| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question - AceRimmer (Nov 19, 2010, 11:17 am) |
Maslow, I'm going to agree with poobaloo here: your post is discussing semantics / word games.
Chiefly, you seem to be trying to define a difference between invalid and illegal. I'm guessing that your sense of order and precision compels you to discern between the two.
For my part... what I care about is: does the difference affect how an order is actually adjudicated? If it doesn't affect the adjudication, then to be blunt, I don't care.
So, perhaps, I should restate the issue at hand as I see it:
When should a GM declare that a unit's order is unadjudicable and therefore defaults to 'Unit Holds'?
And just to throw a log on the fire, I deny the premise of the following statement, which is alright, because there is no one correct answer (except that the GM's decision is final!):
"you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are"
Adam[Reply] |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 19, 12:05 pm |
So, perhaps, I should restate the issue at hand as I see it:
When should a GM declare that a unit's order is unadjudicable and therefore defaults to 'Unit Holds'?
Ok, so what would your answer to the ? be?
The manual takes a stab at answering:
Any vague or invalid orders are ignored.
Isn't that pretty clear? Any order is enacted as written, unless it's either vague or invalid, in which case it's ignored.
A Lon-Bel. Vague? No. Invalid? No. So it is enacted as written. If a fleet is in ENG and it orders a convoy, the order may succeed. If not, it'll fail.
A Lon-Mun. Vague? No. Invalid? No. Impossible perhaps, but yet a properly written move order from one province to another which will certainly fail.
A Lon-Neptune. Vague? No. Invalid? Yes. (have no idea where Neptune is on this map). So it is ignored. Unordered unit is considered ordered to Hold.
A Lon-Nor. Vague? Yes. Nor could mean Norway or Norwegian Sea, so it is deemed vague and is ignored. Unordered unit is considered ordered to Hold.
(A GM may consider that one not vague if he considers that an army cannot go to the Norwegian Sea - but vagueness is purely whether it is vague to the GM)
F MAO-Spa. Vague? Yes. Could mean either coast, so ignored, Holds.
F Mar-Spa. Vague? No. Can only go to one coast, so it is not vague. Ordered appropriately.
A Lon-Bol. Vague? Certainly. Bul? Hol? Bel? Any of those would be a slight typo from a valid space, but there is no way to know the intent. Unit Holds.
A Lon-Bra. Vague? Tough one. There is no Bra on the map, but there is Bre, and that seems to make sense, but this would come down to GM interpretation if he considered this vague or not. Personally I think this should be a misorder, as Brest doesn't even contain an 'a' there's no reason to assume this is Bre. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question - FuzzyLogic (Nov 19, 2010, 8:48 am) |
We're in agreement here, no? I can't quite tell these examples are so wacky. 
Therefore Lon to Bel might be illegal because of other units.
Lon-Bel is valid even if you have your own army in Bel, cuz you could be ordering Bel-Ruh. If Bel-Ruh fails, then Lon-Bel will fail. But it was still a move order, and so an order of Wal S Lon would fail.
The manual does go to the extent to say that ordering a unit into another unit of yours does NOT cut the support. Therefore it is clearly legal to order a move that you absolutely know is impossible to succeed. (Bel-Ruh and Ruh S Mun) Bel-Ruh is still a move order, and Ruh support of Mun is not cut because of the "cannot cut your own support rule". It doesn't say you can't order the movment, just that the support is not cut.
Point is, ordering moves that are "impossible to have the movement succeed" are definitely not disallowed, therefore the impossibility of actual movement resulting from a move order does not rule the order invalid and revert it to Unordered / Hold.
If you order a unit to move, from one province to another, then you have ordered it to move.
If you order Par-Neptune, The GM should look and see if Neptune is a space in this variant. Maybe it is in the "Milky Way" variant. If he can't find a space by that name that is unambiguous (to the GM) then the entire order is ruled invalid and the unit is treated as if unordered.
If that's the case, when would an order ever be invalid or illegal?
Per above. Par-Neptune would be an invalid order. There is no province named Neptune.
I suppose attempting to move a unit that is not one's own, or ordering a unit that does not exist is invalid
Not sure why this example. A GM will skip over flavor text in analyzing orders, including things like "dear GM please accept these orders" - that is not an order in the game sense, it is normal discussion. Orders for anything other than your own units are ignored.
Therefore, it oughtn't depend on even where even the single unit is.
In determining if AN order is valid, sure, it doesn't matter. We can look and say "Is an order of F Con-Bul/ec" a valid way to order Con to the east coast of Bul. Yes it is. But we're talking about the more specific scenario of "what are valid orders for this unit" (which does happen to be somewhere). So IF I have an army in London, what are valid orders for it. That is what we're discussing.
The rest of your post is discussing semantics / word games, and we're not really concerned w the concept of GM trickery here. Like "Yesterday I took my Bell to London for a cleaning." and later alleging to the GM you intended Bel to Lon and the presence of other words before and after it were irrelevant. That's another discussion.
The question of this topic, is "Is A Lon-Bel" a move order in all cases, and I still (I think, agree w you) that it is. So be it that if there is no fleet nearby to convoy it, it is very likely to fail.
The order is fine, it just may not work, whether for that turn (Bel to Lon but no convoy) or forever (Bel to Par).
I think we're in agreement here.
[Reply] |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question - Blueraider0 (Nov 19, 2010, 1:49 am) |
If that's the case, when would an order ever be invalid or illegal? I suppose attempting to move a unit that is not one's own, or ordering a unit that does not exist is invalid, But even then, you say "you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are"." Therefore, it oughtn't depend on even where even the single unit is. If Lon to Bel is a valid order whether a convoy is possible or not, Lon to Bel should be valid whether there is a unit in Lon or not. Lon to Bel is a valid order - but there might not be a unit in London to move (or, a unit of a different Power). The written order is always going to be valid, even if it cannot be implemented.
But I suppose my definition of a valid move order should be stated. Forgive me if I've already used this analogy. I can write 2+2=5. It is a legitimate thing to write. All those symbols exist, and we all understand what is happening. That said, suspending any 1984 references, it is a false statement. Similarly, I can SAY my mother was Harriet Tubman, but she is not. But I can construct the sentence. It has no necessary root in reality, and requires none. Even dividing by zero CAN be written, even if it cannot be done. When something is written, it must be evaluated based on accepted definitions. Then the statement can be verified against known facts. 2+2=5 is false. But are Frxhhz more likely to eat a marshmallow than a Tredkfl? It's an unanswerable question, because two of the terms are undefined. It is not true or false, it's nonsensical.
A move order is X to Y. Perhaps X --> Y or X moves to Y. It is one province, some symbol or word indicating movement, and another province. The first province is the origin, the second the destination. Neptune to G4 is a valid move order, even though it makes absolutely no sense. It cannot be translated onto the board, but the order is not invalid. The best you could do is call it irrelevant.
Even moves traditionally understood as illegal If I am England, it is acceptable for the GM to assume I am ordering my own units. Therefore if I order a different power's unit, the GM has two options. I either mistakenly thought it was mine or am cunningly attempting to use it. In the first case, the order (let's say, Par to Bur) is valid, but irrelevant, because there is no English unit in Par. In the second, the order is irrelevant because I simply cannot under any circumstance order an opponent's unit. But the order is valid anyway, even if my intention was a direct violation of the rules. If I say "FRENCH Par to Bur," is that illegal? It's illegal for the MOVE to happen, but what about the order? That depends on your interpretation of the rule about ordering other units (I actually can't find it in the rulebook. Maybe it's not there, because the whole idea is so clearly against the rules. Battleship doesn't specify you can't yell Fire and then as your opponent panics you look at where there ships are....
The only move I'd say is definitely illegal is a move to Switzerland. Unlike Neptune or G4 or Mushroom Kingdom, the rules explicitly state Switzerland cannot be occupied. Actually, even then MOVING to Switzerland is not forbidden, just occupying it. So the move is only illegal if it would cause the player to occupy it. If two players move to Switzerland and bounce, technically Switzerland remained empty because of the usual game mechanics, not because of any special rules.
Another thought, a Power cannot dislodge or support the dislodgement of its own unit. Therefore Lon to Bel might be illegal because of other units. Let's say Bel to Ruh and Hol supports Lon to Bel and ECH convoys Lon to Bel, all owned by the same Power. Mun goes to Ruh and bounces Bel. Lon to Bel is now illegal, even if Pic and Bur also supported the move.
So except for situations explicitly stated in the rules, I see no reason to declare any moves illegal, and I find the phrase invalid to be misleading. The order is fine, it just may not work, whether for that turn (Bel to Lon but no convoy) or forever (Bel to Par).[Reply] |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 19, 08:48 am |
We're in agreement here, no? I can't quite tell these examples are so wacky.
Therefore Lon to Bel might be illegal because of other units.
Lon-Bel is valid even if you have your own army in Bel, cuz you could be ordering Bel-Ruh. If Bel-Ruh fails, then Lon-Bel will fail. But it was still a move order, and so an order of Wal S Lon would fail.
The manual does go to the extent to say that ordering a unit into another unit of yours does NOT cut the support. Therefore it is clearly legal to order a move that you absolutely know is impossible to succeed. (Bel-Ruh and Ruh S Mun) Bel-Ruh is still a move order, and Ruh support of Mun is not cut because of the "cannot cut your own support rule". It doesn't say you can't order the movment, just that the support is not cut.
Point is, ordering moves that are "impossible to have the movement succeed" are definitely not disallowed, therefore the impossibility of actual movement resulting from a move order does not rule the order invalid and revert it to Unordered / Hold.
If you order a unit to move, from one province to another, then you have ordered it to move.
If you order Par-Neptune, The GM should look and see if Neptune is a space in this variant. Maybe it is in the "Milky Way" variant. If he can't find a space by that name that is unambiguous (to the GM) then the entire order is ruled invalid and the unit is treated as if unordered.
If that's the case, when would an order ever be invalid or illegal?
Per above. Par-Neptune would be an invalid order. There is no province named Neptune.
I suppose attempting to move a unit that is not one's own, or ordering a unit that does not exist is invalid
Not sure why this example. A GM will skip over flavor text in analyzing orders, including things like "dear GM please accept these orders" - that is not an order in the game sense, it is normal discussion. Orders for anything other than your own units are ignored.
Therefore, it oughtn't depend on even where even the single unit is.
In determining if AN order is valid, sure, it doesn't matter. We can look and say "Is an order of F Con-Bul/ec" a valid way to order Con to the east coast of Bul. Yes it is. But we're talking about the more specific scenario of "what are valid orders for this unit" (which does happen to be somewhere). So IF I have an army in London, what are valid orders for it. That is what we're discussing.
The rest of your post is discussing semantics / word games, and we're not really concerned w the concept of GM trickery here. Like "Yesterday I took my Bell to London for a cleaning." and later alleging to the GM you intended Bel to Lon and the presence of other words before and after it were irrelevant. That's another discussion.
The question of this topic, is "Is A Lon-Bel" a move order in all cases, and I still (I think, agree w you) that it is. So be it that if there is no fleet nearby to convoy it, it is very likely to fail.
The order is fine, it just may not work, whether for that turn (Bel to Lon but no convoy) or forever (Bel to Par).
I think we're in agreement here.
|
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) AceRimmer Nov 19, 11:17 am |
Maslow, I'm going to agree with poobaloo here: your post is discussing semantics / word games.
Chiefly, you seem to be trying to define a difference between invalid and illegal. I'm guessing that your sense of order and precision compels you to discern between the two.
For my part... what I care about is: does the difference affect how an order is actually adjudicated? If it doesn't affect the adjudication, then to be blunt, I don't care.
So, perhaps, I should restate the issue at hand as I see it:
When should a GM declare that a unit's order is unadjudicable and therefore defaults to 'Unit Holds'?
And just to throw a log on the fire, I deny the premise of the following statement, which is alright, because there is no one correct answer (except that the GM's decision is final!):
"you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are"
Adam |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 19, 12:05 pm |
So, perhaps, I should restate the issue at hand as I see it:
When should a GM declare that a unit's order is unadjudicable and therefore defaults to 'Unit Holds'?
Ok, so what would your answer to the ? be?
The manual takes a stab at answering:
Any vague or invalid orders are ignored.
Isn't that pretty clear? Any order is enacted as written, unless it's either vague or invalid, in which case it's ignored.
A Lon-Bel. Vague? No. Invalid? No. So it is enacted as written. If a fleet is in ENG and it orders a convoy, the order may succeed. If not, it'll fail.
A Lon-Mun. Vague? No. Invalid? No. Impossible perhaps, but yet a properly written move order from one province to another which will certainly fail.
A Lon-Neptune. Vague? No. Invalid? Yes. (have no idea where Neptune is on this map). So it is ignored. Unordered unit is considered ordered to Hold.
A Lon-Nor. Vague? Yes. Nor could mean Norway or Norwegian Sea, so it is deemed vague and is ignored. Unordered unit is considered ordered to Hold.
(A GM may consider that one not vague if he considers that an army cannot go to the Norwegian Sea - but vagueness is purely whether it is vague to the GM)
F MAO-Spa. Vague? Yes. Could mean either coast, so ignored, Holds.
F Mar-Spa. Vague? No. Can only go to one coast, so it is not vague. Ordered appropriately.
A Lon-Bol. Vague? Certainly. Bul? Hol? Bel? Any of those would be a slight typo from a valid space, but there is no way to know the intent. Unit Holds.
A Lon-Bra. Vague? Tough one. There is no Bra on the map, but there is Bre, and that seems to make sense, but this would come down to GM interpretation if he considered this vague or not. Personally I think this should be a misorder, as Brest doesn't even contain an 'a' there's no reason to assume this is Bre. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question - FuzzyLogic (Nov 15, 2010, 11:20 am) |
I see the logic, it just seems you should be able to determine if a unit's order is valid w/o regard for other units' positions. i.e. you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are".
My answer would be YES, A Lon-Bel (with an army in Lon) IS a valid, legally written move order. The presence of other units in nearby sea zones may affect the success of this order, but not it's legality as a valid order.
Sure it "cannot be convoyed" by your rules below. But that doesn't mean ordering it to do so is illegal. The move just fails. Same thing w if someone actually in ENG fails to order the convoy order.
The impossibility of the move does not make it illegal or invalid.[Reply] |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) Blueraider0 Nov 19, 01:49 am |
If that's the case, when would an order ever be invalid or illegal? I suppose attempting to move a unit that is not one's own, or ordering a unit that does not exist is invalid, But even then, you say "you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are"." Therefore, it oughtn't depend on even where even the single unit is. If Lon to Bel is a valid order whether a convoy is possible or not, Lon to Bel should be valid whether there is a unit in Lon or not. Lon to Bel is a valid order - but there might not be a unit in London to move (or, a unit of a different Power). The written order is always going to be valid, even if it cannot be implemented.
But I suppose my definition of a valid move order should be stated. Forgive me if I've already used this analogy. I can write 2+2=5. It is a legitimate thing to write. All those symbols exist, and we all understand what is happening. That said, suspending any 1984 references, it is a false statement. Similarly, I can SAY my mother was Harriet Tubman, but she is not. But I can construct the sentence. It has no necessary root in reality, and requires none. Even dividing by zero CAN be written, even if it cannot be done. When something is written, it must be evaluated based on accepted definitions. Then the statement can be verified against known facts. 2+2=5 is false. But are Frxhhz more likely to eat a marshmallow than a Tredkfl? It's an unanswerable question, because two of the terms are undefined. It is not true or false, it's nonsensical.
A move order is X to Y. Perhaps X --> Y or X moves to Y. It is one province, some symbol or word indicating movement, and another province. The first province is the origin, the second the destination. Neptune to G4 is a valid move order, even though it makes absolutely no sense. It cannot be translated onto the board, but the order is not invalid. The best you could do is call it irrelevant.
Even moves traditionally understood as illegal If I am England, it is acceptable for the GM to assume I am ordering my own units. Therefore if I order a different power's unit, the GM has two options. I either mistakenly thought it was mine or am cunningly attempting to use it. In the first case, the order (let's say, Par to Bur) is valid, but irrelevant, because there is no English unit in Par. In the second, the order is irrelevant because I simply cannot under any circumstance order an opponent's unit. But the order is valid anyway, even if my intention was a direct violation of the rules. If I say "FRENCH Par to Bur," is that illegal? It's illegal for the MOVE to happen, but what about the order? That depends on your interpretation of the rule about ordering other units (I actually can't find it in the rulebook. Maybe it's not there, because the whole idea is so clearly against the rules. Battleship doesn't specify you can't yell Fire and then as your opponent panics you look at where there ships are....
The only move I'd say is definitely illegal is a move to Switzerland. Unlike Neptune or G4 or Mushroom Kingdom, the rules explicitly state Switzerland cannot be occupied. Actually, even then MOVING to Switzerland is not forbidden, just occupying it. So the move is only illegal if it would cause the player to occupy it. If two players move to Switzerland and bounce, technically Switzerland remained empty because of the usual game mechanics, not because of any special rules.
Another thought, a Power cannot dislodge or support the dislodgement of its own unit. Therefore Lon to Bel might be illegal because of other units. Let's say Bel to Ruh and Hol supports Lon to Bel and ECH convoys Lon to Bel, all owned by the same Power. Mun goes to Ruh and bounces Bel. Lon to Bel is now illegal, even if Pic and Bur also supported the move.
So except for situations explicitly stated in the rules, I see no reason to declare any moves illegal, and I find the phrase invalid to be misleading. The order is fine, it just may not work, whether for that turn (Bel to Lon but no convoy) or forever (Bel to Par). |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 19, 08:48 am |
We're in agreement here, no? I can't quite tell these examples are so wacky.
Therefore Lon to Bel might be illegal because of other units.
Lon-Bel is valid even if you have your own army in Bel, cuz you could be ordering Bel-Ruh. If Bel-Ruh fails, then Lon-Bel will fail. But it was still a move order, and so an order of Wal S Lon would fail.
The manual does go to the extent to say that ordering a unit into another unit of yours does NOT cut the support. Therefore it is clearly legal to order a move that you absolutely know is impossible to succeed. (Bel-Ruh and Ruh S Mun) Bel-Ruh is still a move order, and Ruh support of Mun is not cut because of the "cannot cut your own support rule". It doesn't say you can't order the movment, just that the support is not cut.
Point is, ordering moves that are "impossible to have the movement succeed" are definitely not disallowed, therefore the impossibility of actual movement resulting from a move order does not rule the order invalid and revert it to Unordered / Hold.
If you order a unit to move, from one province to another, then you have ordered it to move.
If you order Par-Neptune, The GM should look and see if Neptune is a space in this variant. Maybe it is in the "Milky Way" variant. If he can't find a space by that name that is unambiguous (to the GM) then the entire order is ruled invalid and the unit is treated as if unordered.
If that's the case, when would an order ever be invalid or illegal?
Per above. Par-Neptune would be an invalid order. There is no province named Neptune.
I suppose attempting to move a unit that is not one's own, or ordering a unit that does not exist is invalid
Not sure why this example. A GM will skip over flavor text in analyzing orders, including things like "dear GM please accept these orders" - that is not an order in the game sense, it is normal discussion. Orders for anything other than your own units are ignored.
Therefore, it oughtn't depend on even where even the single unit is.
In determining if AN order is valid, sure, it doesn't matter. We can look and say "Is an order of F Con-Bul/ec" a valid way to order Con to the east coast of Bul. Yes it is. But we're talking about the more specific scenario of "what are valid orders for this unit" (which does happen to be somewhere). So IF I have an army in London, what are valid orders for it. That is what we're discussing.
The rest of your post is discussing semantics / word games, and we're not really concerned w the concept of GM trickery here. Like "Yesterday I took my Bell to London for a cleaning." and later alleging to the GM you intended Bel to Lon and the presence of other words before and after it were irrelevant. That's another discussion.
The question of this topic, is "Is A Lon-Bel" a move order in all cases, and I still (I think, agree w you) that it is. So be it that if there is no fleet nearby to convoy it, it is very likely to fail.
The order is fine, it just may not work, whether for that turn (Bel to Lon but no convoy) or forever (Bel to Par).
I think we're in agreement here.
|
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) AceRimmer Nov 19, 11:17 am |
Maslow, I'm going to agree with poobaloo here: your post is discussing semantics / word games.
Chiefly, you seem to be trying to define a difference between invalid and illegal. I'm guessing that your sense of order and precision compels you to discern between the two.
For my part... what I care about is: does the difference affect how an order is actually adjudicated? If it doesn't affect the adjudication, then to be blunt, I don't care.
So, perhaps, I should restate the issue at hand as I see it:
When should a GM declare that a unit's order is unadjudicable and therefore defaults to 'Unit Holds'?
And just to throw a log on the fire, I deny the premise of the following statement, which is alright, because there is no one correct answer (except that the GM's decision is final!):
"you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are"
Adam |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 19, 12:05 pm |
So, perhaps, I should restate the issue at hand as I see it:
When should a GM declare that a unit's order is unadjudicable and therefore defaults to 'Unit Holds'?
Ok, so what would your answer to the ? be?
The manual takes a stab at answering:
Any vague or invalid orders are ignored.
Isn't that pretty clear? Any order is enacted as written, unless it's either vague or invalid, in which case it's ignored.
A Lon-Bel. Vague? No. Invalid? No. So it is enacted as written. If a fleet is in ENG and it orders a convoy, the order may succeed. If not, it'll fail.
A Lon-Mun. Vague? No. Invalid? No. Impossible perhaps, but yet a properly written move order from one province to another which will certainly fail.
A Lon-Neptune. Vague? No. Invalid? Yes. (have no idea where Neptune is on this map). So it is ignored. Unordered unit is considered ordered to Hold.
A Lon-Nor. Vague? Yes. Nor could mean Norway or Norwegian Sea, so it is deemed vague and is ignored. Unordered unit is considered ordered to Hold.
(A GM may consider that one not vague if he considers that an army cannot go to the Norwegian Sea - but vagueness is purely whether it is vague to the GM)
F MAO-Spa. Vague? Yes. Could mean either coast, so ignored, Holds.
F Mar-Spa. Vague? No. Can only go to one coast, so it is not vague. Ordered appropriately.
A Lon-Bol. Vague? Certainly. Bul? Hol? Bel? Any of those would be a slight typo from a valid space, but there is no way to know the intent. Unit Holds.
A Lon-Bra. Vague? Tough one. There is no Bra on the map, but there is Bre, and that seems to make sense, but this would come down to GM interpretation if he considered this vague or not. Personally I think this should be a misorder, as Brest doesn't even contain an 'a' there's no reason to assume this is Bre. |
| Reply notification - AceRimmer (Nov 15, 2010, 10:56 am) |
"I would insist that the valid set of moves for a unit are not dependent on the lack or presence of other units. I think if you order A Lon-Pic, even if there is no fleet in ENG, it is as valid a move order as any."
That's how Maslow argued it in our conversation before posting it to the community, too.
"So are you saying, Adam, that if Lon-Pic, and no F ENG, you would order that as invalid and therefore Holds?"
Yes, I would.
I should note, this is different from the common GM practice of not interpreting a unit's order based on the *orders* of another unit. What I'm suggesting is that I'm interpreting a unit's order based on the *presence* of another unit.
In a manner, I think this interpretation is a corollary to that of ruling A Bel-Par as invalid (which has been discussed earlier in this forum thread). According to the rules:
"An Army can be ordered to move into an adjacent inland or coast province... [or] across water provinces from one coastal province to another via one or more Fleets. This is called a "convoy.""
By this, we note that Paris is neither adjacent to Belgium, nor is it an eligible destination for a convoy. Therefore, A Bel-Par is invalid, and the unit holds. (Note: we assume that the above rule is complete).
So, returning to the impossible convoy of A BEL-NAF when there is no fleet in MAO, the rules state:
"If Fleets occupy adjacent water provinces, an Army can be convoyed through all these water provinces on one turn, landing in a coastal province adjacent to the final Fleet in the chain."
Combining the two rules, and beginning with the first, we note that North Africa is not adjacent to Belgium, so a direct move is (obviously) impossible. However, they are both coastal provinces, so a convoy could be possible. Unfortunately, switching to the rule for convoys across several water provinces, we can clearly see that there is not a chain of fleets between BEL and NAF. Therefore, assuming this second rule is complete unto itself, an army _cannot_ be convoyed when there are no fleets present to make the convoy.
The second rule does not conflict with the first, because the first clearly refers to coast-to-coast movement as a convoy and implicitly assumes that all pre-conditions for a convoy have been satisfied.
At least, that's how I see it
In closing, I want to clarify:
A BEL-ECH-MAO-NAF is invalid if there is no fleet in MAO.
A BEL-ECH-MAO-NAF is valid if there are fleets in both ECH and MAO, even if those fleets do not attempt to convoy the army.[Reply] |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 15, 11:20 am |
I see the logic, it just seems you should be able to determine if a unit's order is valid w/o regard for other units' positions. i.e. you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are".
My answer would be YES, A Lon-Bel (with an army in Lon) IS a valid, legally written move order. The presence of other units in nearby sea zones may affect the success of this order, but not it's legality as a valid order.
Sure it "cannot be convoyed" by your rules below. But that doesn't mean ordering it to do so is illegal. The move just fails. Same thing w if someone actually in ENG fails to order the convoy order.
The impossibility of the move does not make it illegal or invalid. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) Blueraider0 Nov 19, 01:49 am |
If that's the case, when would an order ever be invalid or illegal? I suppose attempting to move a unit that is not one's own, or ordering a unit that does not exist is invalid, But even then, you say "you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are"." Therefore, it oughtn't depend on even where even the single unit is. If Lon to Bel is a valid order whether a convoy is possible or not, Lon to Bel should be valid whether there is a unit in Lon or not. Lon to Bel is a valid order - but there might not be a unit in London to move (or, a unit of a different Power). The written order is always going to be valid, even if it cannot be implemented.
But I suppose my definition of a valid move order should be stated. Forgive me if I've already used this analogy. I can write 2+2=5. It is a legitimate thing to write. All those symbols exist, and we all understand what is happening. That said, suspending any 1984 references, it is a false statement. Similarly, I can SAY my mother was Harriet Tubman, but she is not. But I can construct the sentence. It has no necessary root in reality, and requires none. Even dividing by zero CAN be written, even if it cannot be done. When something is written, it must be evaluated based on accepted definitions. Then the statement can be verified against known facts. 2+2=5 is false. But are Frxhhz more likely to eat a marshmallow than a Tredkfl? It's an unanswerable question, because two of the terms are undefined. It is not true or false, it's nonsensical.
A move order is X to Y. Perhaps X --> Y or X moves to Y. It is one province, some symbol or word indicating movement, and another province. The first province is the origin, the second the destination. Neptune to G4 is a valid move order, even though it makes absolutely no sense. It cannot be translated onto the board, but the order is not invalid. The best you could do is call it irrelevant.
Even moves traditionally understood as illegal If I am England, it is acceptable for the GM to assume I am ordering my own units. Therefore if I order a different power's unit, the GM has two options. I either mistakenly thought it was mine or am cunningly attempting to use it. In the first case, the order (let's say, Par to Bur) is valid, but irrelevant, because there is no English unit in Par. In the second, the order is irrelevant because I simply cannot under any circumstance order an opponent's unit. But the order is valid anyway, even if my intention was a direct violation of the rules. If I say "FRENCH Par to Bur," is that illegal? It's illegal for the MOVE to happen, but what about the order? That depends on your interpretation of the rule about ordering other units (I actually can't find it in the rulebook. Maybe it's not there, because the whole idea is so clearly against the rules. Battleship doesn't specify you can't yell Fire and then as your opponent panics you look at where there ships are....
The only move I'd say is definitely illegal is a move to Switzerland. Unlike Neptune or G4 or Mushroom Kingdom, the rules explicitly state Switzerland cannot be occupied. Actually, even then MOVING to Switzerland is not forbidden, just occupying it. So the move is only illegal if it would cause the player to occupy it. If two players move to Switzerland and bounce, technically Switzerland remained empty because of the usual game mechanics, not because of any special rules.
Another thought, a Power cannot dislodge or support the dislodgement of its own unit. Therefore Lon to Bel might be illegal because of other units. Let's say Bel to Ruh and Hol supports Lon to Bel and ECH convoys Lon to Bel, all owned by the same Power. Mun goes to Ruh and bounces Bel. Lon to Bel is now illegal, even if Pic and Bur also supported the move.
So except for situations explicitly stated in the rules, I see no reason to declare any moves illegal, and I find the phrase invalid to be misleading. The order is fine, it just may not work, whether for that turn (Bel to Lon but no convoy) or forever (Bel to Par). |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 19, 08:48 am |
We're in agreement here, no? I can't quite tell these examples are so wacky.
Therefore Lon to Bel might be illegal because of other units.
Lon-Bel is valid even if you have your own army in Bel, cuz you could be ordering Bel-Ruh. If Bel-Ruh fails, then Lon-Bel will fail. But it was still a move order, and so an order of Wal S Lon would fail.
The manual does go to the extent to say that ordering a unit into another unit of yours does NOT cut the support. Therefore it is clearly legal to order a move that you absolutely know is impossible to succeed. (Bel-Ruh and Ruh S Mun) Bel-Ruh is still a move order, and Ruh support of Mun is not cut because of the "cannot cut your own support rule". It doesn't say you can't order the movment, just that the support is not cut.
Point is, ordering moves that are "impossible to have the movement succeed" are definitely not disallowed, therefore the impossibility of actual movement resulting from a move order does not rule the order invalid and revert it to Unordered / Hold.
If you order a unit to move, from one province to another, then you have ordered it to move.
If you order Par-Neptune, The GM should look and see if Neptune is a space in this variant. Maybe it is in the "Milky Way" variant. If he can't find a space by that name that is unambiguous (to the GM) then the entire order is ruled invalid and the unit is treated as if unordered.
If that's the case, when would an order ever be invalid or illegal?
Per above. Par-Neptune would be an invalid order. There is no province named Neptune.
I suppose attempting to move a unit that is not one's own, or ordering a unit that does not exist is invalid
Not sure why this example. A GM will skip over flavor text in analyzing orders, including things like "dear GM please accept these orders" - that is not an order in the game sense, it is normal discussion. Orders for anything other than your own units are ignored.
Therefore, it oughtn't depend on even where even the single unit is.
In determining if AN order is valid, sure, it doesn't matter. We can look and say "Is an order of F Con-Bul/ec" a valid way to order Con to the east coast of Bul. Yes it is. But we're talking about the more specific scenario of "what are valid orders for this unit" (which does happen to be somewhere). So IF I have an army in London, what are valid orders for it. That is what we're discussing.
The rest of your post is discussing semantics / word games, and we're not really concerned w the concept of GM trickery here. Like "Yesterday I took my Bell to London for a cleaning." and later alleging to the GM you intended Bel to Lon and the presence of other words before and after it were irrelevant. That's another discussion.
The question of this topic, is "Is A Lon-Bel" a move order in all cases, and I still (I think, agree w you) that it is. So be it that if there is no fleet nearby to convoy it, it is very likely to fail.
The order is fine, it just may not work, whether for that turn (Bel to Lon but no convoy) or forever (Bel to Par).
I think we're in agreement here.
|
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) AceRimmer Nov 19, 11:17 am |
Maslow, I'm going to agree with poobaloo here: your post is discussing semantics / word games.
Chiefly, you seem to be trying to define a difference between invalid and illegal. I'm guessing that your sense of order and precision compels you to discern between the two.
For my part... what I care about is: does the difference affect how an order is actually adjudicated? If it doesn't affect the adjudication, then to be blunt, I don't care.
So, perhaps, I should restate the issue at hand as I see it:
When should a GM declare that a unit's order is unadjudicable and therefore defaults to 'Unit Holds'?
And just to throw a log on the fire, I deny the premise of the following statement, which is alright, because there is no one correct answer (except that the GM's decision is final!):
"you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are"
Adam |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 19, 12:05 pm |
So, perhaps, I should restate the issue at hand as I see it:
When should a GM declare that a unit's order is unadjudicable and therefore defaults to 'Unit Holds'?
Ok, so what would your answer to the ? be?
The manual takes a stab at answering:
Any vague or invalid orders are ignored.
Isn't that pretty clear? Any order is enacted as written, unless it's either vague or invalid, in which case it's ignored.
A Lon-Bel. Vague? No. Invalid? No. So it is enacted as written. If a fleet is in ENG and it orders a convoy, the order may succeed. If not, it'll fail.
A Lon-Mun. Vague? No. Invalid? No. Impossible perhaps, but yet a properly written move order from one province to another which will certainly fail.
A Lon-Neptune. Vague? No. Invalid? Yes. (have no idea where Neptune is on this map). So it is ignored. Unordered unit is considered ordered to Hold.
A Lon-Nor. Vague? Yes. Nor could mean Norway or Norwegian Sea, so it is deemed vague and is ignored. Unordered unit is considered ordered to Hold.
(A GM may consider that one not vague if he considers that an army cannot go to the Norwegian Sea - but vagueness is purely whether it is vague to the GM)
F MAO-Spa. Vague? Yes. Could mean either coast, so ignored, Holds.
F Mar-Spa. Vague? No. Can only go to one coast, so it is not vague. Ordered appropriately.
A Lon-Bol. Vague? Certainly. Bul? Hol? Bel? Any of those would be a slight typo from a valid space, but there is no way to know the intent. Unit Holds.
A Lon-Bra. Vague? Tough one. There is no Bra on the map, but there is Bre, and that seems to make sense, but this would come down to GM interpretation if he considered this vague or not. Personally I think this should be a misorder, as Brest doesn't even contain an 'a' there's no reason to assume this is Bre. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question - FuzzyLogic (Nov 15, 2010, 9:49 am) |
I would argue that, since there is not an unbroken chain of fleets running from Belgium to NAf, the army's order is invalid and should be treated as A Bel Holds.
I would insist that the valid set of moves for a unit are not dependent on the lack or presence of other units. I think if you order A Lon-Pic, even if there is no fleet in ENG, it is as valid a move order as any.
So are you saying, Adam, that if Lon-Pic, and no F ENG, you would order that as invalid and therefore Holds?
A move that is perfectly valid (and common nonetheless) in many game scenarios?[Reply] |
| Reply notification (Community) AceRimmer Nov 15, 10:56 am |
"I would insist that the valid set of moves for a unit are not dependent on the lack or presence of other units. I think if you order A Lon-Pic, even if there is no fleet in ENG, it is as valid a move order as any."
That's how Maslow argued it in our conversation before posting it to the community, too.
"So are you saying, Adam, that if Lon-Pic, and no F ENG, you would order that as invalid and therefore Holds?"
Yes, I would.
I should note, this is different from the common GM practice of not interpreting a unit's order based on the *orders* of another unit. What I'm suggesting is that I'm interpreting a unit's order based on the *presence* of another unit.
In a manner, I think this interpretation is a corollary to that of ruling A Bel-Par as invalid (which has been discussed earlier in this forum thread). According to the rules:
"An Army can be ordered to move into an adjacent inland or coast province... [or] across water provinces from one coastal province to another via one or more Fleets. This is called a "convoy.""
By this, we note that Paris is neither adjacent to Belgium, nor is it an eligible destination for a convoy. Therefore, A Bel-Par is invalid, and the unit holds. (Note: we assume that the above rule is complete).
So, returning to the impossible convoy of A BEL-NAF when there is no fleet in MAO, the rules state:
"If Fleets occupy adjacent water provinces, an Army can be convoyed through all these water provinces on one turn, landing in a coastal province adjacent to the final Fleet in the chain."
Combining the two rules, and beginning with the first, we note that North Africa is not adjacent to Belgium, so a direct move is (obviously) impossible. However, they are both coastal provinces, so a convoy could be possible. Unfortunately, switching to the rule for convoys across several water provinces, we can clearly see that there is not a chain of fleets between BEL and NAF. Therefore, assuming this second rule is complete unto itself, an army _cannot_ be convoyed when there are no fleets present to make the convoy.
The second rule does not conflict with the first, because the first clearly refers to coast-to-coast movement as a convoy and implicitly assumes that all pre-conditions for a convoy have been satisfied.
At least, that's how I see it
In closing, I want to clarify:
A BEL-ECH-MAO-NAF is invalid if there is no fleet in MAO.
A BEL-ECH-MAO-NAF is valid if there are fleets in both ECH and MAO, even if those fleets do not attempt to convoy the army. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 15, 11:20 am |
I see the logic, it just seems you should be able to determine if a unit's order is valid w/o regard for other units' positions. i.e. you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are".
My answer would be YES, A Lon-Bel (with an army in Lon) IS a valid, legally written move order. The presence of other units in nearby sea zones may affect the success of this order, but not it's legality as a valid order.
Sure it "cannot be convoyed" by your rules below. But that doesn't mean ordering it to do so is illegal. The move just fails. Same thing w if someone actually in ENG fails to order the convoy order.
The impossibility of the move does not make it illegal or invalid. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) Blueraider0 Nov 19, 01:49 am |
If that's the case, when would an order ever be invalid or illegal? I suppose attempting to move a unit that is not one's own, or ordering a unit that does not exist is invalid, But even then, you say "you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are"." Therefore, it oughtn't depend on even where even the single unit is. If Lon to Bel is a valid order whether a convoy is possible or not, Lon to Bel should be valid whether there is a unit in Lon or not. Lon to Bel is a valid order - but there might not be a unit in London to move (or, a unit of a different Power). The written order is always going to be valid, even if it cannot be implemented.
But I suppose my definition of a valid move order should be stated. Forgive me if I've already used this analogy. I can write 2+2=5. It is a legitimate thing to write. All those symbols exist, and we all understand what is happening. That said, suspending any 1984 references, it is a false statement. Similarly, I can SAY my mother was Harriet Tubman, but she is not. But I can construct the sentence. It has no necessary root in reality, and requires none. Even dividing by zero CAN be written, even if it cannot be done. When something is written, it must be evaluated based on accepted definitions. Then the statement can be verified against known facts. 2+2=5 is false. But are Frxhhz more likely to eat a marshmallow than a Tredkfl? It's an unanswerable question, because two of the terms are undefined. It is not true or false, it's nonsensical.
A move order is X to Y. Perhaps X --> Y or X moves to Y. It is one province, some symbol or word indicating movement, and another province. The first province is the origin, the second the destination. Neptune to G4 is a valid move order, even though it makes absolutely no sense. It cannot be translated onto the board, but the order is not invalid. The best you could do is call it irrelevant.
Even moves traditionally understood as illegal If I am England, it is acceptable for the GM to assume I am ordering my own units. Therefore if I order a different power's unit, the GM has two options. I either mistakenly thought it was mine or am cunningly attempting to use it. In the first case, the order (let's say, Par to Bur) is valid, but irrelevant, because there is no English unit in Par. In the second, the order is irrelevant because I simply cannot under any circumstance order an opponent's unit. But the order is valid anyway, even if my intention was a direct violation of the rules. If I say "FRENCH Par to Bur," is that illegal? It's illegal for the MOVE to happen, but what about the order? That depends on your interpretation of the rule about ordering other units (I actually can't find it in the rulebook. Maybe it's not there, because the whole idea is so clearly against the rules. Battleship doesn't specify you can't yell Fire and then as your opponent panics you look at where there ships are....
The only move I'd say is definitely illegal is a move to Switzerland. Unlike Neptune or G4 or Mushroom Kingdom, the rules explicitly state Switzerland cannot be occupied. Actually, even then MOVING to Switzerland is not forbidden, just occupying it. So the move is only illegal if it would cause the player to occupy it. If two players move to Switzerland and bounce, technically Switzerland remained empty because of the usual game mechanics, not because of any special rules.
Another thought, a Power cannot dislodge or support the dislodgement of its own unit. Therefore Lon to Bel might be illegal because of other units. Let's say Bel to Ruh and Hol supports Lon to Bel and ECH convoys Lon to Bel, all owned by the same Power. Mun goes to Ruh and bounces Bel. Lon to Bel is now illegal, even if Pic and Bur also supported the move.
So except for situations explicitly stated in the rules, I see no reason to declare any moves illegal, and I find the phrase invalid to be misleading. The order is fine, it just may not work, whether for that turn (Bel to Lon but no convoy) or forever (Bel to Par). |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 19, 08:48 am |
We're in agreement here, no? I can't quite tell these examples are so wacky.
Therefore Lon to Bel might be illegal because of other units.
Lon-Bel is valid even if you have your own army in Bel, cuz you could be ordering Bel-Ruh. If Bel-Ruh fails, then Lon-Bel will fail. But it was still a move order, and so an order of Wal S Lon would fail.
The manual does go to the extent to say that ordering a unit into another unit of yours does NOT cut the support. Therefore it is clearly legal to order a move that you absolutely know is impossible to succeed. (Bel-Ruh and Ruh S Mun) Bel-Ruh is still a move order, and Ruh support of Mun is not cut because of the "cannot cut your own support rule". It doesn't say you can't order the movment, just that the support is not cut.
Point is, ordering moves that are "impossible to have the movement succeed" are definitely not disallowed, therefore the impossibility of actual movement resulting from a move order does not rule the order invalid and revert it to Unordered / Hold.
If you order a unit to move, from one province to another, then you have ordered it to move.
If you order Par-Neptune, The GM should look and see if Neptune is a space in this variant. Maybe it is in the "Milky Way" variant. If he can't find a space by that name that is unambiguous (to the GM) then the entire order is ruled invalid and the unit is treated as if unordered.
If that's the case, when would an order ever be invalid or illegal?
Per above. Par-Neptune would be an invalid order. There is no province named Neptune.
I suppose attempting to move a unit that is not one's own, or ordering a unit that does not exist is invalid
Not sure why this example. A GM will skip over flavor text in analyzing orders, including things like "dear GM please accept these orders" - that is not an order in the game sense, it is normal discussion. Orders for anything other than your own units are ignored.
Therefore, it oughtn't depend on even where even the single unit is.
In determining if AN order is valid, sure, it doesn't matter. We can look and say "Is an order of F Con-Bul/ec" a valid way to order Con to the east coast of Bul. Yes it is. But we're talking about the more specific scenario of "what are valid orders for this unit" (which does happen to be somewhere). So IF I have an army in London, what are valid orders for it. That is what we're discussing.
The rest of your post is discussing semantics / word games, and we're not really concerned w the concept of GM trickery here. Like "Yesterday I took my Bell to London for a cleaning." and later alleging to the GM you intended Bel to Lon and the presence of other words before and after it were irrelevant. That's another discussion.
The question of this topic, is "Is A Lon-Bel" a move order in all cases, and I still (I think, agree w you) that it is. So be it that if there is no fleet nearby to convoy it, it is very likely to fail.
The order is fine, it just may not work, whether for that turn (Bel to Lon but no convoy) or forever (Bel to Par).
I think we're in agreement here.
|
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) AceRimmer Nov 19, 11:17 am |
Maslow, I'm going to agree with poobaloo here: your post is discussing semantics / word games.
Chiefly, you seem to be trying to define a difference between invalid and illegal. I'm guessing that your sense of order and precision compels you to discern between the two.
For my part... what I care about is: does the difference affect how an order is actually adjudicated? If it doesn't affect the adjudication, then to be blunt, I don't care.
So, perhaps, I should restate the issue at hand as I see it:
When should a GM declare that a unit's order is unadjudicable and therefore defaults to 'Unit Holds'?
And just to throw a log on the fire, I deny the premise of the following statement, which is alright, because there is no one correct answer (except that the GM's decision is final!):
"you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are"
Adam |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 19, 12:05 pm |
So, perhaps, I should restate the issue at hand as I see it:
When should a GM declare that a unit's order is unadjudicable and therefore defaults to 'Unit Holds'?
Ok, so what would your answer to the ? be?
The manual takes a stab at answering:
Any vague or invalid orders are ignored.
Isn't that pretty clear? Any order is enacted as written, unless it's either vague or invalid, in which case it's ignored.
A Lon-Bel. Vague? No. Invalid? No. So it is enacted as written. If a fleet is in ENG and it orders a convoy, the order may succeed. If not, it'll fail.
A Lon-Mun. Vague? No. Invalid? No. Impossible perhaps, but yet a properly written move order from one province to another which will certainly fail.
A Lon-Neptune. Vague? No. Invalid? Yes. (have no idea where Neptune is on this map). So it is ignored. Unordered unit is considered ordered to Hold.
A Lon-Nor. Vague? Yes. Nor could mean Norway or Norwegian Sea, so it is deemed vague and is ignored. Unordered unit is considered ordered to Hold.
(A GM may consider that one not vague if he considers that an army cannot go to the Norwegian Sea - but vagueness is purely whether it is vague to the GM)
F MAO-Spa. Vague? Yes. Could mean either coast, so ignored, Holds.
F Mar-Spa. Vague? No. Can only go to one coast, so it is not vague. Ordered appropriately.
A Lon-Bol. Vague? Certainly. Bul? Hol? Bel? Any of those would be a slight typo from a valid space, but there is no way to know the intent. Unit Holds.
A Lon-Bra. Vague? Tough one. There is no Bra on the map, but there is Bre, and that seems to make sense, but this would come down to GM interpretation if he considered this vague or not. Personally I think this should be a misorder, as Brest doesn't even contain an 'a' there's no reason to assume this is Bre. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question - Blueraider0 (Nov 13, 2010, 12:12 am) |
Aahhhh, dang it I apparently didn't actually post my response. Crud, and it was so brilliant and funny and intellectually stunning! Well, here's take 2. And if it sucks, just know there is a better version somewhere in the ether. Just out of reach...
So initially I thought Adam's comeback was pretty good. It seems to destroy my puzzle pretty quickly. But looking at the wording, it does nothing of the sort. If anything, it further complicates the matter. If the unit COULD move to a province via convoy (as described before), then the support should be relevant. But if the unit is actually convoyed, then the support is invalid per Adam's reference. We can see how this would really screw things up, perhaps forcing Nth to convoy a foreign unit against itself in Lon to prevent that unit from giving support against Lon. And then maybe that player outsmarts the Nth player and actually orders TO Lon, sabotaging the saboteur.
