Re: [Rails-devel] Setting Erie home base during green upgrade

[Erik V. <eri...@hc...>]

> Erik Vos wrote:
> > That is how I have implemented it, but I'm having second 
> thoughts about
> > that. In fact I had intended to let the president make the 
> choice, but
> > I overlooked the possibility that another player might 
> update such a OO
> > or XX hex to green. This is rather unlikely, though, so perhaps I'll
> > leave it as is. The rules are completely silent about this question.
> 
> >> I have always played that if these companies have no home tile and
> >> don't bother to lay it on their first turn, they give up 
> their right
> >> to make this choice.
> 
> > I would rule differently, but I don't know if there is any basis to
> > settle this dispute. Has there ever be a ruling on this matter?
> 
> Not that I'm aware of.  It was debated a year ago on the 18xx list.

Found, that was in Feb 2007.
 
> The main case where it would come up is when someone opens the Erie or
> THB just before the permanent trains come out, as a source of capital,
> and doesn't want it to have to buy a train, so he doesn't build it a
> route.  The other nearby players will want to thwart this tactic by
> building a route for that company.  If (say) the NYC lays Erie's home
> OO tile after Erie has had two turns, it seems to me it's against the
> spirit of the game to then allow Erie to say, "my home station is the
> one your track doesn't connect to."  Erie had its chance and 
> passed it.

That makes some sense too.

In the discussion you refer to, both Wolfram Janich and Steve Thomas
concluded that in 1835 the Badische president had the right to place its
token (first) when someone else upgraded the tile to green. Steve cited
version 1 of the English rules as saying "The home base token of the Baden
may be placed in either of the cities found on its home hex after the green
tile has been played.  No other corporation may play a token on this hex
(including through the use of the Pfalzbahnen) until the Baden has placed
its home token."  The mentioning of "green" seems to settle the issue (at
least for 1835), but in my version 2 of these rules the reference to green
is missing, putting us back in uncertainty.

As said before, I'm not going to change anything now. But I don't consider
the issue settled.

Erik.