30

Strictly following the rules of Monopoly will show that just because you have the cash to out-right buy hotels for your properties, you cannot if there are not enough houses in the bank to support an even build (ie, there are less than 12 in the bank for a 3 property street).

Likewise, when tearing-down hotels, there need to be an appropriate number of houses available to support the even tear-down (at least four houses to remove one hotel, and 8 more if you want to remove all of the improvements on a 3 property street).

What happens if you cannot tear-down your hotels because there are fewer than four houses in the bank (or fewer than 12 for the whole street)?

The scenario is not that far-fetched - a property group has been fully improved, some large rent is now due, and the player needs to recoup the sunk cost of their improvements to pay the rent due.

If they cannot tear-down the hotels, they cannot pay the rent. But property cannot be traded between players if improvements are on it.

What is the appropriate resolution to this case?

user1873
  • 39,929
  • 8
  • 81
  • 189
warren
  • 1,727
  • 3
  • 16
  • 34
  • The monopoly house/hotel limit is awful. Playing with unlimited houses and hotels (using suitable replacement or pieces from a second Monopoly set) doesn't change the balance of the game and removes many stupid situations like this. – Zags Jul 06 '17 at 02:03
  • 11
    I heartily disagree, @Zags :: the house/hotel balance is highly beneficial to the overall flow of the game – warren Jul 06 '17 at 03:57
  • It's the opposite of beneficial to game flow. More development means the game goes faster, meaning less time rolling and moving and more time making meaningful strategic decisions such as building and trading – Zags Jul 07 '17 at 01:01
  • 9
    @Zags obviously, yours is the minority view. Strategic use of limited resources to bankrupt every other player (and debt then the ability to use resources because you have them tied up) is the point of the game. – warren Jul 07 '17 at 02:35
  • I find it far from obvious that I am in the minority. Monopoly is one of the games most commonly played with variants (that is to say, not in accordance with its printed rules), indicating the weakness of the Monopoly rules as written (in a game with good rules, people would play the game as intended instead of needing to modify the rules to make it more fun). Unlimited houses/hotels is among the most commonly used variants (it's been included as an option in basically every Monopoly computer game ever made as one piece of evidence). – Zags Jul 07 '17 at 07:33
  • I'm with Zags. I actually have never played Monopoly with a limited housing supply rule. The game still stinks, but at least it's over in under 3 hours. – Spivonious Sep 13 '17 at 13:22
  • 5
    @Spivonious :: you're now only the 2nd person I've ever heard who plays without limiting the housing supply (along with Zags) - and yet I've hardly ever had a game go more than ~2 hours – warren Sep 13 '17 at 13:24
  • 6
    @Zags I'd argue that that doesn't indicate weakness of the rules, that argues that players are ignorant. Take UNO, for example. Few players play with the challenge rule for Wild Draw Four cards, yet the game is more balanced with it. – user45266 Nov 01 '18 at 05:08
  • " (and debt then the ability to use resources because you have them tied up)" What does this mean? – Acccumulation May 08 '19 at 21:35
  • 1
    @Acccumulation - it would appear you found a typo / autocorrect fail. If you can get others too far in debt in Monopoly, you can win faster (usually). – warren May 09 '19 at 14:56
  • @warren An extreme version of this is in a two player game where you don't actually have enough cash flow to purchase every property you land on and can often take advantage of a player who assiduously buys everything they land on. – Michael Dec 29 '20 at 22:17
  • 1
    @Michael - not that I would know anything about such "assiduous" gameplay ... but I've heard (from a Very Reliable Source™) it's possible to bankrupt your opponent before all the properties have been purchased - even with no improvements to any of them – warren Dec 30 '20 at 13:16

1 Answers1

41

The rules state:

When the Bank has no houses to sell, players wishing to build must wait for some player to return or sell his/her houses to the Bank before building.

and

Houses and hotels may be sold back to the Bank at any time for one-half the price paid for them.

and

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.

I would say that if it is NOT possible to break up a hotel into four houses, you must sell all hotels at once, at half-face value for the entire purchase of each hotel and four houses, thus satisfying the condition "all hotels on one color-group may be sold at once".

LittleBobbyTables - Au Revoir
  • 12,613
  • 6
  • 56
  • 96
  • interesting read of the rules .. I've always applied it that the houses had to be there because you were actually tearing-down the hotel, then each of the houses – warren Oct 28 '10 at 02:29
  • 8
    At a minimum, I would say you should tear down all the hotels on a color group to the number of houses left in the bank, and evenly distribute those houses. – LittleBobbyTables - Au Revoir Oct 28 '10 at 02:38
  • 2
    @warren - That is the way the game works on the computer. You can not sell your hotel unless you can put houses back up. And you can not mortage a property that has been improved. – Chad Aug 01 '11 at 16:27
  • @Chad - if that's the way it "works on the computer", and the game is 'official', then it would seem that would be the 'right' way to do it, no? – warren Aug 01 '11 at 18:19
  • 1
    @warren, that was kind of my thought. It is the way it consistantly works too. They also allow for "Custom" rules surrounding it. – Chad Aug 01 '11 at 18:47
  • 4
    "or they may be sold one house at a time" To me, that reads that you can break up a hotel into houses. – Origami Robot Dec 06 '12 at 17:42
  • 6
    Normally you could, but not if there aren't houses to place.. that's what the question is about. See also http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/8049/housing-shortage-in-monopoly; same question. – GendoIkari Dec 06 '12 at 18:31
  • 7
    the OR means you normally have the choice, but obviously if there aren't enough houses, you can't take the choice of selling one house at a time and must instead sell "All hotels on one color-group at once" – Chris Dodd Dec 10 '12 at 17:21
  • @GendoIkari I missed the "if" in "... if it is not possible..." IGNORE ME. – Origami Robot Dec 10 '12 at 19:53
  • We found this ruling so absurd we picked up all the houses from an older set that was worn out and dumped it into our current set. ALSO, the amount of houses has been decreasing in newer sets, leading us to believe the out of houses rule is obsolete as the game balance is being altered for Parker Bros to save a buck rather than on considered design. – Joshua Sep 22 '16 at 15:31
  • @Joshua - how many houses are in a "modern" set? Is it less than 32? – warren Jan 13 '18 at 03:17
  • @warren: It's equally possible the older sets had more than 32. – Joshua Jan 13 '18 at 03:19
  • 1
    @Joshua - nope, it's been 32 houses and 12 hotels since at least the 50s (oldest set I ever played) – warren Jan 13 '18 at 03:25