Now obviously what I am saying is wrong. There is no way NAf can support Yor to Lon just because there is a fleet in MAO and ECH. I bring it up to say the rules are very unclear in many instances. As for the original rules reference from Sims, if the rule was "A unit can give support to or against a province if the provinces border AND if the unit (army or fleet (on a certain coast if applicable)) in the province of origin could move to the destination this turn." This clarifies the whole situation. But that is not as the rule is written, and I think we should discuss that.
On that, the cited rule really only forbids something like Nth C Bel S Pic to Lon. Which is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the word 'could.' Bel COULD move to Lon via Nth, and therefore Bel could support an attack against Lon regardless of what Nth does. Or perhaps a GM might insist Bel COULDN'T actually move because the fleet did something else besides convoy. In that case what if Nth C Bel to Lon? Then Bel can support because it COULD have moved. That's a different situation than Nth C Bel S Pic to Lon. I feel we'd be wrongly applying a specific rule to a larger situation. It's like deducing someone that doesn't like grape juice doesn't like sugar because sugar is in grape juice. It's a pretty huge leap.....[Reply] |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question - AceRimmer (Nov 12, 2010, 10:23 am) |
Generally, I agree with poobaloo's interpretations.
Maslow and I did go back to the rulebook. Maslow pointed out the rule stating "An Army can be ordered to move into an adjacent inland or coastal province" and also "An Army can move across water provinces from one coastal province to another via one or more Fleets." Therefore, by definition, a unit can not be ordered to move from Belgium to Paris (*if* one assumes that the above rules are 100% complete... which is a matter of interpretation).
I countered with the rules stating when a support can be given. The emphasis is on whether a unit is ordered to move or not. And this left me with the same question that Garry asked: Can a unit ordered to move *invalidly* receive support to hold? Is it trying to move? Or does its invalidity make it a holding unit? In fact, I referred to Garry's House Rules in the context of the discussion
In Maslow's interpretation, since invalid orders are, by definition, not allowed, then any invalidly ordered unit reverts to: "Not giving a unit an order is interpreted as ordering it to hold."
This is, by the way, how I interpret invalid orders. Still, what has been missing is an overt statement in the rules that an invalid movement order becomes an order to hold.
Mike Sims cited the following rule: "Any vague or invalid orders are ignored." Unfortunately... that rule appears in a section entitled "Writing Build and Disbandments". It clearly refers specifically to adjustments. There is not a complementary rule for movement orders.
In short... I see no clear correct answer.
Myself, I think that the general practice of "Invalid orders become orders to hold" takes precedence, and I would adjudicate as though all such units were ordered from the outset to hold.
Note: this is *not* how RP works. Or the judges. They will treat an invalid movement order as an attempt to move.
Like others, I agree that the really tricky scenario was A Bel-NAf. The rules say:
"If Fleets occupy adjacent water provinces, an Army can be convoyed through all these water provinces on one turn, landing in a coastal province adjacent to the final Fleet in the chain."
I would argue that, since there is not an unbroken chain of fleets running from Belgium to NAf, the army's order is invalid and should be treated as A Bel Holds.
A final thought: I have never encountered any of these scenarios in a real game. (And I hope that I never do).
Adam[Reply] |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) Blueraider0 Nov 13, 12:12 am |
Aahhhh, dang it I apparently didn't actually post my response. Crud, and it was so brilliant and funny and intellectually stunning! Well, here's take 2. And if it sucks, just know there is a better version somewhere in the ether. Just out of reach...
So initially I thought Adam's comeback was pretty good. It seems to destroy my puzzle pretty quickly. But looking at the wording, it does nothing of the sort. If anything, it further complicates the matter. If the unit COULD move to a province via convoy (as described before), then the support should be relevant. But if the unit is actually convoyed, then the support is invalid per Adam's reference. We can see how this would really screw things up, perhaps forcing Nth to convoy a foreign unit against itself in Lon to prevent that unit from giving support against Lon. And then maybe that player outsmarts the Nth player and actually orders TO Lon, sabotaging the saboteur.
Now obviously what I am saying is wrong. There is no way NAf can support Yor to Lon just because there is a fleet in MAO and ECH. I bring it up to say the rules are very unclear in many instances. As for the original rules reference from Sims, if the rule was "A unit can give support to or against a province if the provinces border AND if the unit (army or fleet (on a certain coast if applicable)) in the province of origin could move to the destination this turn." This clarifies the whole situation. But that is not as the rule is written, and I think we should discuss that.
On that, the cited rule really only forbids something like Nth C Bel S Pic to Lon. Which is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the word 'could.' Bel COULD move to Lon via Nth, and therefore Bel could support an attack against Lon regardless of what Nth does. Or perhaps a GM might insist Bel COULDN'T actually move because the fleet did something else besides convoy. In that case what if Nth C Bel to Lon? Then Bel can support because it COULD have moved. That's a different situation than Nth C Bel S Pic to Lon. I feel we'd be wrongly applying a specific rule to a larger situation. It's like deducing someone that doesn't like grape juice doesn't like sugar because sugar is in grape juice. It's a pretty huge leap..... |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 15, 09:49 am |
I would argue that, since there is not an unbroken chain of fleets running from Belgium to NAf, the army's order is invalid and should be treated as A Bel Holds.
I would insist that the valid set of moves for a unit are not dependent on the lack or presence of other units. I think if you order A Lon-Pic, even if there is no fleet in ENG, it is as valid a move order as any.
So are you saying, Adam, that if Lon-Pic, and no F ENG, you would order that as invalid and therefore Holds?
A move that is perfectly valid (and common nonetheless) in many game scenarios? |
| Reply notification (Community) AceRimmer Nov 15, 10:56 am |
"I would insist that the valid set of moves for a unit are not dependent on the lack or presence of other units. I think if you order A Lon-Pic, even if there is no fleet in ENG, it is as valid a move order as any."
That's how Maslow argued it in our conversation before posting it to the community, too.
"So are you saying, Adam, that if Lon-Pic, and no F ENG, you would order that as invalid and therefore Holds?"
Yes, I would.
I should note, this is different from the common GM practice of not interpreting a unit's order based on the *orders* of another unit. What I'm suggesting is that I'm interpreting a unit's order based on the *presence* of another unit.
In a manner, I think this interpretation is a corollary to that of ruling A Bel-Par as invalid (which has been discussed earlier in this forum thread). According to the rules:
"An Army can be ordered to move into an adjacent inland or coast province... [or] across water provinces from one coastal province to another via one or more Fleets. This is called a "convoy.""
By this, we note that Paris is neither adjacent to Belgium, nor is it an eligible destination for a convoy. Therefore, A Bel-Par is invalid, and the unit holds. (Note: we assume that the above rule is complete).
So, returning to the impossible convoy of A BEL-NAF when there is no fleet in MAO, the rules state:
"If Fleets occupy adjacent water provinces, an Army can be convoyed through all these water provinces on one turn, landing in a coastal province adjacent to the final Fleet in the chain."
Combining the two rules, and beginning with the first, we note that North Africa is not adjacent to Belgium, so a direct move is (obviously) impossible. However, they are both coastal provinces, so a convoy could be possible. Unfortunately, switching to the rule for convoys across several water provinces, we can clearly see that there is not a chain of fleets between BEL and NAF. Therefore, assuming this second rule is complete unto itself, an army _cannot_ be convoyed when there are no fleets present to make the convoy.
The second rule does not conflict with the first, because the first clearly refers to coast-to-coast movement as a convoy and implicitly assumes that all pre-conditions for a convoy have been satisfied.
At least, that's how I see it
In closing, I want to clarify:
A BEL-ECH-MAO-NAF is invalid if there is no fleet in MAO.
A BEL-ECH-MAO-NAF is valid if there are fleets in both ECH and MAO, even if those fleets do not attempt to convoy the army. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 15, 11:20 am |
I see the logic, it just seems you should be able to determine if a unit's order is valid w/o regard for other units' positions. i.e. you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are".
