedious.  I apologise to them for the protracted nature
of this discussion.  I for one rather enjoy it.)

Steve

Werner Baer wrote:

> - It seems necessary to ask Leonhard what variant was
> intended, and add the answer to the FAQ.

Well researched!  I have asked Lonny, and will share his
answer with this list and put in my C&A page.

Steve

Hi all!

I have less time so I cannot say much to all your postings.

But let me give you an example to the tile replacing rules:

I think we all agree that the Vienna tile has to be placed in this way that the
only kk-marker can reach all exits that each former kk-marker could reach until
the brown phase.

The discussion refers to the rule that only indicates, that all existing tracks
of the replaced tile have also to exist on the new tile.
This rule is not sufficient. It should be expanded with the following sentence:
"And (at least) all tracks that could be reached from a marker on the old tile
have to be reached from the same marker on the new tile."

(For 1837 it would be easier to indicate how the Vienna tile has to be placed
because someone could say that the new kk-marker is not the same as the former
kk-markers in Vienna.)

This rule is necessary if you consider the follwing 1830 absurd example:

The B&O has placed tile#59 on hex H18 with connections to NY and to the small
city on hex I19. It has also laid a station marker on the southern station of
hex H18.
The NYC has placed a station marker on the northern station of tile#59 via NY.
If tile#59 is replaced with tile#65 by the PRR so that hex I19 and NY are
connected with a large curve (this would be possible if only existing tracks
also have to exist on the new tile but it is not possible in common sense).
Which station marker lays now on the large curve? How can the NYC get a station
marker without a route to his home base if the B&O would lay the station marker
on the large curve? etc.etc.etc.

Michael

I'll interject once more.

I translated all of the cards, boards, and tables from 1837 into English
the best I could in Sept 1996.  The MS Doc file and a Postscript output
file are availible at my web site  http://www.dave.mitton.com on the 18xx page,
or directly at  http://people.ne.mediaone.net/dmitton/1837tabs.doc and .ps

I translated that bullet as:
Running through Vienna is not possible, except for the k.k. Bahn, when it
upgrades to the brown tile.

If anyone finds any issues with my translations, I'd appreciate
comments.  They were machine assisted.  And breaking down some of the game
and RR words was interesting exercise in vocabulary discovery & teaching.

          Thanks.
          Dave.

At 10:10 AM 7/1/99 +0200, Werner Baer wrote:
>From: "Werner Baer" <werner.baer@...>
>
> >From: John David Galt <jdg@...>
> >
> >Steve Thomas writes:
> >
> >>> 4.  Am I right in thinking that I can play tile #436 (brown Vienna)
> >>> in any orientation I like?
> >>
> >
>
><snip>
>
> >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
> >
>
>
>There is a pink piece of paper titled 'Loks & Auswirkungen'
>(trains and effects).
>In the lower half, there are some 'Besondere Hinweise' (special notes).
>
>The 9th point reads:
>'Die Strecke Wien-Wien ist nicht moeglich. Durch das braune Wien wird
>aus den drei k.k-Bahnhoefen einer.'
>(The route vienna-vienna is not legal. The brown vienna piece
>combines the three k.k. stations into one).
>
>Werner.
>
>
>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
>ONElist:  the best source for group communications.
>http://www.onelist.com
>Join a new list today!
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.

I asked Lonny about when a share can be sold.  His answer
was that he always plays that a share cannot be sold until
after the corporation has finished an operating turn.  This
applies to both ordinary major corporations and to the
three state railways.

I will add a note to this effect in my 1837 C&A page.

Steve

Chris Lawson, amongst others, spent much of yesterday at
my house, playing games.  (It was a non-18xx day; Tikal,
Rheinlaendar, Varraeter, and Ricochet Robot - great fun,
even if I did come too low down the pecking order in most
of them.)  We got to chatting about various issues, and
one of the topics which arose was the recent upsurge in
rules queries about 1837.

While the situation for 1837 isn't all that much like
that for 1830, inasmuch as there is relatively little
disagreement over what the rules should be, we
concluded that the correct solution is more or less
the same - we (meaning the members of this list) should
arrange to produce a cleaned-up rule set which outlines
clearly what the rules are.  Much to my surprise, Chris
did not immediately put this task on my list of things
to do (a list which is already far too long).  Instead,
he identified the man who has already produced one rules
set and is in the best position to do another.

So, Paul Work, your duty is clear.  Let us know when the
job is finished!  Then we can appoint one of the list's
native German speakers who can do a translation.

(You've *no* idea how much more satisfying it is to find
that someone else is having their work load increased!)

Steve

>From: Steve Thomas [mailto:Steve.Thomas@...]
>So, Paul Work, your duty is clear.  Let us know when the
>job is finished!  Then we can appoint one of the list's
>native German speakers who can do a translation.

I must say it is very hearting to see that Paul has 'volunteered' to take on
this task. Well done that man! :-)

So Paul (we know you are out there), the task is to have a good read of the
C&A Steve has produced for 1837 and incorporate it into the existing 1837
Rules Document that you have already translated. The latest C&A is as usual
available on Blackwater Station. It would seem much more sensible to correct
the actual rule book than to keep on having to refer to both the rules and
to a separate C&A.

Once this has been done, interested parties can proof-read it and suggest
any further changes, then it can put it up on Blackwater Station (assuming
that Lonny does not mind this) for all to see. I can even print off some
paper copies if anyone wants one for their own game. I will produce a nice
html and formatted Word document if need be, as long as I am given the
source of the combined documents.

Lonny could also include this new updated rules document in with his
gamekits as well. I understand that the old Stuart Dagger translation is
still being supplied if an English Translation is requested.

As a side note, I have not yet put up the set that John David Galt has sent
me, sorry about not managing to do it yet. If John wants to help Paul or
take on the task then I am sure we will all give you ample applause and
encouragement :-) I will hold off from putting up the old copy of the rules
until we see if the above suggestion of a modified rule sheet is forthcoming
or not. I would prefer not to confuse things by having several sets floating
about if possible.

>(You've *no* idea how much more satisfying it is to find
>that someone else is having their work load increased!)

I have always enjoyed giving you work Steve :-) but I guess it is time we
started to share it out a bit. I think there are many small project like
this that can benefit if we share out the workload to willing members of the
mailing list.

Oh yes, almost forget. Paul, do you object to the work we have 'suggested'?
^_^

Cheers
Chris

At 11:40 AM 7/5/99 +0100, you wrote:
>From: Steve Thomas <Steve.Thomas@...>
>
>Chris Lawson, amongst others, spent much of yesterday at
>my house, playing games.  (It was a non-18xx day; Tikal,
>Rheinlaendar, Varraeter, and Ricochet Robot - great fun,
>even if I did come too low down the pecking order in most
>of them.)  We got to chatting about various issues, and
>one of the topics which arose was the recent upsurge in
>rules queries about 1837.
>
I had 2 friends who were at the Chattanooga con at my house Saturday for a
day of non-18xx games too and played Tikal among others.  Have you played
Union Pacific yet?  It was a lot of fun also though I really liked Tikal.
I look forward to at least one game of it in two weeks at manor Con.

I plan to talk to Jay Tummelson of Rio Grande Games at Gen Con next month
and I plan on inviting him to Chattanooga next January if he or his
representative can make it.  Perhaps we can arrange a separate competition
next January.  Though I hesitate to move the focus of Chattanooga too far
away from railroad games (particularly 18xx!), I wouldn't mind seeing some
of the better German games played there, perhaps in an open gaming area.

As you may know, the TGA has suspended publication of the Gazette although
they are still urging members to renew their memberships for 1999.  I'm not
clear what the purpose of the TGA is now except to track Puffing Billy
points earned by rail gamers.  I haven't decided yet whether to seek TGA
sanctioning at my Chattanooga con next year.  I have heard that Wayne
Williams, who is now the TGA president, is considering some big changes to
the TGA including perhaps formation of a new non profit corporation for the
organization.  I hope the TGA gets their act together.  Regardless of what
TGA does, I plan to include a separate 18xx competition at Chattanooga next
year and would include 1837 if there is enough interest and someone to
bring their copy.  Steve Thomas had the only copy there this year but at
least it was played.

Mark

Here is a situation which arose in an 1849 game, and could arise in
other games with non-president's doubles.

P is president of a company, and has four shares 2+1+1.  Q also has four
shares 2+1+1 and buys a fifth, seizing the presidency.  P hands the
president's double to Q, and Q gives her two singles in exchange.  P
refuses to accept these, and insists that she wants the double.

I am sure that this has come out before, but I can't find the answer.

Nick
--
Nick Wedd    nick@...

>
> Here is a situation which arose in an 1849 game, and could arise in
> other games with non-president's doubles.
>
> P is president of a company, and has four shares 2+1+1.  Q also has four
> shares 2+1+1 and buys a fifth, seizing the presidency.  P hands the
> president's double to Q, and Q gives her two singles in exchange.  P
> refuses to accept these, and insists that she wants the double.
>
> I am sure that this has come out before, but I can't find the answer.
>
I know that in 1835 the rules say, that the old(!!) president
decides, how this exchange takes place.

Adam

Steve Thomas wrote:
>
> From: Steve Thomas <Steve.Thomas@...>
>
> Chris Lawson, amongst others, spent much of yesterday at
> my house, playing games.  (It was a non-18xx day; Tikal,
> Rheinlaendar, Varraeter, and Ricochet Robot - great fun,
> even if I did come too low down the pecking order in most
> of them.)  We got to chatting about various issues, and
> one of the topics which arose was the recent upsurge in
> rules queries about 1837.
>
> While the situation for 1837 isn't all that much like
> that for 1830, inasmuch as there is relatively little
> disagreement over what the rules should be, we
> concluded that the correct solution is more or less
> the same - we (meaning the members of this list) should
> arrange to produce a cleaned-up rule set which outlines
> clearly what the rules are.  Much to my surprise, Chris
> did not immediately put this task on my list of things
> to do (a list which is already far too long).  Instead,
> he identified the man who has already produced one rules
> set and is in the best position to do another.

One thing I have noticed in playing various games is that nobody
follows a common format for the rules. They seem to be written
after the fact (Gee sounds like the way I did it at the start).


Would it be worth while to develop a common framework for
18xx rules?

For example:
Section:
  1 Introduction
	 What type of game is it? (like 1829, 1830, . . .)
	 What are the new rules introduced in this game
  2 Game Equipment
  3 Game Setup
  4 Sequence of Play and Game Phases
  5 Stock Round
  6 Laying Track
  7 Tokens
  8 Operate Trains
  9 Dividends
10 Trains
11 New Game Specific Rules
12 Purchasing Private Companies
13 Ending the Game
14 Winning
15 Companies
16 Variations
17 Design Notes
18 Credits

This way when you buy a new game you would know where
to look for the new rules, where to check for the changes
to old rules and such.

Where the rules deviate from the norm, the sections could be
highlighted.
New rules could also be highlighted and explanations added to each
section
for the new variations.

The above list is not necessarily the best way to do things, but
it might be a start.


Bill Dixon

Howdy Chris, Steve,

Steve Thomas (Steve.Thomas@...) wrote:

>> So, Paul Work, your duty is clear.  Let us know when the
>> job is finished!  Then we can appoint one of the list's
>> native German speakers who can do a translation.

and Chris Lawson <ChrisR.Lawson@...> wrote:

> I must say it is very hearting to see that Paul has 'volunteered' to take on
> this task. Well done that man! :-)

     I am indeed honored that two of the "giants" of the 18xx genre
consider me to be the man for the job!  :-)  I do have a little spare time
I can devote to this effort, so I'll see what I can do.

> So Paul (we know you are out there), the task is to have a good read of the
> C&A Steve has produced for 1837 and incorporate it into the existing 1837
> Rules Document that you have already translated. The latest C&A is as usual
> available on Blackwater Station. It would seem much more sensible to correct
> the actual rule book than to keep on having to refer to both the rules and
> to a separate C&A.

     This should be more than just a translation, I take it.  I'll review
the C&A thoroughly and look at other contributions as well.  However, I
won't get much done before next week, because I'm currently on vacation in
San Diego at the moment (went to La Jolla beach this morning!).  The
vacation ends Saturday, and I'll begin the background research Sunday or
Monday evening.

> Once this has been done, interested parties can proof-read it and suggest
> any further changes, then it can put it up on Blackwater Station (assuming
> that Lonny does not mind this) for all to see. I can even print off some
> paper copies if anyone wants one for their own game. I will produce a nice
> html and formatted Word document if need be, as long as I am given the
> source of the combined documents.

> Lonny could also include this new updated rules document in with his
> gamekits as well. I understand that the old Stuart Dagger translation is
> still being supplied if an English Translation is requested.

     I would especially welcome input from Lonny.  I have long admired the
structure of 1837, even though others have referred to it as "1835 on
steroids!"

> As a side note, I have not yet put up the set that John David Galt has sent
> me, sorry about not managing to do it yet. If John wants to help Paul or
> take on the task then I am sure we will all give you ample applause and
> encouragement :-) I will hold off from putting up the old copy of the rules
> until we see if the above suggestion of a modified rule sheet is forthcoming
> or not. I would prefer not to confuse things by having several sets floating
> about if possible.

>> (You've *no* idea how much more satisfying it is to find
>> that someone else is having their work load increased!)

> I have always enjoyed giving you work Steve :-) but I guess it is time we
> started to share it out a bit. I think there are many small project like
> this that can benefit if we share out the workload to willing members of the
> mailing list.

> Oh yes, almost forget. Paul, do you object to the work we have 'suggested'?

     I've had the pleasure of playing against Steve Thomas in a game of
1870, and he taught me a lesson on how to redeem and reissue shares.  I
look forward to the time when I can play against Chris Lawson also, but
that may take a few years to realize (I may have to fly to Emgland, so
don't hold your breath).  Take care,

     -Paul

  Paul R Work                                  Phone:  (925) 423-9087
  Computational Scientist for                  Fax:    (925) 423-9338
  Intel Corporation at                                 pwork@...
  Lawrence Livermore National Labs                     pwork@...
  Home page:  http://www.llnl.gov/sccd/lc/DEG/pwork

Nick Wedd wrote:

> Here is a situation which arose in an 1849 game, and could arise in
> other games with non-president's doubles.
>
> P is president of a company, and has four shares 2+1+1.  Q also has four
> shares 2+1+1 and buys a fifth, seizing the presidency.  P hands the
> president's double to Q, and Q gives her two singles in exchange.  P
> refuses to accept these, and insists that she wants the double.

The 1849 rules do not say.  The example does say "two 10%
shares" but there is no question there of the last share being
available.  As far as I'm aware 1835 is the only other widely-
available game with this problem.  There, the outgoing president
decides.  I think this is a better rule than having the new
president decide, but others' mileage may vary.

Steve

Paul R. Work wrote:

>     I am indeed honored that two of the "giants" of the 18xx genre
> consider me to be the man for the job!  :-)  I do have a little spare time
> I can devote to this effort, so I'll see what I can do.

>     This should be more than just a translation, I take it.

The goal is to produce an 1837 rules set which is free from
ambiguity and unclarity.  The best way may well be to start
from your existing translation and make the appropriate
emendations.  However, you're in charge and if you feel a
more fundamental rewrite is in order, then go ahead.

> However, I
> won't get much done before next week, because I'm currently on vacation in
> San Diego at the moment (went to La Jolla beach this morning!).  The
> vacation ends Saturday, and I'll begin the background research Sunday or
> Monday evening.

There's no desperate rush, though I find that I have to
keep plugging away at a project or it tends to get dropped.

>     I would especially welcome input from Lonny.  I have long admired the
> structure of 1837, even though others have referred to it as "1835 on
> steroids!"

"1835 on steroids" is a pretty fair description - yet I do not
especially enjoy playing 1835 while 1837 is close to being my
favourite.

>     I've had the pleasure of playing against Steve Thomas in a game of
> 1870, and he taught me a lesson on how to redeem and reissue shares.  I
> look forward to the time when I can play against Chris Lawson also, but
> that may take a few years to realize (I may have to fly to Emgland, so
> don't hold your breath).

I don't play 1870 very often - in fact, I do not recall the
last time I played it apart from at a tournament.  I adopt
a very simple approach and attempt nothing exciting.  (This
is perhaps why I find it dull.)  Yet I won the last two
games I played, and the one before that I should have won
but made a stupid blunder at the end.

Chris and aeroplanes do not get on at all well, so any
foreign residents anxious to give him a damned good thrashing
at 18xx will most probably have to venture to the UK.  We
do mount some pretty decent conventions over here which are
well worth attending.

Steve

Ha, Ha, does the term "railroaded" seem appropriate here?

Please be sure to look over my 1837 MS Doc tables work, and if you want to
borrow some of it, or ask me to change it, just drop a line.

          Dave.


At 08:22 PM 7/5/99 -0700, you wrote:
>From: "Paul R. Work" <pwork@...>
>
>Howdy Chris, Steve,
>
>Steve Thomas (Steve.Thomas@...) wrote:
>
> >> So, Paul Work, your duty is clear.  Let us know when the
> >> job is finished!  Then we can appoint one of the list's
> >> native German speakers who can do a translation.
>
>and Chris Lawson <ChrisR.Lawson@...> wrote:
>
> > I must say it is very hearting to see that Paul has 'volunteered' to
> take on
> > this task. Well done that man! :-)
>
>     I am indeed honored that two of the "giants" of the 18xx genre
>consider me to be the man for the job!  :-)  I do have a little spare time
>I can devote to this effort, so I'll see what I can do.
>
> > So Paul (we know you are out there), the task is to have a good read of the
> > C&A Steve has produced for 1837 and incorporate it into the existing 1837
> > Rules Document that you have already translated. The latest C&A is as usual
> > available on Blackwater Station. It would seem much more sensible to
> correct
> > the actual rule book than to keep on having to refer to both the rules and
> > to a separate C&A.
>
>     This should be more than just a translation, I take it.  I'll review
>the C&A thoroughly and look at other contributions as well.  However, I
>won't get much done before next week, because I'm currently on vacation in
>San Diego at the moment (went to La Jolla beach this morning!).  The
>vacation ends Saturday, and I'll begin the background research Sunday or
>Monday evening.
>
> > Once this has been done, interested parties can proof-read it and suggest
> > any further changes, then it can put it up on Blackwater Station (assuming
> > that Lonny does not mind this) for all to see. I can even print off some
> > paper copies if anyone wants one for their own game. I will produce a nice
> > html and formatted Word document if need be, as long as I am given the
> > source of the combined documents.
>
> > Lonny could also include this new updated rules document in with his
> > gamekits as well. I understand that the old Stuart Dagger translation is
> > still being supplied if an English Translation is requested.
>
>     I would especially welcome input from Lonny.  I have long admired the
>structure of 1837, even though others have referred to it as "1835 on
>steroids!"
>
> > As a side note, I have not yet put up the set that John David Galt has sent
> > me, sorry about not managing to do it yet. If John wants to help Paul or
> > take on the task then I am sure we will all give you ample applause and
> > encouragement :-) I will hold off from putting up the old copy of the rules
> > until we see if the above suggestion of a modified rule sheet is
> forthcoming
> > or not. I would prefer not to confuse things by having several sets
> floating
> > about if possible.
>
> >> (You've *no* idea how much more satisfying it is to find
> >> that someone else is having their work load increased!)
>
> > I have always enjoyed giving you work Steve :-) but I guess it is time we
> > started to share it out a bit. I think there are many small project like
> > this that can benefit if we share out the workload to willing members
> of the
> > mailing list.
>
> > Oh yes, almost forget. Paul, do you object to the work we have 'suggested'?
>
>     I've had the pleasure of playing against Steve Thomas in a game of
>1870, and he taught me a lesson on how to redeem and reissue shares.  I
>look forward to the time when I can play against Chris Lawson also, but
>that may take a few years to realize (I may have to fly to Emgland, so
>don't hold your breath).  Take care,
>
>     -Paul
>
>  Paul R Work                                  Phone:  (925) 423-9087
>  Computational Scientist for                  Fax:    (925) 423-9338
>  Intel Corporation at                                 pwork@...
>  Lawrence Livermore National Labs                     pwork@...
>  Home page:  http://www.llnl.gov/sccd/lc/DEG/pwork
>
>
>
>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
>Who is the most visited e-mail list community Web Service?
>http://www.onelist.com
>ONElist.com - where more than 20 million e-mails are exchanged each day!
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.

Dave Mitton       dave@...
		   http://www.dave.mitton.com

Hello Dave,

Some notes to the 1837 tables, part 'special notes':

Point 9 reads:
Running through Vienna is not possible, except for the k.k. Bahn, when it
upgrades to the brown tile.

This statement is true. However, it is not a translation of the
corresponding german point, which
consists of 2 statements:
Vienna-Vienna is not a legal train route. (missing in your translation)
The brown vienna tile is placed so that the three k.k. stations are combined
to one.
(This is about the same as your statement, but just some days ago there was
a question
about that in the mailing list, so it should be made more explicit).

Point 11:
A player can hold a maximum of 60% of any one company
Add:
... during a stock round.
Original: 'waehrend der AR' (AR = Aktienrunde)
Note: It is possible and legal, due to an exchange of coal railways, that a
player owns more
than 60% during operation rounds.

At least, this are translations of my copy of the game.
Maybe there are diffenent rules versions.

Werner.

Werner Baer wrote:

> Point 11:
> A player can hold a maximum of 60% of any one company
> Add:
> ... during a stock round.
> Original: 'waehrend der AR' (AR = Aktienrunde)
> Note: It is possible and legal, due to an exchange of coal railways, that a
> player owns more
> than 60% during operation rounds.

The phrase "during a stock round" is present in Paul Work's
translation of the main rules.

There is a slight problem, though.  It is possible to own more
than 60% of a corporation which hasn't operated yet.  (For
example, I could buy 60% of the k.k.-Staatsbahn from the
Initial Offering before the first 4-Train is bought.  At the
start of the next Stock Round, the k.k. forms and I convert my
minor company, to leave me with 70%.)  This leaves the player
both compelled and forbidden to sell some shares in the
corporation concerned.

Most 18xx games don't address this issue.  Those that do say
that the ban on selling shares takes priority over the
compulsion to do so.  Unless anyone has any convincing
arguments to put forth to the contrary that's what the next
issue of the 1837 C&A document will say.

> At least, this are translations of my copy of the game.
> Maybe there are diffenent rules versions.

Lonny would know for sure, but I think there has been one
set of rules in German and two translations into English.

Steve

Years ago I created a METAFONT character set of 18xx tiles.
Unfortunately my attempts to resurrect the old harddisk holding this
stuff failed.

So - has anybody a 18xx METAFONT character set? Perhaps even
originating from my early attempts?

I know the maps are done with Postscript these days, but I would
prefer Tex and METAFONT as I'm rather oldfashioned.

Peter Jacobi

Castlecon is a somewhat unusual event in the UK gaming
hobby.  A bunch of us rent a genuine[1] 13th-century
castle in south Wales for two weeks.  Some people go
for both weeks, and some for one or the other.  While
there, we play games or, for the more active, explore
the local area by day & play games by night.  The
place is self-catering; kitchen space is adequate, if
not luxurious.  Most of us eat out, at least some of
the time.

The castle has 14 beds, three of which are double.  As
most of the players draw the line at sharing a bed
with any of the others, we normally limit numbers to
14 each week.  Most of the players are prepared to
play 18xx for at least some of the time; several do
little else.

This year, the con starts on September 18th.  As of
last week there were still two places for the first
week and one for the second (starting on the 25th).
The cost depends somewhat on the number of people
who end up going, but this year will not exceed #123
for the first week and #112 for the second.  To that
add the cost of food for a week and the cost of
getting there.

If you're want to go, contact Steve.Jones@....
For more details, mail me.

Steve

[1] Roch Castle was build by a chap called de Roche in
about 1250.  It was gutted in the 17th century by the
Roundheads.  In 1899 the place was restored as a
country house, and a servants' wing added.  The castle
is fitted with all modern conveniences such as central
heating and is reasonably luxurious.  It does have
battlements, and during the second week one of our
number will probably use them the better to play his
bagpipes.

I'm not talking about opponents who appear to go
into hibernation between turns, infuriating though
they be.  (Did I ever tell you of the player who,
having spent half an hour thinking about buying
the third 4-Train in 1830, spent a further 20
minutes angrily denying that he was a slow player?)
No, I want to discuss 18xx games which never reach
any of the conditions which end the game.

Suppose in 1856 all 11 companies close (the CGR can
never close, so assume it never starts).  If none of
the Private Companies are in players' hands, then no
player has any stock, and no money ever flows out of
the Bank.  Bankruptcies are impossible too, so the
game never ends.

I think this applies to 1825, 1829, 1853, 1856, and
1870.  For some reason the rules of these games do not
appear to cover this situation.  More C&A fodder!

In 1841 you can get into a similar mess by everyone
spending so much on the concessions (other than the
Bayard, of course) that they cannot afford to buy any
shares, even by all the players clubbing together.
But this is obviously silly. 8-)

Steve

>
> I'm not talking about opponents who appear to go
> into hibernation between turns, infuriating though
> they be.  (Did I ever tell you of the player who,
> having spent half an hour thinking about buying
> the third 4-Train in 1830, spent a further 20
> minutes angrily denying that he was a slow player?)

Use the moderator program with penaltys for slow playing!!

Adam

Why oh why didn't Francis think to include this in the rules ????!!!!!!

In practical terms 1825 will then finish at the decision of one of the
players to buy one or more of the Privates. Since the Privates never
leave the game (as they don't fold later in the game), any player will
always have the opportunity to buy the L&M and guarantee victory.

I suppose then the game would reach stalemate until someone decides to
win it. So, in a sense, 1825 can never be 'interminable'.

The other problem with this is the practical aspects of achieving the
bankrupcy of all companies while guaranteeing that no player has any
income at all. It's relatively easy in 1830 / 56 / 70, but not in any
game where the Privates don't fold at some point. In 1835 (unless I've
got the wrong end of the stick), it can't happen before the Prussian is
formed.

Mike
> ----------
> From:  Steve Thomas[SMTP:Steve.Thomas@...]
> Sent:  09 July 1999 15:48
> To:  18xx@onelist.com
> Subject:  [18xx] Interminable 18xx games
>
> From: Steve Thomas <Steve.Thomas@...>
>
> I'm not talking about opponents who appear to go
> into hibernation between turns, infuriating though
> they be.  (Did I ever tell you of the player who,
> having spent half an hour thinking about buying
> the third 4-Train in 1830, spent a further 20
> minutes angrily denying that he was a slow player?)
> No, I want to discuss 18xx games which never reach
> any of the conditions which end the game.
>
> Suppose in 1856 all 11 companies close (the CGR can
> never close, so assume it never starts).  If none of
> the Private Companies are in players' hands, then no
> player has any stock, and no money ever flows out of
> the Bank.  Bankruptcies are impossible too, so the
> game never ends.
>
> I think this applies to 1825, 1829, 1853, 1856, and
> 1870.  For some reason the rules of these games do not
> appear to cover this situation.  More C&A fodder!
>
> In 1841 you can get into a similar mess by everyone
> spending so much on the concessions (other than the
> Bayard, of course) that they cannot afford to buy any
> shares, even by all the players clubbing together.
> But this is obviously silly. 8-)
>
> Steve
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor
> ----------------------------
>
> ONElist:  your connection to people who share your interests.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
>

   ***DISCLAIMER***

This message and/or any attached documents may contain Privileged and
Confidential Information and should only be read by those persons to whom this
message is addressed.

Other than where expressly stated to the contrary, the contents of this message
and/or of any attached document(s) are not intended to be relied upon by any
person without subsequent express written confirmation to that effect.

Sherwood International disclaim all responsibility and accept no liability
(including liability for negligence) for the consequences for any person acting,
or refraining from acting, on the information contained in this E-mail or in the
attached document (s) before receiving such written confirmation.

If you have received this E-mail message in error, please notify the sender
immediately by telephone.  Please also delete the message from your computer.

Any form of unauthorised reproduction, publication, distribution, disclosure,
and/or modification of this E-mail message and/or its contents is strictly
prohibited.

Steve Thomas <Steve.Thomas@...> writes:

> I'm not talking about opponents who appear to go
> into hibernation between turns, infuriating though
> they be.  (Did I ever tell you of the player who,
> having spent half an hour thinking about buying
> the third 4-Train in 1830, spent a further 20
> minutes angrily denying that he was a slow player?)
> No, I want to discuss 18xx games which never reach
> any of the conditions which end the game.
>
> Suppose in 1856 all 11 companies close (the CGR can
> never close, so assume it never starts).  If none of
> the Private Companies are in players' hands, then no
> player has any stock, and no money ever flows out of
> the Bank.  Bankruptcies are impossible too, so the
> game never ends.

This seems kind of silly.  Someone must have a train, so if all companies
close then at least some of them did it by choosing to withhold knowing
that they would close as a result.

However, if it did happen, I would wait until the end of the next stock
round; then if no company is floated, I would rule that the game is over,
and count assets to determine a winner as if the bank had broken.

> I think this applies to 1825, 1829, 1853, 1856, and
> 1870.  For some reason the rules of these games do not
> appear to cover this situation.  More C&A fodder!

This is like pointing out that the Constitution does not say who runs the
country if no one feels like running for office.  True, but will it ever
happen?

John David Galt

>>
>> Suppose in 1856 all 11 companies close (the CGR can
>> never close, so assume it never starts).  If none of
>> the Private Companies are in players' hands, then no
>> player has any stock, and no money ever flows out of
>> the Bank.  Bankruptcies are impossible too, so the
>> game never ends.
>
>This seems kind of silly.  Someone must have a train, so if all companies
>close then at least some of them did it by choosing to withhold knowing
>that they would close as a result.
>
>However, if it did happen, I would wait until the end of the next stock
>round; then if no company is floated, I would rule that the game is over,
>and count assets to determine a winner as if the bank had broken.
>
>> I think this applies to 1825, 1829, 1853, 1856, and
>> 1870.  For some reason the rules of these games do not
>> appear to cover this situation.  More C&A fodder!
>
>This is like pointing out that the Constitution does not say who runs the
>country if no one feels like running for office.  True, but will it ever
>happen?
>
>John David Galt
>
I would have to agree here.  How likely is for any companies to close in
1856, much less all of them?  I've only played 1856 maybe 15-20 times but
I've never seen a company close.  What for?  Even if it limps along heavily
in debt with maybe only one "3" train any company share is potentially
worth 1/2 or 1/4 share of Government.  BTW, I hope some lurkers here would
like to play 1856 at Manor Con later this month.  I will be there and
obviously there are some players in England who look at things differently!
<grin>

Mark

Date sent:       Thu, 8 Jul 1999 02:48:59 -0700 (PDT)
From:            Peter Jacobi <peter_jacobi@...>
To:              18xx@onelist.com
Send reply to:   18xx@onelist.com
Subject:         [18xx] Tiles as METAFONT characters

> From: Peter Jacobi <peter_jacobi@...>
>
> Years ago I created a METAFONT character set of 18xx tiles.
> Unfortunately my attempts to resurrect the old harddisk holding this
> stuff failed.
>
> So - has anybody a 18xx METAFONT character set? Perhaps even
> originating from my early attempts?
>
> I know the maps are done with Postscript these days, but I would
> prefer Tex and METAFONT as I'm rather oldfashioned.
>
> Peter Jacobi
>
Hello Peter,

please ask Lemmi, I know that he made his cards with METAFONTS.

Volker Schnell

Email:    VSchnell@...
Homepage: HTTP://WWW.fortunecity.de/wolkenkratzer/ram/93/

Is anyone one on the 18xx list planning to attend the Mid-Sum-Con (SW
Chicago, USA) in a couple of weeks?  See:

http://www.rich-and-sharon.org/game/midsumcon.htm

Mark Derrick posted a message about this convention a month or so ago and,
since I live within a 3 hour drive of it, I and a group of friends are
planning on attending.  If anyone else from the list will be there I'd like
to say "hi" in person.



-- Rick

Rick Westerman           System Manager of (1) the Ag Campus Lab. for
westerm@...       Computational Biology [ACLCB], (2) the Genomics
Phone: (765) 494-0505    center, and (3) the Biochemistry department.
FAX: (765) 494-7897      BCHM bldg. Purdue Univ. W. Lafayette, IN 47907
href="http://www.biochem.purdue.edu/~westerm"