Moving or Supporting. Contradiction in rules?

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

Moving or Supporting. Contradiction in rules?

Postby markjmcclelland » 05 Jun 2008, 13:32

I'm a bit confused by some of the posts on here as they contradict what is written in the rules of the board game version I own. The hard copy rules I possess state that if for example the German army in Berlin is ordered to move to Kiel, and the German army in Prussia is ordered to move to Berlin, if for some reason the move to Berlin is bounced, then the move from Prussia to Berlin still 'counts' as a de facto support for the Berlin army which now cannot move. All the posts on here say this is not a valid support, but my rules say it is. Can someone help please? I think there may be an issue of different versions of the rules here but someone will know better than me.
markjmcclelland
 
Posts: 4
Joined: 10 May 2008, 00:25
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Moving or Supporting. Contradiction in rules?

Postby metagaia » 05 Jun 2008, 13:57

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking. As far as I can see you have
Germany:
U Ber-Kie (bounce)
U Pru-Ber (bounce)

I'm not en expert on this, but I am guessing that the rules here follow as closely to http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/Diplomacy_Rulebook.pdf as possible.

There it states (page 10) A unit gives up its chance to move on a turn in order to support
another unit’s order.
So U-Pru-Ber cannot support Ber under any circumstances.

If you are asking if Germany does this:
U Ber-Kie (bounce)
U Pru S U Ber
counts as support, then no it doesn't. From the same page: A unit not ordered to move can be supported by a
support order that only mentions its province.
and U Ber-Kie counts as an order to move.

Hope this helps.
You're using the Chinese against the Chinese! You're playing the Game of Death!
User avatar
metagaia
 
Posts: 31
Joined: 25 May 2008, 12:31
Location: Cheshire (where the beer is better than Yorkshire)
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Moving or Supporting. Contradiction in rules?

Postby markjmcclelland » 05 Jun 2008, 14:35

I'm in the UK. I have the 1989 Gibson Games version. It says in section II.5 that

"orders involving conflict between units of the same Great Power may be valid for other purposes.

Example

France
A(Bur)-Bel, A(Par)-Bur, A(Mar)s(Par)-Bur.

Germany
A(Bel) Stands, A(Ruh)-Bur, A(Mun) s A(Ruh)-Bur.

The intended French move to Burgundy, whilst it cannot succeed in itself, is valid to prevent the German attack succeeding under the general rule that where two equal forces conflict, no change occurs"

This is different from the rules advice I've read on here. Help me!
markjmcclelland
 
Posts: 4
Joined: 10 May 2008, 00:25
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Moving or Supporting. Contradiction in rules?

Postby metagaia » 05 Jun 2008, 14:56

I don't see the difference myself. I think the problem is that you are thinking of it as support, when it reality it is not. The way I think about this is that this would be the result if the French army attacking Burgundy was a different army. Obviously the two would bounce, leaving the army in France sitting and cowering wondering what is going to happen.

This is not so much support as two armies of equal strength bouncing off one another. The army in Burgundy only becomes relevant if the aggregate of all the attacks produces a winner. I honestly believe that this will work if you try it in the game you are playing.

This is in essence a way to hold a territory, while being able to keep the unit mobile, it's under the same spirit as 'self stand off' (This is also mentioned in the 2008 rules page 15)
You're using the Chinese against the Chinese! You're playing the Game of Death!
User avatar
metagaia
 
Posts: 31
Joined: 25 May 2008, 12:31
Location: Cheshire (where the beer is better than Yorkshire)
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT


Return to Diplomacy Rules Questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests