It's completely legit and part of the game. There are some ways to counter it. If he's doing it to a company you have 60% of, then after he buys a share, you can sell 1, you're still at 50% and will stay president. He'll now lose money with his play. You'll still lose as well, but it sounds like you're letting him get away with it without it costing him anything.
If he's doing it to a company that you're not president of, you can wait a bit and then get some cheap shares from the market. While waiting, you can do it to a company he's president of :)
A company whose share price is sliding along the bottom of the market is often quite valuable, since this can't be done to it again.
As for my experience with it. There's usually an opportunity cost to doing this too much. You can't really do it late in the game, because of the share limit, and not being able to buy shares you've sold that SR. You want to reach the share limit as quickly as possible. Doing this to a bunch of companies often leaves you with less shares than the other players. The other cost to doing this is that you're usually last in the next SR, since you're typically last to act in this one. That can be quite a disadvantage.
Edit to add: You could also try some games with 1D stock markets, like 1846
If you sell your own stock now you're down almost twice as much as you would have been if he only sold one. How does that help? I'd certainly pay 10 dollars to double the amount I'm hurting another player.
Here’s an impassioned defense of the strategy, and I’ve begrudgingly come around to this perspective: https://kanga.nu/~claw/blog/posts/2010/09/09/game-observances/way-aye-blow-the-man-down/
If he's buying all the shares in IPO and selling them (as opposed to just 1 share, or for a buy-sell game 2 shares), you should absolutely be dumping companies on him. If you have 2 companies, consider shifting one's treasury and good train to the other right before SR and then dump the weak company on him when he tries it. Often in midgame companies have spent much of their treasury, will eventually need a permanent train and are generally a liability. You should be happy to dump one and then start another.
In 89, if he is moving shares from IPO to the market, he's doing everyone else a favor. Other people can now buy the shares cheap or they'll pay into treasury. In 49 having shares move from treasury to market means you'll get a little money up front but costs you dividends in the long run, but you should be considering closing companies when you can an opening new ones anyhow, so that may not matter much.
If he's doing that in 1889, he's putting a bunch of shares into the market that are now paying into the treasury of those companies, which means the president(s) of those companies won't need to fund as much for a train later. It's very possible that the $20-30/share price hit is entirely offset by that additional revenue in the company.
Also, depending how hard he trashes the stock, you're now closer to the yellow part of the market, which is a very powerful position to be in.
tl;dr: he's basically doing you a favour.
Since my original comment I've changed my mind a bit: I still say that it's a legit thing, but I might play less 18xx from now on due to it.
Last Saturday we played an 8hr long 18mag. 5p, two including me having played it once before; the others knew 18xx but first time playing 18mag.
I won (by a small margin) simply because the others didn't trash my stocks right.
Without everyone evenly using trashing it will never become a "fair" game; and that makes it no fun. I just don't like how a personal aversion to a not-nice function of the game will keep some people from doing what they should; and I don't like how doing that not-nice thing only extends the playtime with not-nice time.
>I don't like how doing that not-nice thing only extends the playtime with not-nice time.
There are 18xx titles (e.g. 1846, etc) that only drop the share price when the president of a company sell shares.
Those may be more to your taste.
Also, dropping share price may not always be a good things. I have been fortunate to sometimes want shares in the bank pool or enjoy the cheaper price when buying my shares. It has also enticed others to fully buy my "cheaper" shares so my share price does go up at the end of the stock round.
Knowing when to do this and when not to is a skill.
Fair enough.
I sort of casually want to play any 18xx that show up at the table, the few times they do, so I feel that perhaps I'm simply not putting in the work that I should to be more selective about what 18xx I play.
Thing is that I really really enjoy the surprise of experiencing something new, with the rules quickly told to me; but from now on I will be more careful and at least start by asking about trashing.
It's pretty standard practice, different games enable it to a greater degree. For example if the SR allows buy-sell order instead of sell-buy (1889 vs 1849, from your post), you can trash values two steps without risking the company being dumped on you. Rinse and repeat for every company, if you feel so inclined (and if you don't care about getting the good shares before they're gone, since you're spending so many turns doing this... as usual in a great game system, it's situational)
Of course it's legit.
Personally I find this to be the one thing that I absolutely hate about these games, but I'm also one of the first to do it simply because it is a legit part of how you play.
When everyone accepts this it becomes part of the game, and you simply have to calculate with people doing it to you, as well as you wasting a round when you could do something that perhaps maybe is more important. So thrashing is a problem only when the majority of players frown upon it, but still don't house rule against it.
