What would the ruling be on this one?

Question about the rules of the game? Experienced Diplomacy veterans will help you! There is also a Common Questions section.
Forum rules
In addition to the general Forum Guidelines (see here: http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/view ... 30&t=15441), there are additional rules for posting in this forum.
1. Members should not refer directly to a specific situation in an active game. It is usually possible to provide an example of a similar situation elsewhere on the board.
2. It follows that links, images, game name and/or number should not be added to a post if the game is active.
3. Questions should only request rules be clarified and not request advice about how to resolve a situation.
4. When answering a question, members should restrict themselves to answering the question and not give advice on how to get around the situation.
Posts which break these rules will be subject to editing or removal; see here: http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/view ... 13&t=42845

What would the ruling be on this one?

Postby themcb » 11 Mar 2008, 21:21

I had a huge fight with my friend over the rules of diplomacy in my last weeks diplomacy club.
He argued: Written Orders Come Before Anything Else
I argued back: That doesn't include bumps, that pertains to only to retreats.

We were playing Colonial so ill give a normal example of the situation.
Imagine this:

Team One
Kiel sup Berlin into Munich

Team Two
Tyrolia sup Bohemia into Munich
Prussia to Berlin

My argument is that everything is a bump because the power of 2 and the power of 2 bump each other back and Prussia cant get into Berlin

He said since Berlin was moving, he gets it and i cant be bumped back.

We fought about it for a couple hours with no result.. whats the official stance on it?
themcb
 
Posts: 6
Joined: 09 Mar 2008, 15:39
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: What would the ruling be on this one?

Postby mdmuff » 11 Mar 2008, 23:03

Berlin was not vacated, so the Prussian army could not move in.

1v1 standoff. All movements bounce.
Don't argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference.

Ham & Eggs: A days work for a chicken; a lifetime commitment for a pig.
User avatar
mdmuff
 
Posts: 917
Joined: 28 Jan 2008, 11:30
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: What would the ruling be on this one?

Postby Master Radishes » 12 Mar 2008, 04:47

Mdmuff is correct.
Master Radishes
 
Posts: 6206
Joined: 28 Jan 2008, 11:30
Location: London
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (1071)
Timezone: GMT

Re: What would the ruling be on this one?

Postby behnam » 12 Mar 2008, 19:28

Master Radishes is correct :)
nil desperandum ; sempre vincenti

Image
Image
User avatar
behnam
 
Posts: 396
Joined: 30 Jan 2008, 22:10
Location: Dubai
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (975)
All-game rating: (978)
Timezone: GMT

Re: What would the ruling be on this one?

Postby chazem130 » 12 Mar 2008, 23:48

behnam is correct.
chazem130
 
Posts: 68
Joined: 26 Feb 2008, 23:37
Location: USA
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: What would the ruling be on this one?

Postby The Leader » 13 Mar 2008, 03:18

chazem130 is correct. Why are we doing this?
Perpes Quest Quaero Scientia.
The Leader
 
Posts: 165
Joined: 29 Feb 2008, 05:07
Location: Illinois, USA
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: What would the ruling be on this one?

Postby behnam » 13 Mar 2008, 18:21

I did it 'cause it was just too tempting. But I think everyone else is just doing it out of boredom...they need to be playing more games...
nil desperandum ; sempre vincenti

Image
Image
User avatar
behnam
 
Posts: 396
Joined: 30 Jan 2008, 22:10
Location: Dubai
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (975)
All-game rating: (978)
Timezone: GMT

Re: What would the ruling be on this one?

Postby themcb » 14 Mar 2008, 06:05

I concur with benham
themcb
 
Posts: 6
Joined: 09 Mar 2008, 15:39
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: What would the ruling be on this one?

Postby Diplomat » 14 Mar 2008, 07:20

The idea that vacating a territory in attack results in something other than a bump is an old variant rule as I recall. That might be the cause of the confusion. Based on the standard rules everything bounces and there is no movement.
Avatar courtesy of TheCraw. Many Thanks.
User avatar
Diplomat
 
Posts: 4460
Joined: 30 Jan 2008, 23:00
Location: Anytown, CA
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: What would the ruling be on this one?

Postby Master Radishes » 14 Mar 2008, 11:18

Well I concur with themcb...


Okay, sorry, not starting that again.
Master Radishes
 
Posts: 6206
Joined: 28 Jan 2008, 11:30
Location: London
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (1071)
Timezone: GMT

Next

Return to Diplomacy Rules Questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests