Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekigm2.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!tekigm2!wrd From: wrd@tekigm2.UUCP (Bill Dippert) Newsgroups: net.games.board Subject: Re: Re: Seattle Rules Rail Baron Message-ID: <313@tekigm2.UUCP> Date: Tue, 17-Dec-85 14:17:31 EST Article-I.D.: tekigm2.313 Posted: Tue Dec 17 14:17:31 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 21-Dec-85 00:40:47 EST References: <270@tekigm2.UUCP> <37800017@hpcnoe.UUCP> <304@tekigm2.UUCP> <8018@ucla-cs.ARPA> Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR Lines: 104 > In article <304@tekigm2.UUCP> wrd@tekigm2.UUCP (Bill Dippert) writes: > > In this and your other posting you've said that people should count the > permutations and not the combinations in figuring out the odds for throwing > into the regions. I believe you're wrong on this, though this sort of thing > was never my long suit. In reality I said the reverse, but so far about 14 people have told me that I was wrong, that you should calculate using permutations and not comibinations. > Let's say that Plains comes up on even-7 and even-4 (just making these up; > I don't have charts with me). Then the odds of throwing the Plains are > > 1/2 * ( 6/36 + 3/36) > > The one-half comes from the even/odd die. Apparently, this is correct. > >Other rule changes: > > > >1: yes, use two white dice instead of one red die. Speeds up the game as > > you get to destinations quicker. (Regardless of length of trip.) > > And gives a bigger advantage to the players who get Superchiefs first. Also > makes luck much more important in the early game, when rolling doubles > becomes a huge advantage. Debateable. > >2: what good does it do you to get a bonus roll when you are there? This > > rule merely spells out what was implied in the original rules. > > A bonus roll can be CRUCIAL after you get to a destination!! It lets you > get in and out in one turn. Do we play the same game? I don't have the rules > with me, but I'll be very surprised if I find your "implication" in there. Try reading the section entitled "ENDING A TRIP": "Whenever a player's pawn moves onto the destination city it is heading for, the pawn must immediately stop (the player does not have to roll the exact number of dots to move onto the destination city--if he rolls higher he just moves onto it and loses the rest of that roll)." To me this and other portions of the rules means that your turn ends when you reach your destination. There is no way to go in and out of a city on one roll! I would suggest that we are not playing the same game and that you are incorrect in allowing this variation. > >5: again, why would it do you any good to be established when you are at > > your destination. This is an attempt to clarify a situation caused > > by the origninal rules, that really is impossible. Once you reach > > your destination, by definition you are no longer on a railroad, there- > > fore, how can you be "established"? > > No, no, no. Suppose you are sitting at a junction of two railroads when one > of them gets bought. You'd just finished riding the other one. Are you > established on the one that was just bought? Yes! Likewise, you are > established on a railroad until you ride another railroad. It doesn't matter > whether or not you go to your destination. Again, this can be crucial if you > are going in and out of a destination on someone's railroad. > I have forgotten what I had originally written, however, as far as you go, I agree with you. If you are at the junction of two railroads you can be said to be established on both of them, altho this is debateable. But, when you reach your destination, you are not established on any railroad. This goes back to what I said above, once at your destination, your turn ends. You cannot go in and out on one roll or turn. > > Which brings us to the use of the ruler. It > >also was to speed up the game, the orginal chart was hopeless. If you > >have the use of a computer, fine. The ruler in most cases gives you > >either the identical $ or close enough that in the long run it does not > >matter. > > I don't think the ruler is that close. First of all, the charts take into > account crossing the mountains. Secondly, the scale changes across the > map. Though Oakland to Denver and Pueblo to Cinncinati are the same number > of dots apart, Pueblo to Cinncinati is actually several inches longer (but > pays $1K less according to the charts!). Finally, the charts also take > into consideration the number of railroads in and out of a city. San Diego > to Miami, for instance, pays more than it "should". I did not say that in all cases it was exactly the same. The ruler gives you about the same amount on the average. It is not quite exact. All I was trying to indicate was that if you double checked the each amount per the chart with each amount per the ruler, that the average difference approaches zero, but it is not zero. > Regardless of the fact that you've been honing them for "ten years", these > rules don't seem well thought out or particularly playable. > --Scott Turner Until you follow the original rules, how can you say that the modified rules are not playable? I still question some of the things that you seem to do with the original rules. I would be interested in seeing how many agree with each of our interpretations. How many agree that play ends when you reach your destination (other than buying something)? How many agree that play does not end when you reach your destination but rather then you can go in and out on one turn per Scott? n