Game: Union Pacific

Thread: Re: Amigo edition missing pieces

miroslavrakic — 2008-11-11T18:24:40+00:00

Thanks for the replies guys. For now, I am just going to flip the black trains upside down and use them as purple. I am going to start browsing game stores and game supply websites to see if I can find a decent replacement.

Contacting Amigo will also be one of my options.

Thanks!
-Miro-

Thread: Re: Amigo edition missing pieces

ColtsFan76 — 2008-11-11T16:46:59+00:00

We've run out of trains once or twice so it can come up. I would try contacting Amigo and see if they have any spares. They may still have parts leftover even if the game isn't actively published right now. Or just mark your trains with a "P" or paint them as stand ins.

Thread: Re: Amigo edition missing pieces

Rokkr — 2008-11-11T15:36:38+00:00

Mine has all the correct numbers. Collectiblity aside, it's unlikely this will affect some or even any of your games. I don't think we've ever run out of any trains for any colors or even come close.
If the other players let someone do some runaway solo shareholding and building they're asking for disaster.

Thread: Amigo edition missing pieces

miroslavrakic — 2008-11-11T14:55:59+00:00

I just bought a brand new Amigo edition of the UP. Going through all the components I noticed that I am missing two purple trains and that I have two extra black trains. Has this happened to anyone else?

Image

Prodromoi — 2008-11-03T12:35:59+00:00

999 Games edition, Dutch language version

Image

Prodromoi — 2008-11-03T12:34:39+00:00

999 Games edition, Dutch language version

Thread: Re: Swapping share cards - very ambiguous rule

gamemark — 2008-10-15T08:01:01+00:00

Wow - I never edited that page very well. I'll work on that in the next couple of days & post it to my blog in a cleaner format.

Thread: Re: Swapping share cards - very ambiguous rule

gamemark — 2008-10-15T07:59:51+00:00

Option 3 is correct... play track, draw a share, swap a share from your hand for a share of UP.

Alan suggested a possible change after the game was published that we really like:

Variant Rule

"Players may not draw a UP Stock Card. They must always draw one of the four face up Stock Cards or the top card from the deck. The only way to acquire a UP Stock Card is to trade one Stock Card in your hand for one UP Stock Card."

Note: this may be the standard rule in your edition of the game. It was not in the original edition.

I've got lots more of this kind of discussion collected on my website:

http://theswitchingyard.com/unionpacific.html

Thread: Swapping share cards - very ambiguous rule

Prodromoi — 2008-10-15T07:28:33+00:00

We played UP for the first time last night and were very quickly struck by a badly-worded rule that obviously hasn't fared well in the translation into English.

The second paragraph on page 9, regarding the shares of the Union Pacific company states:
Note: After drawing a card, a player may exchange any share card from
his hand for a card from the Union Pacific stack (if there are still cards available there).

The very specific reference to "any card" opens up a can of worms.

1. Going by the letter of the rule you can conduct a share-swap after picking up a track card (it says "a" card, remember, not just shares) and then another share-swap after picking up your normal share you're entitled to after building.
(This is the literal and unequivocal interpretation of the rules, but not what I suspect the designer actually meant.)

2. I'm going to assume that "drawing a card" isn't the same as "swapping a card". If it were, then you could - technically - continue with share-swaps for as long as you had cards in your hand since you have still "drawn a card". This is patently daft, so I'm discounting this possibility.

3. I think the intended rule should be "After drawing their first share card of a turn, a player may exchange...

Option 3 is the way that we played it last night. Any other thoughts on interpretations (and indeed translations)?

Image

Deadwood — 2008-09-25T14:39:04+00:00

Are you sure want to build a new track ? I bet the next card is a Dividend Card

Image

kin2x — 2008-09-20T04:25:21+00:00

we really enjoyed this game

Image

Deadwood — 2008-09-01T06:17:45+00:00

Placing the "train" carefully ...

Image

Deadwood — 2008-08-28T13:54:10+00:00

Here come the winner ....

Image

Deadwood — 2008-08-28T13:47:03+00:00

Hmm... Building tracks .. Or investing ....

Thread: Re: Rumor of Re-Themed Union Pacific ?

GamesOnTheBrain — 2008-08-03T01:02:23+00:00

Any news about a reprint or the new version, Baltimore and Ohio?

Thread: Variant with no tracks or board and Union Pacific shares as bribes

Santiago — 2008-08-02T22:03:13+00:00

My group has always been somewhat divided over Union Pacific, liking it, but never quite comfortable with some of its problems. After extensive fiddling, we currently employ several sweeping changes that keep the core of the game the same but pare down what we perceive as unnecessary fiddliness and fix some stalling issues.

Problems we perceived and how we fixed them:

Closely spaced scoring rounds don't give players time to feel like they've had any opportunity to develop. — We use errata which spaces the cards evenly throughout the deck (although a misreading of the official errata which we actually prefer).

Track cards take time to draw and use, and really only matter on the occasional turn when you are frustrated by random chance. — Thus, we eliminated track cards entirely. With track cards gone, the board itself isn't that useful anymore. It allows for cutting off smaller companies, but that leads to too much analysis and distracts from the central expand-or-invest quandary of the the game, so we ditched the board too.

The display of available companies gets clogged with garbage no one wants, and everyone just draws from the top of the deck in the late game. — To encourage people to take otherwise undesirable shares from the display, we adopted a bribing mechanism similar to Puerto Rico, except that it allows for player choices to attempt to guide the picks of other players. After some consideration, we went with shares of Union Pacific as the currency of the bribes, eliminating other means of obtaining them.

The end results is a leaner, faster game that lets you set up hard choices for the other players.

Rules:

Setup:
Place two trains from each company in rows, then add a third train for the El Paso & Rio Grande (Green). The number of trains in each row represents the value of each company. (This gets rid of the number of trains plus one inelegancy of the original game. It also reduces the maximum value of each company by one relative to the original game, which disproportionately affects smaller companies more than larger ones, and actually helps to counteract the benefit small companies receive from the fact that companies can no longer be blocked off from expansion.)

Deal each player one share of Union Pacific and three random shares of other companies, face-down. Each player selects a share from his or her hand, and they are all simultaneously revealed and placed on the table as initial investments.

Deal four shares face up into the display.

Deal 24 shares into four piles of six each, then shuffle one scoring round marker into each of them. Deal the remainder of the deck onto these four piles, then stack them up to form the draw deck, with uneven extra cards nearer the top. For example, with 4 players, you will wind up with 15 cards, then 7 which contain the first scoring round somewhere in them, another 15 without scoring rounds, 7 with, 14 without, 7 with, 14 without, and the final 7 cards of the deck with the last scoring round somewhere in them.

Randomly choose a starting player.

Gameplay:
On a player's turn, he or she must choose between a Building turn or Investing Turn.

On a Building Turn, the player takes one train from the box and adds it to the corresponding company's row. That company's value has now increased by one. (For convenience in counting the number of trains present in each company, it suggested that each of group of five be spaced slightly apart.) Then, the player takes any of the four face up piles of shares, composed of one share of a normal company and any Union Pacific shares that have been added to that pile, or the top card of the deck. If one of the face-up piles was taken, replace it with the top card of the deck. Then, the player must take a share of Union Pacific from the Union Pacific deck and add it to any of the four face-up piles; a pile may have multiple shares of Union Pacific. (There is no limit on the number of Union Pacific shares in the game. You will probably want to use track cards as additional shares of Union Pacific, and periodically reclaim an equal number of invested Union Pacific shares from everyone, as it will not affect relative standings.) It is now the next player's turn.

On an Investing Turn, the player plays any two shares from his or her hand to the table, or as many shares as he or she wishes of a single company (treating Union Pacific as a company). It is now the next player's turn.

Scoring:
When a player draws the scoring round indicator or reveals it when trying to place it into the display, set it aside, replace it with the next card from the deck, and finish the Building Turn as normal, then score all the companies. The player with the most shares in each company earns $1 for each train in that company. The player with the second-most earns half that much, rounding down. If only one player has shares invested in a given company, he or she earns both payouts. If multiple players are tied for a position, add up the relevant payouts and divide it evenly between the players, rounding down.

Union Pacific is special and will pay out to up to five players instead of only the top two, according to the following dividend table:

[c]
Dividend Round: 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
1st shareholder $5 $10 $15 $20
2nd shareholder $4 $ 8 $12 $16
3rd shareholder $3 $ 6 $ 9 $12
4th shareholder $2 $ 4 $ 6 $ 8
5th shareholder $1 $ 2 $ 3 $ 4
[/c]

(Note that unlike the original rules, Union Pacific does pay out on the first round. We believe the original rule was designed to help prevent an early-game rush on the limited amount of Union Pacific available, but with the shares now coming around as a side effect of share choices as opposed to instead of normal shares, this is no longer needed, and the new pay structure is more elegant.)

The game ends after the fourth scoring round, and whoever has the most money is the winner.

Thread: Re: So, why the track cards?

Rokkr — 2008-08-02T20:00:10+00:00

kevinb9n wrote:
I taught the game to my wife and her non-gamer parents, and left out the track cards. It seemed perfectly fine. I can see how the track cards might have added a little something, but I'm not sure they add enough to make it worth the trouble.

If it were a little harder to get what you need -- like if
- there were no "A" cards, or
- you didn't get to cycle a card when playing shares, or
- you drew after playing instead of before,
etc.,

then I can see how the track cards might actually matter, because they'd constrain your options significantly.

People can always change anything they want in a game. And it may seem the same, but it's usually not. Try playing Carcassonne without farmers. You don't really need them anyway. They're just one extra way of scoring points after all. There are plenty of other ways to score, so they're not really necessary.

Thread: Re: So, why the track cards?

kevinb9n — 2008-08-02T19:43:23+00:00

I taught the game to my wife and her non-gamer parents, and left out the track cards. It seemed perfectly fine. I can see how the track cards might have added a little something, but I'm not sure they add enough to make it worth the trouble.

If it were a little harder to get what you need -- like if
- there were no "A" cards, or
- you didn't get to cycle a card when playing shares, or
- you drew after playing instead of before,
etc.,

then I can see how the track cards might actually matter, because they'd constrain your options significantly.

Thread: Wild cards and partnerships for 6: our experience

ssmooth — 2008-07-19T20:01:50+00:00

My group of six has played a wild card variant twice now -- once last week, and because people were so excited about it, again this week.

To give this some context, we've been playing Union Pacific for years, ever since it first appeared, when we were so charmed by it partly because it used the first-and-second-place stock payoffs we knew so well from years of Acquire play. So we know the game extremely well, have tried different methods of stacking the dividend cards (one in each quarter of the deck versus the last three all somewhere in the last, big part of the deck), and long ago settled on the only way to get Union Pacific stock being to trade a share of stock from the hand.

We've played numerous variants, including playing in partnerships (three partnerships of two players, seated opposite across the table, the partners sharing their on-table holdings just as in Canasta rather than each partner having separate holdings), but last week was the first time we tried putting wild cards and partnerships together.

We played that a meld including wild card UP had to have at least one natural card in it, but did not otherwise limit wild card play by saying wild cards could not outnumber natural cards or there had to be a number of UP melded as UP before wild cards could be put into play or anything of that nature. We like the way this turned out.

One of the reasons this works so well seems to be that the partners can't be sure what the other partner has in mind to do with the Union Pacific stock. (We did not allow table talk, so partners could not advise or consult as the game was in progress.) Do they want to meld it as UP, or to meld it as some other color? The tendency was to put off this decision, also, with people waiting to see which direction the other partnerships would go with their UP holdings.

While I believe the game would work with either protocol for stacking the dividend cards into the deck, for last night's game we put the last three dividend cards randomly into the last 2/3 or 3/4 of the deck, and this worked fine.

One thing we did was to make the payoffs for Union Pacific, per se, follow the chart for 1st, 3rd, and 5th place instead of the usual 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place, and I think this was a mistake. With the possibility of Union Pacific being used as a wild card, there's already a tendency for people to take the UP stock immediately and at every opportunity until it runs out, and this results among other things in a disadvantage for the team that can't pick up a 21st share of UP to even things out. I think the better payoff for the team in 3rd place needs to be preserved just so there's SOME chance that a strategy of not trading for UP might be worthwhile.

In any case, if you've regularly got 6 players at the table, we recommend this Union Pacific variant enthusiastically.

Thread: Re: Union Pacific at the World Boardgame Championships, Lancaster, PA

Joe Lux — 2008-07-02T10:00:09+00:00

chaosbreaker wrote:
This trade is in addition to drawing a normal stock during your turn (German 2nd Edition rule).

http://www.boardgamers.org/yearbkex/unppge.htm

I don't understand this. You can draw a standard stock then discard it in the same turn to draw a Union Pacific card?

That is correct. I feel that trading for UP before the first payout gives the first player of the game too much advantage. The first player has enough of an advantage by itself. The random payout gives the advantage to a player randomly.

All the best, Joe Lux

Thread: Re: Union Pacific at the World Boardgame Championships, Lancaster, PA

chaosbreaker — 2008-06-30T07:40:29+00:00

This trade is in addition to drawing a normal stock during your turn (German 2nd Edition rule).

http://www.boardgamers.org/yearbkex/unppge.htm

I don't understand this. You can draw a standard stock then discard it in the same turn to draw a Union Pacific card?

Thread: Re: Union Pacific at the World Boardgame Championships, Lancaster, PA

TheCat — 2008-06-30T02:50:46+00:00

Joe Lux wrote:
Oh yes, UP canot be traded until after the first payout.

hmm, why not?

Thread: Re: Union Pacific at the World Boardgame Championships, Lancaster, PA

Joe Lux — 2008-06-28T12:06:55+00:00

Oh yes, UP canot be traded until after the first payout.

Thread: Re: Union Pacific at the World Boardgame Championships, Lancaster, PA

Joe Lux — 2008-06-28T12:05:29+00:00

Yes, I repeated the rules from last year. While I enjoy variants in UP, a national championship should use a format where there is the least amount of luck, and the most possible skill.

All the best, Joe Lux

Thread: Union Pacific Tournament Rules

chaosbreaker — 2008-06-16T17:52:19+00:00

Special Tournament Rules

1. Optional Dividend card distribution with German 2nd edition modification of six non-dividend cards at the bottom of the deck. Here is a more detailed look at how the draw pile is built from the bottom to the top (or vice versa since it's the same). The "remaining deck" is defined as all the stock cards minus the players' starting hands and minus the 30 cards which will be used as buffers:

6 cards
1/4 of the "remaining deck" plus one dividend card shuffled into it
6 cards
1/4 of the "remaining deck" plus one dividend card shuffled into it
6 cards
1/4 of the "remaining deck" plus one dividend card shuffled into it
6 cards
1/4 of the "remaining deck" plus one dividend card shuffled into it
6 cards

2. To take a Union Pacific stock, you must discard FACEDOWN a stock from your hand. This stock is removed from the game and may not be examined by anyone. This trade is in addition to drawing a normal stock during your turn (German 2nd Edition rule).

3. Each player starts with five normal stock instead of four. (German 2nd Edition rule)

Visual aid > http://www.boardgamegeek.com/file/info/33534

Source > http://www.boardgamers.org/yearbkex/unppge.htm

Thread: Re: Track cards: who needs em?

chaosbreaker — 2008-05-31T16:12:14+00:00

Thread: Re: Union Pacific at the World Boardgame Championships, Lancaster, PA

chaosbreaker — 2008-05-31T15:27:51+00:00

Hi Joe,

Are these the official tournament rules? Did these change?

I don't see any mention of

...UP cannot be exchanged until after the first payoff.

============
Special Tournament Rules

1. Optional Dividend card distribution with German 2nd edition modification of six non-dividend cards at the bottom of the deck. Here is a more detailed look at how the draw pile is built from the bottom to the top (or vice versa since it's the same). The "remaining deck" is defined as all the stock cards minus the players' starting hands and minus the 30 cards which will be used as buffers:

6 cards
1/4 of the "remaining deck" plus one dividend card shuffled into it
6 cards
1/4 of the "remaining deck" plus one dividend card shuffled into it
6 cards
1/4 of the "remaining deck" plus one dividend card shuffled into it
6 cards
1/4 of the "remaining deck" plus one dividend card shuffled into it
6 cards

2. To take a Union Pacific stock, you must discard FACEDOWN a stock from your hand. This stock is removed from the game and may not be examined by anyone. This trade is in addition to drawing a normal stock during your turn (German 2nd Edition rule).

3. Each player starts with five normal stock instead of four. (German 2nd Edition rule)

http://www.boardgamers.org/yearbkex/unppge.htm

Thread: Re: Track building requirements

TheCat — 2008-05-02T11:25:29+00:00

For reference, these are the images.

]]>

]]>

I agree with the many previous responses.

Thread: Re: Track building requirements

intheclear — 2008-04-28T10:54:59+00:00

I agree with Brian, thats how we play the game as well.

Thread: Re: Track building requirements

ColtsFan76 — 2008-04-28T04:29:04+00:00

Your understanding is wrong. In essence, all your trains just need to connect to another train of that color OR the station. Each train needs to be able to trace a line through other trains of the same color to get back tot he station - even if it is the only train in that branch.

As far as I can tell, all branching in the 2 pictures you reference are completely correct (what I can't verify is that they are on the correct track type, but that is not the question here).

Thread: Re: Track building requirements

intheclear — 2008-04-28T04:21:36+00:00

Doesn't you're understanding contradict the picture on page ten of rule book where all blue trains connect back to main train station, it says in the eg that Sioux Falls Royal Blue has 5 trains so it's value is $6 million, these trains were built connecting to first train via main station, not connecting back to the first train built only, hope this makes sense?

Thread: Track building requirements

djnesq — 2008-04-28T01:00:19+00:00

After looking at a few images of this game on BGG, I concluded that I might be playing incorrectly.

Rule 2e under Building Track states, "The selected track section must connect to the company's main station via track sections where the company's trains have already been placed." I have interpreted this rule to mean that the only allowable exit from a main station was through the location of the starting locomotive. Branching and even circling around to play on another section that adjoins the main station are permitted so long as a route exists from the placement back through the original locomotive to the main station.

However, the games shown in images 23536 and 60379 show branching from the main station itself. I would disallow a host of plays shown on those boards (for example, in image 60379, the green locomotive that faces east) because the locomotives do not "connect to the company's main station via track sections where the company's trains have already been placed."

Am I wrong?

Thread: Union Pacific at the World Boardgame Championships, Lancaster, PA

Joe Lux — 2008-04-21T14:59:27+00:00

I have recently been asked to gamemaster UP at the WBC in PA. There is a pre-con event on the Monday. I will be doing the main event Thursday evening at 7 PM. Google WBC for details.

It is a swiss-elimination event with a preliminary, 16-player semi-final, and a four player final.

Past events have used the rules of being dealt five stocks, and UP cannot be exchanged until after the first payoff. I am open to suggestions! If you have any ideas, let's hear them.

I have thirty days to submit an event discription. How would you like to see the tournament handled. I hope to see you there!

All the best, Joe Lux

Thread: Re: Game tokens

Bulldogbudd — 2008-04-16T08:22:45+00:00

Thanks for your quick replies.
You were right, it was the Empire game and I had just typed in Union Pacific by mistake.

Thread: Re: Game tokens

GaryP — 2008-04-15T19:34:51+00:00

I don't know of any such tokens for Union Pacific, but if you mean the aforementioned Empire Builder ones by Mayfair, they are still readily available through retail channels. Strangely, they even have their own BGG entry:

Empire Builder Pewter Miniatures Set

Thread: Re: Game tokens

Rygel — 2008-04-15T17:28:39+00:00

You are joking, right?

That would be the Empire Builder pewter trains.

Thread: Re: Variant for a better UP game.

Werbaer — 2008-04-08T12:57:31+00:00

PlayMe1 wrote:
Will this shorten the endgame a bit? I've found that it drags on too far and we wind up running out of places to play track.
Don't allow people to draw UP shares direct; only allow them to be traded for another share. Then you shouldn't get that problem.

Thread: Re: Six stocks on the bottom?

fellonmyhead — 2008-04-08T12:43:15+00:00

qzhdad wrote:
Was this a deliberate change? Any thoughts on which way is "better?"

Well I think each way has its merits, but I have to say I prefer pulling out the six at the start of the game to go under. Placing six cards under guarantees the last wertung will always come out before all shares are issued.

Not doing it this way means the wertung could be the last card and this could induce some gamey plays towards the endgame; with one or two card s remaining everybody will know what one of them is and opt for laying down shares with no risk whatsoever.

Thread: Re: Variant for a better UP game.

fellonmyhead — 2008-04-08T12:34:31+00:00

PlayMe1 wrote:
Will this shorten the endgame a bit? I've found that it drags on too far and we wind up running out of places to play track. A little bit shorter game would seem to be an improvement.

Well if anything the extra UP stock available by making it unlimited will lengthen the endgame as players jostle for position in UP shares. If you want a shorter endgame I suggest either increasing the number of dead cards from 6 to 12 (or a similar number) or decreasing the size of the deck overall.

I don't know if it's possible to run out of places to lay track; but I know that one type of track can become unavailable towards the endgame. AFAIK the ruling is you may discard them out of the game and replenish.

Thread: Re: Variant for a better UP game.

PlayMe1 — 2008-04-08T11:37:09+00:00

Will this shorten the endgame a bit? I've found that it drags on too far and we wind up running out of places to play track. A little bit shorter game would seem to be an improvement.

Thread: Re: Argh, everyone uses different rules for UP shares!

saminurmela — 2008-04-02T17:44:34+00:00

Heh, I was actually referring only to player originated house rules vs. designer rules, sidetracking a bit from the subject.

But thanks Brian, you managed to make me feel a bit curious about the UP ruleset I've been using (as is only proper considering the thread), so I unshelved the box and checked the rulebook (German Amigo version 1.1). Looks like our group has been using variant rules all the time, six years or so.

The last page describes "Zwei Varianten Für Profis", and I guess we considered ourselves as True Professionals from day one, so the rules "UP share only by exchange" and "at least six cards between dividends" have always been official for us.

Thread: Re: Argh, everyone uses different rules for UP shares!

DangerMouse — 2008-04-02T17:21:29+00:00

Larry Levy wrote:
Have you ruled out insanity yet, Mark?

Heheh, no I haven't Larry. Not yet anyway.

saminurmela wrote:

Hmmm... I call that mystical force "playtesting"

I'm with Verkisto here, designer's intended rules are not to be changed lightly. And yeah, it may quite well be a personality thing.

I dunno, I'm not so confident of the game design and development process to think that the released version of a game is its pinnacle of perfection. Besides have you met Alan's playtesters? I have. They're scary.

It's all about personality, for you see I'm chaotic neutral!!! Heheh.
How about this, we should all do that Jung/Myers-Briggs personality test and find out if there's a relationship between how we test out on that and what our views are here. And then we should make a graph or two and publish our work in some medical journal. Once it's set in print like that you weirdos will be forced, by your own twisted logic, to see that I'm right and you're wrong. ;-)

Thread: Re: Argh, everyone uses different rules for UP shares!

ColtsFan76 — 2008-04-02T16:20:24+00:00

saminurmela wrote:
I'm with Verkisto here, designer's intended rules are not to be changed lightly. And yeah, it may quite well be a personality thing.

The problem is, the designer indicates these "new" rules should be used.

Thread: Re: Argh, everyone uses different rules for UP shares!

saminurmela — 2008-04-02T14:43:49+00:00

DangerMouse wrote:
Verkisto wrote:

Play the game as it's written and ignore the house rules.

Heheh, this reminds me of my son. He insists on playing by the rules "as written", as though there's some mystical force of "rightness" to what the designer put down in print.

Hmmm... I call that mystical force "playtesting"

I'm with Verkisto here, designer's intended rules are not to be changed lightly. And yeah, it may quite well be a personality thing.

Thread: Re: Argh, everyone uses different rules for UP shares!

Larry Levy — 2008-04-02T14:42:48+00:00

DangerMouse wrote:
There's got to be some sort of personality trait involved with this argument.
Have you ruled out insanity yet, Mark?

Thread: Re: Argh, everyone uses different rules for UP shares!

DangerMouse — 2008-04-02T14:27:09+00:00

Verkisto wrote:
Look at what happened to Monopoly over 70 years of people playing it. The "House Rules" of Free Parking and eliminating the auction became so much the mainstream, that even the re-themes use these as official rules.

Play the game as it's written and ignore the house rules.

Heheh, this reminds me of my son. He insists on playing by the rules "as written", as though there's some mystical force of "rightness" to what the designer put down in print. There just isn't always a definitive "best way" to play.

I love house rules and am always willing to tweak.

There's got to be some sort of personality trait involved with this argument.

Thread: Re: Argh, everyone uses different rules for UP shares!

Verkisto — 2008-04-02T12:42:42+00:00

Look at what happened to Monopoly over 70 years of people playing it. The "House Rules" of Free Parking and eliminating the auction became so much the mainstream, that even the re-themes use these as official rules.

Play the game as it's written and ignore the house rules.

Thread: Re: Argh, everyone uses different rules for UP shares!

Werbaer — 2008-04-02T07:49:43+00:00

But then, it has also to be stated in wich edition of the rules.

For example, being able to draw UP stock is only in the english rules. In the german rules, you can only get them by exchanging a share. And i seem to remember that it was told that this will be in later editions of the english version, too.

Thread: Re: Argh, everyone uses different rules for UP shares!

Karlsen — 2008-04-02T06:56:20+00:00

Some of the items on the list, including this one, should mention which one is the one in the rules. Off the top of my head I don't remember and I really can't be bothered finding the game and getting out the rules or rules translation and looking it up. Please pander to my inner laziness and if one of the options is the official one mention it in the GeekList entry

Thread: Re: Argh, everyone uses different rules for UP shares!

ColtsFan76 — 2008-04-02T03:52:54+00:00

I voted but thought I should comment here anyway. I usually hate houserules because they are ... messy to keep straight.

Unfortunately, I learned this game form my roommate who taught us his way. Played great! Then I got my own copy eventually and printed off the English Rules. Somewhat different game! Asked him why he did what he did and he couldn't remember why for some and even forgot some fo the official rules he would have liked to keep.

Alan Moon does as no favors by offering up a few options as well.

It seems to me that allowing the Unlimited shares is better because someone can lock up the sjhares pretty quickly. it seems when shares are unlimited (at least in my games) the competition stays even and everyone tries to get in it. When we used to make them limited, one person usually started running away with it and the others couldn't catch up usually abandoning it.

We also prefer to allow both an exchange and a draw of UP if you want. That way, it gives you a chance to still get something "good" if the card draw was bad. And it also lets you draw directly from the UP stack if you don't want to waste your time with drawing something else first.

Where it seems to get nasty though is when you keep a limited deck and allow both drawing and exchanging. Because what you allow someone to do is "burn" two UP cards a turn. They can take one up and then discard that to gain another. So one goes in their hand while the total quantity in the game also goes down - increasing their chances of keeping a majority.

But allowing the unlimited UP deck takes the sting out of also allowing a player to draw in addition to exchange. In fact, it is become a waste to draw a UP just to exchange it for one. So most people then revert back to drawing a standard stock and then exchanging it for the UP if it something they don't want.

Thread: Argh, everyone uses different rules for UP shares!

kevinb9n — 2008-04-02T03:26:34+00:00

It's amazing how there seems to be no "consensus" for whether the game is better if UP shares are unlimited, or whether it's better to only allow exchanging for UP shares, not taking them directly.

As a new player of the game, it'd be useful to me to find out whether any of these interpretations is predominant out there in the geek world. I'd be more inclined to just play that way, until I've played enough that I can appreciate the subtle differences.

With that in mind, would you cast your votes for your favorite way to play UP at this geeklist?

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/30317/item/628965#item...

thanks!

Thread: Track Confusion in Union Pacific

Grimwold — 2008-03-19T20:08:08+00:00

Players: Andy(grimwold), Simon(xtrovurt), Toby(T-Boy67), Eddy(ed_the_red), Clive and Brendan
Duration: 90 minutes

After a quick game of Pitch Car, we all felt the need to play something a bit more meaty... All 6 of us stared at Eddy's massive game collection until we went cross-eyed... then somehow decided on this (which fitted our criteria of 6 players).

Only Eddy had played before, so he gave us a run-down of the rules... however he failed to clarify the difference in colour between red and orange... this would cause some confusion later in the game.

Eddy went first, and we proceeded to expand the 10 railroad networks, whilst investing in the ones we were hoping to have control of and earn points from at the various scoring rounds.

The first scoring round occurred right at the end of Clive's turn, meaning that we'd all had the same number of turns.. Toby had the best combination of shares at this point, earning a massive 13 billion to take the lead. Brendan was just behind on 9 billion, while Eddy had 8 billion and Clive 6 billion. Simon and I were tied for last place with 5 billion each.

In the second phase both Toby and Simon managed to get some Union Pacific shares in play, knowing that these would start to score from the second round onwards... Meanwhile I attmepted to pull back some of the lost ground, by investing in a railroad that no-one so far had been interested in. I proceeded to expand this network too, whilst everyone else did likewise and expanded the networks they were invested in... In particular Brendan expanded the orange network (Empire State Line?) across Northern USA and Canada.

The second scoring round was again after Clive's turn... much to Eddy's consternation. Toby extended his lead reaching a total score of 39 billion, while Simon moved into second place from joint last, with a total of 23 billion, having had a good round of investment.. also including Union Pacifc shares. Brendan sneaked into 3rd place with 21 billion. My strategy that round had played off, boosting me into 4th place with 18 billion, while Eddy had dropped to 5th with 16 billion. And Clive's conservative investment strategy meant he dropped to last place with only 12 billion.

By now everyone was keen to get in on the Union Pacific shares strategy... I temporarily took the lead with my Union Pacific investments, however Clive overtook me before the next scoring round.

At some point during this portion of the game Eddy noticed that the Orange network had expanded well beyond it's normal geographical area... this was as a result of Brendan's confusion over the red and orange networks (which clearly Eddy had failed to highlight in the rules explanation!!!).. We quickly re-located most of the orange trains onto areas of track that they could cover, irrespective of whether Brendan would've had the correct track cards to play them.... this lead to quite a bit of amusemant and discussion amongst us... with players 'plotting' to make similar mistakes and then re-locate their networks at a convenient juncture!

The 3rd scoring round happened after Eddy's turn this time, meaning that he'd had 1 more turn that the rest of us... It didn't help his score all that much though, as he dropped to last place with only 36 billion. Toby continued to extend his lead, with 63 billion after the 3rd scoring, whilst Simon remained in 2nd place with 46 billion. My investments had paid off this round and I rose to 3rd place, only 1 billion behind Simon, on 45 billion. Close on my heels however was Brendan with 44 billion. Clive managed to sneak ahead of Eddy and finish the round on 40 billion.

In the final round there was a lot of competition for Union Pacific Shares, with both Eddy and Brendan both slapping down hefty investments, as well as Toby, Clive and Simon bolstering their investments... I missed the train however and was unable to increase my UP investment.

With big scores available in the final scoring round, Eddy managed to pull himself out of last place to finish 3rd. Toby remained at the top throughout the game and earned a deserved win with 96 billion. Brendan sneaked up into second place at the end with 81 billion. Eddy was third with 74 billion, whilst I was 4th with 70 billion. Simon finished with 69 billion, just ahead of Clive on 66 billion.

Final Scores

96 - Toby
81 - Brendan
74 - Eddy
70 - Grim
69 - Simon
66 - Clive

Thread: Re: 2 questions on UP stock cards

Octavian — 2008-03-11T20:19:59+00:00

Odinsday wrote:

I recommend playing with unlimited UP stocks. Having just 20 available can stunt the game (in my opinion).

Agreed.

-MMM

Thread: Re: 2 questions on UP stock cards

Odinsday — 2008-03-11T17:58:55+00:00

PlayMe1 wrote:
Hi Matthew,

Thanks for the tips. I'm looking forward to playing this weekend and will have better understanding thanks to your reply.

Thanks!

Mike H.

I recommend playing with unlimited UP stocks. Having just 20 available can stunt the game (in my opinion).

Thread: Re: Track cards: who needs em?

Odinsday — 2008-03-11T17:57:34+00:00

kevinb9n wrote:
You'll almost always have a track card that will let you build one of your top two desired builds. So why even bother with the track cards at all? Cut that out and you have less complexity to deal with and less time spent futzing with them. Why not just let people build wherever they want as long as the other restrictions are satisfied?

-Almost- and 'top two' are the key words here.

You have turns where you can't quite push the trains in the desired direction and have to settle for a second choice. You have some turns where you can't grow either of your top two choices. Maybe that's a sign to go a for a stock laying turn and refresh your track choice by one?

Late in the game, it can be that you can't grow any of your companies and have to grow someone else's company (happened last night).

The track cards add just a little tactics to the board, and slow down rapid growth in just one company per player, encouraging interaction.

Thread: Re: Track cards: who needs em?

AtomKano — 2008-03-11T08:31:20+00:00

If you go for small companies in a game, it would be a different situation because of the track limitations. Here it actually matters, and it will often give you problems. As there can be other advantages to sit on small companies, I guess there are certain game balance reasons connected to the track cards. - Although I admit that they don't seem too integrated in the game's aestetics somehow ...

Thread: Re: 2 questions on UP stock cards

PlayMe1 — 2008-03-11T02:19:19+00:00

Hi Matthew,

Thanks for the tips. I'm looking forward to playing this weekend and will have better understanding thanks to your reply.

Thanks!

Mike H.

Image

paulo — 2008-03-07T01:07:00+00:00

Disturbing. Logo of KCC is same picture as seen on a Bauhaus album.

Image

margaretha — 2008-01-09T16:08:23+00:00

Game play

Image

m_hamburg — 2007-12-01T16:29:19+00:00

Plastic Trains!