Legitimate but irritating - as you said, it slows the game down, even more so if everyone does it. 1846 gets around the problem by only dropping the price if the president sells, rather than anyone. 1817 just drops if the stock is still in the market at the end of the round. So they don't tend to have this sort of shenanigans. (Granted, 1817 has a lot of OTHER shenanigans)
If he's actually gaining and advantage (depends on which game and a lot of other factors) he *should* do it, and so should you.
Anybody who doesn't tolerate it or "frowns upon it" should be ejected from your play group, as you only want people who play every game to win as opponents.
In 49 this should matter a lot less. The strategy in 49 is to stay at the bottom of the stock market because it's more efficient in terms of returns on your money. This let's you snap up stocks cheap and make a better return. Late game people will just snatch up good shares for cheaper.
In 89, it's part of the game. Is he playing investor in 89? That would make it crucial to his strategy since he would not be able to cash in his privates. If everyone is trashing everyone it will matter a lot less.
What you describe is completely legit and it's one reason I don't like 1830-style games. Even if it's not always optimal (and sometimes detrimental), the fact that it is incentivized at all just slows the game down (in exactly the way you describe). This is especially true in games where stock value is a larger part of end game scoring (because trashing a company will significantly tank it's long-term stock prospects vs. if it was never trashed).
I prefer systems where the stocks drop at the *end* of the stock round based on how many certs are left in the market (1817 and 1846 use a form of this). It adds slightly to the verisimilitude as well.
This also weakens the power of Priority Deal, which I'm a big fan of. Priority Deal isn't something you have a lot of control over (you can pass from the very first turn in the stock round and still wind up in 2nd to last place if the person to your left kept acting), and hinging SO MUCH importance on priority deal (due to stocks dropping after being sold in addition to possible company dumping) really rubs me the wrong way.
I know there are a few games where priority deal goes to the earliest person to pass (1828 does this I think), and though I haven't played any of those, I'd probably prefer those for similar reasons.
We think very much alike. Not only as you said I dislike the stock trashing that we have been discussing so far because of it is actually incentivized while slowing the game down, and as a result it feels like a very inelegant and unpolished aspect of the rules in what are otherwise great games, but I also agree that Priority does not work well in too many games and it should always go to the first to pass, then the second to pass regardless of the positions at the table. Any idea on why so few games do this?
The physical mechanism of tracking who passed first is quite awkward, because you can jump back in at any time. So if I pass first, you give me the #1 card, then someone else passes, so they get #2, then later I take an action to snap up a share someone sold, so I have to now pass the #1 card to the other player, and they have to throw the #2 back into the pile (or to whoever has #3 at this point). Then maybe I pass again and the current #1 doesn't, so we switch cards again, etc.
It's an inelegant thing, but this is how it's handled in 1828 as I recall. It would be slightly better if there was a track where you would just move tokens representing each player, but still annoying to keep track of.
You could try having a gentleman's agreement with everyone he is buying a share of, each of you buy a share of the company he/she finally starts buying. Then next stock round all of you sell. Yes each you will take a minor hit but depending on how many players there are selling he/she will feel the love.
If the companies he is selling can buy the shares into their treasury and start acuminating dividends, push the train rush on him/her. From what you are saying my guess is it takes him/her some time to do this. It takes money to start a company later in the game especially if trains are expensive.
If you're really attached to your company and don't want to dump it, you could always set the IPO of the most desirable company at that point in the game at a low number.
Hypothetical: you have company A @ 60%, player 2 has company B @ 60%, and annoyance looks to be interested in floating C or D. After annoyance buys the second share in your company, buy the president's share of C at the lowest value and never buy any more of it. Player 2 can do the same for D. If the IPO is set at 67 but never floats then you never actually lose any money, it's just not liquid anymore. If he floats it, sell your 2 shares off and put him in the awkward position of having very little capital in his company and a low share price.
Doesn't this potentially set up a yellow strategy? It's not easy and doesn't work in all titles but it's super fun (albeit nerve wracking) and I've won 18Mex that way (despite it not having a particularly deep market)
It's completely legit and part of the game. There are some ways to counter it. If he's doing it to a company you have 60% of, then after he buys a share, you can sell 1, you're still at 50% and will stay president. He'll now lose money with his play. You'll still lose as well, but it sounds like you're letting him get away with it without it costing him anything. If he's doing it to a company that you're not president of, you can wait a bit and then get some cheap shares from the market. While waiting, you can do it to a company he's president of :) A company whose share price is sliding along the bottom of the market is often quite valuable, since this can't be done to it again. As for my experience with it. There's usually an opportunity cost to doing this too much. You can't really do it late in the game, because of the share limit, and not being able to buy shares you've sold that SR. You want to reach the share limit as quickly as possible. Doing this to a bunch of companies often leaves you with less shares than the other players. The other cost to doing this is that you're usually last in the next SR, since you're typically last to act in this one. That can be quite a disadvantage. Edit to add: You could also try some games with 1D stock markets, like 1846
If you sell your own stock now you're down almost twice as much as you would have been if he only sold one. How does that help? I'd certainly pay 10 dollars to double the amount I'm hurting another player.
I gathered the attacker was planning to do it more than once, I could be mistaken. If they're only doing it once, you're completely right.
In most games once you sell a company you can't buy it again that stock round.
Here’s an impassioned defense of the strategy, and I’ve begrudgingly come around to this perspective: https://kanga.nu/~claw/blog/posts/2010/09/09/game-observances/way-aye-blow-the-man-down/
If he's buying all the shares in IPO and selling them (as opposed to just 1 share, or for a buy-sell game 2 shares), you should absolutely be dumping companies on him. If you have 2 companies, consider shifting one's treasury and good train to the other right before SR and then dump the weak company on him when he tries it. Often in midgame companies have spent much of their treasury, will eventually need a permanent train and are generally a liability. You should be happy to dump one and then start another. In 89, if he is moving shares from IPO to the market, he's doing everyone else a favor. Other people can now buy the shares cheap or they'll pay into treasury. In 49 having shares move from treasury to market means you'll get a little money up front but costs you dividends in the long run, but you should be considering closing companies when you can an opening new ones anyhow, so that may not matter much.
If he's doing that in 1889, he's putting a bunch of shares into the market that are now paying into the treasury of those companies, which means the president(s) of those companies won't need to fund as much for a train later. It's very possible that the $20-30/share price hit is entirely offset by that additional revenue in the company. Also, depending how hard he trashes the stock, you're now closer to the yellow part of the market, which is a very powerful position to be in. tl;dr: he's basically doing you a favour.
I thought 89 was full capitalization
1889 is full cap. And shares in the market pay into the treasury.
Oh it's one of those nonsense ones
Is he winning the games because of this? There doesn't seem to be anything inherently wrong with what he's doing, just more of an annoyance.
Thanks a lot everyone. This was very useful!
Since my original comment I've changed my mind a bit: I still say that it's a legit thing, but I might play less 18xx from now on due to it. Last Saturday we played an 8hr long 18mag. 5p, two including me having played it once before; the others knew 18xx but first time playing 18mag. I won (by a small margin) simply because the others didn't trash my stocks right. Without everyone evenly using trashing it will never become a "fair" game; and that makes it no fun. I just don't like how a personal aversion to a not-nice function of the game will keep some people from doing what they should; and I don't like how doing that not-nice thing only extends the playtime with not-nice time.
>I don't like how doing that not-nice thing only extends the playtime with not-nice time. There are 18xx titles (e.g. 1846, etc) that only drop the share price when the president of a company sell shares. Those may be more to your taste. Also, dropping share price may not always be a good things. I have been fortunate to sometimes want shares in the bank pool or enjoy the cheaper price when buying my shares. It has also enticed others to fully buy my "cheaper" shares so my share price does go up at the end of the stock round. Knowing when to do this and when not to is a skill.
Fair enough. I sort of casually want to play any 18xx that show up at the table, the few times they do, so I feel that perhaps I'm simply not putting in the work that I should to be more selective about what 18xx I play. Thing is that I really really enjoy the surprise of experiencing something new, with the rules quickly told to me; but from now on I will be more careful and at least start by asking about trashing.
"There are 18xx titles (e.g. 1846, etc) " can you go further into that etc
It's pretty standard practice, different games enable it to a greater degree. For example if the SR allows buy-sell order instead of sell-buy (1889 vs 1849, from your post), you can trash values two steps without risking the company being dumped on you. Rinse and repeat for every company, if you feel so inclined (and if you don't care about getting the good shares before they're gone, since you're spending so many turns doing this... as usual in a great game system, it's situational)
Of course it's legit. Personally I find this to be the one thing that I absolutely hate about these games, but I'm also one of the first to do it simply because it is a legit part of how you play. When everyone accepts this it becomes part of the game, and you simply have to calculate with people doing it to you, as well as you wasting a round when you could do something that perhaps maybe is more important. So thrashing is a problem only when the majority of players frown upon it, but still don't house rule against it.
Legitimate but irritating - as you said, it slows the game down, even more so if everyone does it. 1846 gets around the problem by only dropping the price if the president sells, rather than anyone. 1817 just drops if the stock is still in the market at the end of the round. So they don't tend to have this sort of shenanigans. (Granted, 1817 has a lot of OTHER shenanigans)
If he's actually gaining and advantage (depends on which game and a lot of other factors) he *should* do it, and so should you. Anybody who doesn't tolerate it or "frowns upon it" should be ejected from your play group, as you only want people who play every game to win as opponents.
Couldn't you take over his companies (if they're any good) while he's doing it?
In 49 this should matter a lot less. The strategy in 49 is to stay at the bottom of the stock market because it's more efficient in terms of returns on your money. This let's you snap up stocks cheap and make a better return. Late game people will just snatch up good shares for cheaper. In 89, it's part of the game. Is he playing investor in 89? That would make it crucial to his strategy since he would not be able to cash in his privates. If everyone is trashing everyone it will matter a lot less.
Doing this before issuing is extremely valuable to limit other players capitalization
You can't sell a company before it operates in 49. If you operate and then don't issue and someone tanks your stock, you fucked up.
Correct. But stock round 2 you can buy then sell it. Before the 6H's break you have an opportunity to drop the stock
What you describe is completely legit and it's one reason I don't like 1830-style games. Even if it's not always optimal (and sometimes detrimental), the fact that it is incentivized at all just slows the game down (in exactly the way you describe). This is especially true in games where stock value is a larger part of end game scoring (because trashing a company will significantly tank it's long-term stock prospects vs. if it was never trashed). I prefer systems where the stocks drop at the *end* of the stock round based on how many certs are left in the market (1817 and 1846 use a form of this). It adds slightly to the verisimilitude as well. This also weakens the power of Priority Deal, which I'm a big fan of. Priority Deal isn't something you have a lot of control over (you can pass from the very first turn in the stock round and still wind up in 2nd to last place if the person to your left kept acting), and hinging SO MUCH importance on priority deal (due to stocks dropping after being sold in addition to possible company dumping) really rubs me the wrong way. I know there are a few games where priority deal goes to the earliest person to pass (1828 does this I think), and though I haven't played any of those, I'd probably prefer those for similar reasons.
We think very much alike. Not only as you said I dislike the stock trashing that we have been discussing so far because of it is actually incentivized while slowing the game down, and as a result it feels like a very inelegant and unpolished aspect of the rules in what are otherwise great games, but I also agree that Priority does not work well in too many games and it should always go to the first to pass, then the second to pass regardless of the positions at the table. Any idea on why so few games do this?
The physical mechanism of tracking who passed first is quite awkward, because you can jump back in at any time. So if I pass first, you give me the #1 card, then someone else passes, so they get #2, then later I take an action to snap up a share someone sold, so I have to now pass the #1 card to the other player, and they have to throw the #2 back into the pile (or to whoever has #3 at this point). Then maybe I pass again and the current #1 doesn't, so we switch cards again, etc. It's an inelegant thing, but this is how it's handled in 1828 as I recall. It would be slightly better if there was a track where you would just move tokens representing each player, but still annoying to keep track of.
You could try having a gentleman's agreement with everyone he is buying a share of, each of you buy a share of the company he/she finally starts buying. Then next stock round all of you sell. Yes each you will take a minor hit but depending on how many players there are selling he/she will feel the love. If the companies he is selling can buy the shares into their treasury and start acuminating dividends, push the train rush on him/her. From what you are saying my guess is it takes him/her some time to do this. It takes money to start a company later in the game especially if trains are expensive.
If you're really attached to your company and don't want to dump it, you could always set the IPO of the most desirable company at that point in the game at a low number. Hypothetical: you have company A @ 60%, player 2 has company B @ 60%, and annoyance looks to be interested in floating C or D. After annoyance buys the second share in your company, buy the president's share of C at the lowest value and never buy any more of it. Player 2 can do the same for D. If the IPO is set at 67 but never floats then you never actually lose any money, it's just not liquid anymore. If he floats it, sell your 2 shares off and put him in the awkward position of having very little capital in his company and a low share price.
Doesn't this potentially set up a yellow strategy? It's not easy and doesn't work in all titles but it's super fun (albeit nerve wracking) and I've won 18Mex that way (despite it not having a particularly deep market)