Re: [Rails-devel] Minor bug, 1835, 1.7.6

[John D. G. <jd...@di...>]

On 2012-06-11 10:47, Stefan Frey wrote:
>> Now it is important for the 1st edition/English rules interpretation if 
>> a tile laying action of a player who does not own the Pfalzbahn is 
>> enough to fit the condition stated above. If so the two conditions are 
>> identical, if we assume that the tile has to be laid before a token can 
>> be laid.
>>
>> However interestingly the rules state that the Pfalzbahn owner is 
>> allowed to "... lay a station marker onto this hex". This could be read 
>> as it might even be possible to lay a token before the green tile is laid.

I don't think it is generally illegal (in 1835 or in most 18xx games) to lay a
token on a city hex with no track without placing a tile first.  Indeed, the
Waycross & Southern private company power in 18GA is meant to be used this way
(since it lets you "teleport in" a token, but you have to wait until the tile
lay phase of the next turn before you can start building track from that token).

I don't think that question really matters here, though.  Even without using
the Pfalz, it's usually quite possible for other players to lay a green tile in
Ludwigshafen/Mannheim before BA first operates, and if they don't, BA will.

The question then becomes, should the Pfalz owner be stuck with the private
until the first 5-train purchase just because someone else laid a tile there?
I think not, and I offer the OBB (which closes when *anybody* lays tiles on
both of its hexes) as an example in support of that position.

On 2012-06-11 12:36, Erik Vos wrote:
> Practice tells, that if a rule can be interpreted in different ways, then
> that is exactly what is going to happen. 
> For that reason, I would prefer to go for the manual closure workaround,
> rather than trying to satisfy all tastes by adding options.

Makes sense.