support a supporter

[robbrad3]

One of my opponents in a game I am playing made the following orders: A Mun S Kie H, A Boh S Mun.
I ordered A Bur-Mun and A Ruh S A Bur-Mun. My order apparently failed as I was stood off in Munich.

I was flipped through my copy of the Dip rules and didn't see anything about supporting a unit that is supporting another unit...is this commonplace and I just am unfamiliar with the rule? Thanks.

[mdmuff]

The army in Mun has a power of 1, plus the support issued to it to hold, = 2 armies

You attacked with your army (1) with the support of an additional army (+1) = 2 armies

So the orders offset. When a unit supports, it also holds it's own position.

[behnam]

One of my opponents in a game I am playing made the following orders: A Mun S Kie H, A Boh S Mun.
I ordered A Bur-Mun and A Ruh S A Bur-Mun. My order apparently failed as I was stood off in Munich.

I was flipped through my copy of the Dip rules and didn't see anything about supporting a unit that is supporting another unit...is this commonplace and I just am unfamiliar with the rule? Thanks.

I think the question here is: Can you support a unit that is not holding?

The answer, to the best of my knowledge, is Yes, so long as that unit is not ordered to MOVE anywhere else. I remember this question coming up in a face to face game and we had to look it up in the rules. Since the destination for A Mun was Mun, then the support works. If the orders were A Mun-Ruh, A Boh S A Mun, then the support would fail, even though A Mun bounced back and stayed in Mun.

[Laurence]

Another point on this which I've only just sussed out is that if A supports B who supports C, then any attack by, say X, on B will cut the support of C. This will happen even if there is another supporter of B. Obviously B will remain, but C's support from B will be cut. This also happens even if X is attacked at the same time, say by D supported by E.
"You want simple, I got simple. You want complicated, I got complicated." (from "The Sleeper")

[pickardj79]

however, if C is attacking X, then X's attack on B does not cut the support. right?

summarize:
1) A supports B
2) B supports C
3) C attacks X
4) X attacks B

X attack of B does not cut support of B because B is supporting an attack on X. right?

now what if X's attack on B is supported, by Y? does this cut Bs support? B is not dislodged since it is supported by A.
now what if A is not supporting B and Xs attack on B is supported? in this case B is dislodged. seems to me that X and C win and B needs to retreat.

thanks so much

[behnam]

however, if C is attacking X, then X's attack on B does not cut the support. right?

summarize:
1) A supports B
2) B supports C
3) C attacks X
4) X attacks B

X attack of B does not cut support of B because B is supporting an attack on X. right?

now what if X's attack on B is supported, by Y? does this cut Bs support? B is not dislodged since it is supported by A.
now what if A is not supporting B and Xs attack on B is supported? in this case B is dislodged. seems to me that X and C win and B needs to retreat.

thanks so much

(2) should read "B Supports C attack X" otherwise B's support would not be valid.

I'm not sure if B's support is cut if X's attack is supported by Y. I don't think it is.

If B is dislodged, then X moves into B's spot and C's attack is successful as well.