22 Rules to Help You Resolve Orders

[jaelis]

This list is from the back page of the official rules (with a few tweaks reflecting our implementation). It pretty much summarizes everything you need to know about how an order will be adjudicated.

More detailed discussions can be found in the "Common Questions" subforum.

1. All units have the same strength.

2. There can only be one unit in a province at a time.

3. Units of equal strength trying to move to the same province cause all those units to remain in their original provinces. (This is called a standoff.)

4. A standoff doesn’t dislodge a unit already in the province where the standoff took place.

5. One unit not moving can stop a series of other units from moving.

6. Units can’t trade places without the use of a convoy. (Units of equal strength trying to trade places without a convoy causes those units to remain in their original provinces.)

7. Three or more units can rotate provinces during a turn provided none directly trade places.

8. A unit not ordered to move can be supported to hold in its province. (The support adds to its strength.)

9. A unit ordered to move can only be supported by a support order that matches the move the unit is trying to make. (Again, the support adds to its strength.)

10. A dislodged unit can still cause a standoff in a province different from the one that dislodged it.

11. A dislodged unit, even with support, has no effect on the province that dislodged it. (It cannot cause a standoff there.)

12. A country can’t dislodge or support the dislodgment of one of its own units, even if that dislodgment is unexpected. (You can attack or support an attack on your own unit, but if that attack or support would normally cause the target to be dislodged, it won't be.)

13. Support is cut if the unit giving support is attacked from any province except the one where support is being given.

14. Support is cut if the supporting unit is dislodged.

15. A unit being dislodged by one province can still cut support in another.

16. An attack by a country on one of its own units doesn’t cut support.

17. A dislodgment of a Fleet necessary to a convoy causes that convoy to fail.

18. A convoy that causes the convoyed Army to standoff at its destination results in that Army remaining in its original province.

19. Two units can exchange places if either or both are convoyed. (This is the exception to Rule 6.)

20. An Army convoyed using alternate convoy orders reaches its destination as long as at least one convoy route remains open.

21. A convoyed Army doesn’t cut the support of a unit supporting an attack against one of the Fleets necessary for the Army to convoy. (This supersedes Rule 13.)

22. An Army with at least one successful convoy route will cut the support given by a unit in the destination province that is supporting an attack on a Fleet in an alternate route in that convoy. (This supersedes Rule 21.)

[Blackfish]

marking for future reference.

I have the physical game, though until now I had completely forgotten about this back page! Cheers Jaelis!

[sinnybee]

From another thread:

12. A country can’t dislodge or support the dislodgment of one of its own units, even if that dislodgment is unexpected.

That's entirely correct, but for completeness, note that it doesn't say a support against one of your own units is an illegal order, or that it has no effect. A support given against one of your own units has no effect only if the effect would be to dislodge your own unit. So, for example, you're playing Germany and have armies in Munich and Kiel. Your French ally has an army in Burgundy, and your Austrian enemy has armies in Tyrolia and Bohemia. You could order Kiel S Burgundy-Munich, which would a) never dislodge your army in Munich, and b) successfully defend Munich against an Austrian attack with a power of 2. The reason you might want to make those orders is so you can order Munich to move (say to Tyrolia, which you're worried could be used to support an Austrian attack on Italy instead of an attack on Munich).

[Eemsh38]

Ok, so I have a question about the game rules. I was playing the board game and one of my friends (playing as Austria-Hungary) used (bud) to support (vie) and (vie) to support (bud). I initially said that the move must be illegal since there is no actual action being supported. However, I was playing around in jDip and when I make the double support in jDip, it allows me to do so. So, I guess my question is, is this a legal move? And, if so, what is the actual effect? I feel like it would be unfair to assume that it would act as a supported hold for each, because that implies that each piece essentially has 2 moves. Let me know if this move is possible...

[sinnybee]

Ok, so I have a question about the game rules. I was playing the board game and one of my friends (playing as Austria-Hungary) used (bud) to support (vie) and (vie) to support (bud). I initially said that the move must be illegal since there is no actual action being supported. However, I was playing around in jDip and when I make the double support in jDip, it allows me to do so. So, I guess my question is, is this a legal move? And, if so, what is the actual effect? I feel like it would be unfair to assume that it would act as a supported hold for each, because that implies that each piece essentially has 2 moves. Let me know if this move is possible...

Yes, it's legal. The effect is a defensive strength of 2 for the units. They don't have 2 moves, they are both just doing 1 thing--supporting the other to hold.
Just think of it as the 2 units teaming up. It's not that they have a defensive strength of 2 each as in 2+2=4, it's that there's a defensive strength of 2 for the 2 provinces as a whole. So, an attack of strength 2 has no effect on the spaces, as 2 against 2 is a stand-off, whether the attack is made of 2 to one space and none to the other, or whether it's an attack of 1 to one space and 1 to the other.
If, however, there is an attack of strength 3, the attack will succeed, since 3>2. If the attack of strength 3 is made to one of the spaces (with no attack to the other space), it will succeed. If an attack of 2 is made to one space with an attack of 1 to the other space, then the first and stronger attack will succeed, since the defensive support to hold will have been cut.
If there is an attack of (at least) 4, with a strength of (at least) 2 to each space, then both attacks will be successful, since both defensive supports to hold will have been cut, reducing the defensive strength of each space to 1, and allowing the higher strength of each attack (2>1) to succeed.
So, in conclusion, really the only benefit and the only thing that 2 units supporting each other to hold protects against (unless there are more units involved to add to their defensive strength) is an attack of strength 2 to one space and no attack to the other. Any other scenerio would provide the same fate to the units regardless of whether they were supporting each other to hold, or whether they were just holding without supporting. If, for example, one space doesn't even have the potential of being attacked, then it doesn't make a difference whether or not the other unit supports it to hold. However, I would suggest that the more often you can place your units in such a way that they have something to do (not just hold), the better you'll end up tactically.

[CrnaZemlja]

Here's one I have been trying to figure out. I will use hypothetical to avoid any conflict in game.

England has an army in territory A. It move to territory D that is occupied by France. The army moving from A to D is supported by an army in territory B and an army in territory C.

France has an army in territory D. It tries to attack the army in territory A. It is supported by armies in territory E and F.

So essentially, two armies trying to switch location that are equally supported. Everyone stays the same?

[CrnaZemlja]

Another question.

Using the above question, if army A had to retreat and army D had to retreat, could A try to retreat to where D was if D retreated a different direction? Can one unit retreat to a territory occupied previously by a retreating unit if, for example, the player just guessed the unit would retreat a different way?

[sinnybee]

Here's one I have been trying to figure out. I will use hypothetical to avoid any conflict in game.

England has an army in territory A. It move to territory D that is occupied by France. The army moving from A to D is supported by an army in territory B and an army in territory C.

France has an army in territory D. It tries to attack the army in territory A. It is supported by armies in territory E and F.

So essentially, two armies trying to switch location that are equally supported. Everyone stays the same?

Did you miss #6?
Two units can never switch places during the same turn unless there is one (or more) convoys making it possible.
Your example is a 3 vs 3 stand-off.

Another question.

Using the above question, if army A had to retreat and army D had to retreat, could A try to retreat to where D was if D retreated a different direction? Can one unit retreat to a territory occupied previously by a retreating unit if, for example, the player just guessed the unit would retreat a different way?

I'll now assume that we're talking about a different example in which A and D do have to retreat. Whenever a unit (we'll say D) has retreat orders to make, it's because a unit has taken the space that they were on. So, no, you can never retreat (A) to (D) where another unit is retreating from, since there would be another unit there (the successful attacker) if there was a dislodgement.

[stal2004]

How can GIVE ORDER to a ARMY to support the attack of an Army against an area?

[Blackfish]

How can GIVE ORDER to a ARMY to support the attack of an Army against an area?

I think rick.leeds answered your question in the chatbox, just now.

You click on an army and order it to move to its destination. You then click the army that you wat support from and order "Army <> Supports Army {} to ()."
If that makes any sense.

That's more a question about the site mechanics as opposed to a question about the rules of Diplomacy itself, but you'll be right.