9

We've had multiple games with three players left, where it became clear one player is significantly stronger than the two other players combined. At one point the two weaker players realized this, and wanted to do a merger.

We've allowed this in a house rule when the two players' combined net worth is less than that of any other players.

Assuming every player is operating in good faith, is it possible to achieve "merger" to the same effect within the official rules framework?

EDIT: My question is, under official rules, can Players A and B operate under a united banner as if they are one player? Assuming both players have made the necessary officially-sanctioned arrangements so same-coloured lands are only held by one player so houses can be built? Can Player A and B allow each other to be effectively rent-free under official rules? In this way if Player X (not part of the union) loses, the game effectively ends, or under whatever arrangements needed for Player B to surrender under official rules?

3
  • You can chose to play that way if you wish - but it is not standard Monopoly by any stretch. Rather it becomes a hand-rolled game of undetermined name. Perhaps the group you play the game with enjoys that game better, and possibly other groups might like to try it as well. Just don't go thinking it bears any non-superficial similarity to Monopoly beyond re=use of board and pieces.
    – Forget I was ever here
    Commented Aug 12, 2015 at 2:10
  • @PieterGeerkens I disagree. Yes it requires changing some rules, but it still uses 95% of the same rules as Monopoly, just like playing where you get money when you land on free parking.
    – GendoIkari
    Commented Aug 12, 2015 at 2:45
  • It is not in the intention of official Monopoly rules. My question was the legality under the scrutiny of official rules, or what amendments to our house rules is required to make it legal under official rules. We have no qualms about playing it with or without merger (it's house rules, after all), and I doubt anyone beyond Monopoly-purist would say it's not Monopoly.
    – ckpwong
    Commented Aug 12, 2015 at 2:53

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
12

Short version: With the exception of multiple players ending up winning, almost.

Longer version: There are a couple things where this is different from the official rules. Because trades are legal within the rules, there's nothing stopping Player B from trading all of his property and money to Player A, in exchange for a dollar or something like that, and then after he loses being an outside spectator who attempts to help Player A.

However, you cannot sell/trade properties that have any houses or hotels on them. This means that if you want to stay within the rules, Player B needs to first sell his houses to the bank (at half value), and Player A would have to buy them back after the trade. Aside from costing extra money to re-build the houses, there are 2 situations where following the rules could be different here:

  1. If there are a shortage of houses remaining in the supply, and Player B has properties with hotels on them, then Player A would be unable to re-buy the hotel after he gets the property.

  2. If there is a shortage of houses or hotels in the supply, and the third player could build the houses or hotels, then he can bid on them to attempt to win them in auction. Player A may either have to pay even more for them, or end up losing them to the third player.

The other thing that's outside the rules is that if Player A ends up winning, then by the official rules only Player A has won. But in your variant, Player B can claim to be as much the winner as Player A.

1
  • Another difference is that there are still two tokens moving and potentially landing on X's properties, which makes it less bad for X than B handing over all their assets to A
    – Caleth
    Commented Sep 16, 2021 at 10:44
-2

This happened to me. 4 people were playing. Person A had a Hotel on the Oranges, and Person B landed on them. They had a few Monopolies, and lots of mortgaged property. According to the rules, you can trade to get money. So, Person B traded all their property to me(Person C) for 1 dollar. Then, many turns later, I went bankrupt to Person A, and I sold all of my stuff to Person D for 1 dollar. So, effectively a merger.

You can not technically merge however, but loopholes exist.

1
  • 3
    Selling to a third party when bankrupted is definitely not allowed by the rules.
    – Lee
    Commented Nov 27, 2018 at 14:38

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .