The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Monopoly Rule Clarification (Solved)
samsam7
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Ok so everyone has their own 'house rules' of Monopoly, but I wanted to know what the official stance was on building shortages, specifically when tearing down buildings. The official rules only talk about not being able to build a house or hotel if the required number of houses isn't available. But what happens when my opponent has hotels (and only hotels) and I have all the houses and he lands on something he can't afford. Is he allowed to sell the hotels?
I've seen it played both ways where they are basically 'stuck' and can't sell the hotels since there are no houses, or they can sell off the hotels (or even downgrade to, say a house on each property assuming a measly number of houses was still available) and skip the house requirement that was needed to build the hotels in the first place.
I haven't found an official source that clarifies this. So maybe someone here has played in a tournament, or just happens to know?
I've seen it played both ways where they are basically 'stuck' and can't sell the hotels since there are no houses, or they can sell off the hotels (or even downgrade to, say a house on each property assuming a measly number of houses was still available) and skip the house requirement that was needed to build the hotels in the first place.
I haven't found an official source that clarifies this. So maybe someone here has played in a tournament, or just happens to know?
samsam7 on
0
Posts
However, the official rules pretty much mean they sell the hotel down to nothing on the property. The newage official rules pretty much give unlimited houses/hotels to the players via the video games, so I'd say the penny/nickle method is the "most official" way to play today.
official monopoly rules
But you also don't get the money on free parking either, last I checked.
money on free parking.... ugghghhh
why do you people love to prolong the pain and suffering of this game by keeping the money circulating? free parking cash blows and just adds more time to the game.
also OP, fuck rules, everyone knows there is only one way to solve Monopoly problems, fighting. It must begin as a verbal disagreement and then escalate. whomever wins said argument or physical confrontation gets the ruling in their favor.
Steam
XBOX
Well you can buy the houses right back after selling if they're available.
i thought i was the only one who played that way.
No one else has ever heard of it
The more "In spirit" way to do this in monopoly is a luxury tax roll. If you land on luxury tax with an even roll, you get the money, if you don't, you pay the tax.
Way less likely than landing on free parking plus seems to fuck over the unlucky guy. Totally in the spirit of Monopoly.
To the OP, all the ways to play Monopoly are in the rules. They cover every contingency. If you run out of houses/hotels, that's that. If you sell a hotel, you don't get houses back (if you dig up houses in real life to put a hotel do you get the houses back if you demolish the hotel?). And if you land on an available property and choose to not buy it, it goes immediately up for auction. And money paid for fees, taxes, and such, goes back to the bank.
This is EXACTLY how my family plays Monopoly. Thanks for the memories.
3clipse: The key to any successful marriage is a good mid-game transition.
No other game in the history of the world has caused as much bloodshed. I think that is how every family/friends/strangers plays Monopoly. The game is cursed and designed to cause grief. Yet you love it. It is very much like drug addiction.
also mentioning the luxury tax rolls I've played that house rule before, but not even rolls, it had to be doubles.
Steam
XBOX
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
This has always been my favorite part of Monopoly... the final dealmaking to try to stay in it just.. a little.. longer.....:P
Risk must be a close second in this list. I've never come to blows over a game of monopoly, normally by the time people started getting heated over landing on boardwalk or whatnot I was so sick of the game I just wanted to walk away.
Risk though, that started out bloodthirsty.
I wish I knew people that played by the book rules.
the way I always play is that you could sell the hotel, and if there were houses you would downgrade to 4 houses. So if there are no houses, selling the hotel is like selling 5 houses.
Still though... monopoly is one of those games were everyone thinks they know the rules, but they all have a different set of rules. For example... its a rule that you can conduct business and collect rent in jail. So at the end of the game its actually an advantage to be in jail. When people don't play this way it pisses me off.
That's true for most games with elimination. Kind of sucks to play a game where halfway through you're "out" and have to go do something else. Of course both games are based on defeating opponents (I mean Monopoly even says so in the title), so rules that are based on encouraging elimination are often overlooked in "house rules" where a family/friends want to actually play together.
"Dave...Why the fuck would you go after me in Europe when it was clearly better to roll over Johnny in South America. you can go to Hell man, this game can to Hell. I'm gonna go watch TV and drink, you guys can fight over my territories...Oh and Johnny, Dave here fucked a fat chick last night, she wasn't even cute. I said I wouldn't say anything but obviously Dave and I aren't in good standing."
As opposed to Monopoly, where people may get cutthroat and be assholes in the trading game, but you can play it without malice. Risk just breeds contempt no matter how you play it.
Pfft. Risk.
I was once assaulted after saying "watch him roll a 1" during a game of D&D. The guy came across the table, grabbed me by the neck, and yelled "DON'T CALL MY ROLLS!"
Like you have no idea.
Well not necessarily, I'm looking for what the official rule is for say, a tournament, (and the rulebook only discusses building and not tearing down) and most people just said to punch my friends and call it done. :P
But it seems that the general consensus is when you want to tear down a hotel, unlike building, it doesn't matter if there are 4 houses available or not, you can simply skip down to whatever is available.
And adding buildings via markers isn't correct since building shortages is a powerful strategy in monopoly. If your opponent couldn't sell his hotel, he'd be even more screwed than being able to sell it off and getting the money for 5 houses.
Edit:
Do you know if this is official? This is how my friends and I play normally actually. It just seemed like if you can block someone from building a hotel by buying houses, you could block someone from selling a hotel in the same manner, basically making them stuck with their heavy investment and no way to back out of it.
Edit again:
Success, the answer is on the very last post there. You can always sell the hotel to the highest available legal position or to bare ground if there are no houses and receive the money for each house sold. (Nevermind this is wrong).
Last edit and victory:
Official rules:
"Houses and hotels may be sold back to the Bank at any time for one-half the price paid for them. All houses on one color-group must be sold one by one, evenly, in reverse of the manner in which they were erected. All hotels on one color-group may be sold at once, or they may be sold one house at a time (one hotel equals five houses), evenly, in reverse of the manner in which they were erected."
Ok so a hotel can either be sold all at once regardless of number of houses in the bank or sold one house at a time. So even if there were say three houses in the bank, you could NOT sell down to one house on each property (assuming a three property group) since you couldn't go from one hotel to four houses. You must sell off the whole thing at half price and then buy the three houses if you wanted them.
Interesting result, but it makes sense. Does hotel construction work the same way?
Here's what I'm thinking: BW and PP each have a house on them. No houses in the bank. Owner wants hotels. Does it cost $1600 or $1800?
I played Monopoly in Honduras once. With their money.
It's the same color! And worth about as much.
If there's no houses left then you cannot jump straight to hotels. Technically, building to a hotel must always be done by evenly building one house at a time, but it just saves time multiplying the price out to $1600 (in this case) as long as the required number of houses are available in the bank. So if there are no houses, you can't skip to a hotel.
I think selling a hotel to bare ground without constraints is the only exception because it wouldn't make much sense to not be able to liquidate assets in desperate times (just like in real life!).
Pretty sure you can only build one house per property per turn. Although it's been years since I've looked at my rulebook.
He shouldn't have rolled a 1 then. What did he get all ragey about?
I think you can build as many houses on a property as you want in a turn. Technically, though, they are build one at a time as descreet events.