Diplomacy Rules FAQ

[MoodytheWise]

You cannot order your own units to attack each other, those orders are illegal and result in holds.

That is not quite true. You cannot cut support from your own units, and you cannot dislodge your own units, but you most certainly can "attack" your own units - it's a very useful strategy. Let's say you have A Ven, A Apu, F Adr. If you want A Ven to be able to attack something else (Tyrolia, Piedmont, Rome) in order to cut a support, but also want to defend Venice against a possible two-strength attack from the enemy, a perfectly legitimate set of orders would be A Ven-Tyr, A Apu-Ven, F Adr S A Apu-Ven. If the two-strength attack is ordered against you, your attack bounces with the enemy's - and if not, your attack can't dislodge your own unit, so A Ven is fine (assuming A Ven didn't succeed in moving to Tyrolia).

[Diplomat]

I think you confuse attacking the territory, and attacking the unit...

[MoodytheWise]

I think you confuse attacking the territory, and attacking the unit...

Well, I think that's a meaningless distinction that doesn't actually exist in any rules I've ever seen. Everything is attacking the territory, really. Since there is no such distinction, and attacking a(n adjacent) territory is always a legal move, the bit about illegal orders and resulting in holds is just not true. My point is that "You cannot order your own units to attack each other, those orders are illegal and result in holds" is a confusing statement, especially in a FAQ, where people typically come to look for clarification, not outright untruths and confusion based on meaningless semantic distinctions.

But whatever, it's your FAQ. You don't have to make it better if you don't want to, I'm just pointing out what I see.

[TheRedArmy]

A little harsh Moody. I read the FAQ the first time I came here, and did not misunderstand the part in question even though I had never played the game before. Besides, if someone doesn't understand, they can simply ask for clarification. That's why there's a "rules" section.

[Diplomat]

I think you confuse attacking the territory, and attacking the unit...

Well, I think that's a meaningless distinction that doesn't actually exist in any rules I've ever seen. Everything is attacking the territory, really. Since there is no such distinction, and attacking a(n adjacent) territory is always a legal move, the bit about illegal orders and resulting in holds is just not true. My point is that "You cannot order your own units to attack each other, those orders are illegal and result in holds" is a confusing statement, especially in a FAQ, where people typically come to look for clarification, not outright untruths and confusion based on meaningless semantic distinctions.

But whatever, it's your FAQ. You don't have to make it better if you don't want to, I'm just pointing out what I see.

4th Ed. Rules, page 4, under Move Order the rule actually draws a distinction between moving and moving into a territory which is occupied, the second of which is specifically referred to as 'attacking'. Check the rules. As you can't attack your own units in a territory and create a dislodgment, the rule is it ends up as a hold.

The situation your referring to is one where unit A tries to move out of territory A (the attack) and Unit B supported by C try to fill the void but when A bounces back B bounces back as well. When D supported by E also try to enter A they create a Beleaguered Garrison situation bouncing against B/C who also try to occupy the territory.

Clearly any summary cannot specifically refer to every situation you might come across, otherwise all you would ever get by way of response is 'go read the rules' or you would end up rewriting the rules and creating more issues of potential misinterpretation. I noticed you did not attempt a revision, just complained... how would you explain 5+ pages of rules about moves, plus the examples section, in 1 paragraph?

[napoleand]

Can someone explain draws to me? How they work, etc.?

[deanchuk]

Can someone explain draws to me? How they work, etc.?

in 1905 + you can offer draws by clicking stastics, click the nations you want the draw with (MAX 3 with yourself!)
now, then in the right of the stastics page you can see who accepted and who deny and who didnt answer.
plus, the draw will be disappear after some time (the phase when it will disappear is showend there).

Lets say your ally offerd a draw, never offer a new one just accept, because if somone offers the same draw twice you need to wait till one of them will disappear and its really bugging.

[eangles]

I have a question about the HOLD rule. Sorry if this is covered elsewhere, I couldn't find it.

Diplomat, you write (emphasis mine):

---HOLDs can be ordered, but they can also result from not ordering a unit to move, or ordering a unit to move in a manner that is, at the time of movement adjudication, considered illegal. The default order for a unit is the HOLD. A unit that HOLDs can be supported, but there is some debate as to if a unit that is ordered to move in a manner that eventually results in a HOLD (ie a failed convoy or illegal Attack order) can be supported to HOLD. Units in CIVIL DISORDER also Hold by default and they can be supported. You can support your own units actions, or another players, but you cannot legally support another players attack on your units.

In playdiplomacy.com, how are such situations treated? Can I successfully support an adjacent unit to hold if that unit is trying to move and fails?

Thanks a lot.

[disposablehero]

Can I successfully support an adjacent unit to hold if that unit is trying to move and fails?

No.

[Banditkills]

I have not played in a while, so this is from memory.

It is not possible for a fleet to sail directly to Sweden. Is this true? Or is my mind playing tricks on me?

I looked at the most recent rules online, but it did not say anything about this.