supporting a fleet into Spain

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: ... 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: ... 13&t=42845

Re: supporting a fleet into Spain

Postby jay65536 » 04 Jan 2018, 01:27

AHH. I just re-read the OP. The OP's confusion was not coming from the same place I thought it was!

I just skimmed the quote in the OP and I thought he was referring to this:

A fleet which may move to one of [Bul/Spa/StP] may "support" an action in that province...without regard to the separation of the coastline. [Emphasis mine]

This is a quote from the 1992 rules, and it is in every edition of the rules EXCEPT the 2000 rules, which were released after I learned the game. But it is not in any way describing the same scenario as the "without regard" snippet of the 2000 rules!

I have always considered this quote as further evidence, beyond my previous rules-nerdery post, that my interpretation of the old rules is the best one (though still not the only possible one). That being said, my involvement in this thread was the first time I read the 2000 rules as carefully as I have read the old rules.

So I agree with you that this is a point of ambiguity in the rules, but I would consider it a point of ambiguity because the 2000 rules are clear in one direction and the old rules seem to imply a different one, not because all sets of rules are particularly ambiguous. I also agree that the PD implementation is fine, because all it does is ask players for a little extra order writing in exchange for simplifying how the engine works, and it does not create situations that are badly out of step with the 2000 rulebook.
Posts: 531
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 18:13
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1120)
All-game rating: (1126)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: supporting a fleet into Spain

Postby WHSeward » 04 Jan 2018, 01:50

For what it is worth ABC opined on this topic once upon a time, and he did not agree with your interpretation. Now it is possible that he had changed his mind about things over the years, and the 2000 rules reflected his "later" thinking (he wasn't asked about this until after those rules came out that I am aware of) but my instinct is that the ambiguity is always in the early rules because it was always intended that a destination included the coast, if the province was a split coast.

Ah Shiv, sorry we are nerding out on you.
"As a general truth, communities prosper and flourish, or droop and decline, in just the degree that they practice or neglect to practice the primary duties of justice and humanity." WHS

A member of the Classicists.

Ask me about mentor games. Send me a PM or post in the Mentoring forum.
User avatar
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2992
Joined: 29 Dec 2012, 22:16
Location: San Francisco, California, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1633)
All-game rating: (1647)
Timezone: GMT-8


Return to Diplomacy Rules Questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests