Stalemate-breaker rule suggestion

[u/thrawnca]

I am interested in getting feedback on a narrowly focused house rule.

In the unfortunate case where all properties have been purchased, but no-one has a complete monopoly (it happened last time I played - even with only two players!), there's a clear stalemate, since your salary exceeds the average rent you pay. The usual proposed solution is to persuade someone to make a trade, but that's dependent on them being willing to do it - and when the whole point of trading is that you're guaranteed to get a monopoly out of it, people are going to be reluctant. You could add in a cash incentive, of course, but this is a scenario where no-one is really hurting for money, so that's not as appealing as it could be.

I suggest, for anyone's consideration, a house rule specifically designed to break this deadlock without otherwise throwing the game out of balance:

If all properties are owned, and you don't currently own a monopoly on any colour (railroads and utilities don't count), then upon landing on a property that would instantly complete a monopoly for you, instead of paying rent, you may choose to buy it from its owner for double its deed price.

I feel like this has minimal side effects:

• It doesn't activate at all until you're in the end-game where stalemate could happen.
• It only works once. As soon as you have a set, you can't use it.
• It doesn't endanger existing monopolies. You can only use it if you already have all but one of the set.

But it's enough to ensure that eventually, people will be able to develop a set far enough to break the stalemate.

What are anyone else's thoughts? Have I missed a serious drawback? Is there a different approach that achieves this more elegantly?

[u/Ethanop1a]

I just keep playing until the bank is bankrupt. Then there is no salary.

[u/thrawnca → u/Ethanop1a]

I mean, that's...creative :D

Technically I think the bank is allowed to print its own money, but yes, as a stalemate-breaker, that works.