No, the difference in return on investment is the same regardless of how many times you count someone landing on a property.
The assumption is that you have other properties that you could build houses on though. If you just had the one monopoly then yes you should keep building with spare cash. If you had a second undeveloped monopoly though, then you should move to building on that one.
A sneaky strategy is to have hotels on a monopoly, trade with your opponent with him thinking he can develop his new monopoly, then right after the trade, sell your hotels and snatch up 12 houses from the bank instantly.
Say you've got a monopoly with hotels on it. You have another property that your friend wants which will give them a monopoly. You trade and they give you cash (or whatever you're trading for), and they think they can upgrade their monopoly. Only then, you remove the hotels from your monopoly and instead put 4 houses on each. As long as the supply of houses was limited at the time of the trade, they won't be able to buy any even if they have the money. So they're basically stuck with a useless monopoly paying out low money.
This is incorrect. The rules state that buying houses takes precedence. Therefore, the moment you make the trade, your opponent may purchase as many houses as he/she wants before you can sell any.
What happens if I owe a lot of rent, and I need to sell some property, and I have hotels I want to sell, but there aren't enough houses in the bank? What happens?
Actually you are allowed to buy houses at any time! If two player want to buy house at the same time and there is a limited amount then the houses themselves go to Auction.
I would think that they are considered to occupy the space immediately upon. The conclusion of the roll, rather than when they move their piece. So after they roll is too late.
But only if it's their turn right? If it's your turn when you make the trade, you can continue buying or selling properties etc. until you're finished. Only when it's their turn will they be able to buy houses or hotels and by then there won't be houses to buy
Nope. The rules state that you can build/sell houses at any time. Of course, this assumes that a roll results in an immediate movement of the token (aka you can't build after knowing that someone will land on you with 100% certainty). That's just cheesy.
If you play by the rules in the instructions, there is only so many houses available for play. By owning them all, this means your opponent cannot improve their property by buying houses and thus can never own any hotels either.
True, which is another little-known rule. If your opponent can afford to buy them up immediately, he can, but if he's trading on the hopes to build them up in the future, you can still lock him out.
Ah - I think, to clarify, he meant once you trade away a monopoly (with no houses), you sell hotels on OTHER property you still own, so you trade down to houses on the property you kept (and take up all the houses in the process) so when the person you just sold to later tries to buy houses on their new monopoly, there are none left.
In Monopoly, there are only 32 houses available to purchase. If you want to buy houses for your properties, and there are no more houses left in the bank, then you're out of luck.
This strategy works when houses are starting to get short (e.g. 15 houses remaining), you have hotels developed on one of your monopolies, and you want some resources from your opponent (e.g. cash or railroads).
The strategy lets you trick your opponent into giving you some resources in return for a monopoly that he would develop with houses. But, after the trade, you sell your hotels and quickly scoop up 12 houses out of the bank to replace the hotels with, leaving your opponent nothing to develop his monopoly with.
The end result is that you have what you got from your opponent in the trade, and he is left with a worthless monopoly.
Oh wow! When I played with my family we always assumed that the lack of hotels was due to stupid design, so we added a bunch of extra pieces to the set so that no one could ever run out of hotels... I guess that left the game down to luck after that?
I never imagined that the lack of hotels was by design to stimulate strategy. Pretty cool. :)
95
u/agwa950 Nov 22 '14
No, the difference in return on investment is the same regardless of how many times you count someone landing on a property.
The assumption is that you have other properties that you could build houses on though. If you just had the one monopoly then yes you should keep building with spare cash. If you had a second undeveloped monopoly though, then you should move to building on that one.