My answer would be YES, A Lon-Bel (with an army in Lon) IS a valid, legally written move order. The presence of other units in nearby sea zones may affect the success of this order, but not it's legality as a valid order.
Sure it "cannot be convoyed" by your rules below. But that doesn't mean ordering it to do so is illegal. The move just fails. Same thing w if someone actually in ENG fails to order the convoy order.
The impossibility of the move does not make it illegal or invalid. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) Blueraider0 Nov 19, 01:49 am |
If that's the case, when would an order ever be invalid or illegal? I suppose attempting to move a unit that is not one's own, or ordering a unit that does not exist is invalid, But even then, you say "you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are"." Therefore, it oughtn't depend on even where even the single unit is. If Lon to Bel is a valid order whether a convoy is possible or not, Lon to Bel should be valid whether there is a unit in Lon or not. Lon to Bel is a valid order - but there might not be a unit in London to move (or, a unit of a different Power). The written order is always going to be valid, even if it cannot be implemented.
But I suppose my definition of a valid move order should be stated. Forgive me if I've already used this analogy. I can write 2+2=5. It is a legitimate thing to write. All those symbols exist, and we all understand what is happening. That said, suspending any 1984 references, it is a false statement. Similarly, I can SAY my mother was Harriet Tubman, but she is not. But I can construct the sentence. It has no necessary root in reality, and requires none. Even dividing by zero CAN be written, even if it cannot be done. When something is written, it must be evaluated based on accepted definitions. Then the statement can be verified against known facts. 2+2=5 is false. But are Frxhhz more likely to eat a marshmallow than a Tredkfl? It's an unanswerable question, because two of the terms are undefined. It is not true or false, it's nonsensical.
A move order is X to Y. Perhaps X --> Y or X moves to Y. It is one province, some symbol or word indicating movement, and another province. The first province is the origin, the second the destination. Neptune to G4 is a valid move order, even though it makes absolutely no sense. It cannot be translated onto the board, but the order is not invalid. The best you could do is call it irrelevant.
Even moves traditionally understood as illegal If I am England, it is acceptable for the GM to assume I am ordering my own units. Therefore if I order a different power's unit, the GM has two options. I either mistakenly thought it was mine or am cunningly attempting to use it. In the first case, the order (let's say, Par to Bur) is valid, but irrelevant, because there is no English unit in Par. In the second, the order is irrelevant because I simply cannot under any circumstance order an opponent's unit. But the order is valid anyway, even if my intention was a direct violation of the rules. If I say "FRENCH Par to Bur," is that illegal? It's illegal for the MOVE to happen, but what about the order? That depends on your interpretation of the rule about ordering other units (I actually can't find it in the rulebook. Maybe it's not there, because the whole idea is so clearly against the rules. Battleship doesn't specify you can't yell Fire and then as your opponent panics you look at where there ships are....
The only move I'd say is definitely illegal is a move to Switzerland. Unlike Neptune or G4 or Mushroom Kingdom, the rules explicitly state Switzerland cannot be occupied. Actually, even then MOVING to Switzerland is not forbidden, just occupying it. So the move is only illegal if it would cause the player to occupy it. If two players move to Switzerland and bounce, technically Switzerland remained empty because of the usual game mechanics, not because of any special rules.
Another thought, a Power cannot dislodge or support the dislodgement of its own unit. Therefore Lon to Bel might be illegal because of other units. Let's say Bel to Ruh and Hol supports Lon to Bel and ECH convoys Lon to Bel, all owned by the same Power. Mun goes to Ruh and bounces Bel. Lon to Bel is now illegal, even if Pic and Bur also supported the move.
So except for situations explicitly stated in the rules, I see no reason to declare any moves illegal, and I find the phrase invalid to be misleading. The order is fine, it just may not work, whether for that turn (Bel to Lon but no convoy) or forever (Bel to Par). |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 19, 08:48 am |
We're in agreement here, no? I can't quite tell these examples are so wacky.
Therefore Lon to Bel might be illegal because of other units.
Lon-Bel is valid even if you have your own army in Bel, cuz you could be ordering Bel-Ruh. If Bel-Ruh fails, then Lon-Bel will fail. But it was still a move order, and so an order of Wal S Lon would fail.
The manual does go to the extent to say that ordering a unit into another unit of yours does NOT cut the support. Therefore it is clearly legal to order a move that you absolutely know is impossible to succeed. (Bel-Ruh and Ruh S Mun) Bel-Ruh is still a move order, and Ruh support of Mun is not cut because of the "cannot cut your own support rule". It doesn't say you can't order the movment, just that the support is not cut.
Point is, ordering moves that are "impossible to have the movement succeed" are definitely not disallowed, therefore the impossibility of actual movement resulting from a move order does not rule the order invalid and revert it to Unordered / Hold.
If you order a unit to move, from one province to another, then you have ordered it to move.
If you order Par-Neptune, The GM should look and see if Neptune is a space in this variant. Maybe it is in the "Milky Way" variant. If he can't find a space by that name that is unambiguous (to the GM) then the entire order is ruled invalid and the unit is treated as if unordered.
If that's the case, when would an order ever be invalid or illegal?
Per above. Par-Neptune would be an invalid order. There is no province named Neptune.
I suppose attempting to move a unit that is not one's own, or ordering a unit that does not exist is invalid
Not sure why this example. A GM will skip over flavor text in analyzing orders, including things like "dear GM please accept these orders" - that is not an order in the game sense, it is normal discussion. Orders for anything other than your own units are ignored.
Therefore, it oughtn't depend on even where even the single unit is.
In determining if AN order is valid, sure, it doesn't matter. We can look and say "Is an order of F Con-Bul/ec" a valid way to order Con to the east coast of Bul. Yes it is. But we're talking about the more specific scenario of "what are valid orders for this unit" (which does happen to be somewhere). So IF I have an army in London, what are valid orders for it. That is what we're discussing.
The rest of your post is discussing semantics / word games, and we're not really concerned w the concept of GM trickery here. Like "Yesterday I took my Bell to London for a cleaning." and later alleging to the GM you intended Bel to Lon and the presence of other words before and after it were irrelevant. That's another discussion.
The question of this topic, is "Is A Lon-Bel" a move order in all cases, and I still (I think, agree w you) that it is. So be it that if there is no fleet nearby to convoy it, it is very likely to fail.
The order is fine, it just may not work, whether for that turn (Bel to Lon but no convoy) or forever (Bel to Par).
I think we're in agreement here.
|
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) AceRimmer Nov 19, 11:17 am |
Maslow, I'm going to agree with poobaloo here: your post is discussing semantics / word games.
Chiefly, you seem to be trying to define a difference between invalid and illegal. I'm guessing that your sense of order and precision compels you to discern between the two.
For my part... what I care about is: does the difference affect how an order is actually adjudicated? If it doesn't affect the adjudication, then to be blunt, I don't care.
So, perhaps, I should restate the issue at hand as I see it:
When should a GM declare that a unit's order is unadjudicable and therefore defaults to 'Unit Holds'?
And just to throw a log on the fire, I deny the premise of the following statement, which is alright, because there is no one correct answer (except that the GM's decision is final!):
"you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are"
Adam |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 19, 12:05 pm |
So, perhaps, I should restate the issue at hand as I see it:
When should a GM declare that a unit's order is unadjudicable and therefore defaults to 'Unit Holds'?
Ok, so what would your answer to the ? be?
The manual takes a stab at answering:
Any vague or invalid orders are ignored.
Isn't that pretty clear? Any order is enacted as written, unless it's either vague or invalid, in which case it's ignored.
A Lon-Bel. Vague? No. Invalid? No. So it is enacted as written. If a fleet is in ENG and it orders a convoy, the order may succeed. If not, it'll fail.
A Lon-Mun. Vague? No. Invalid? No. Impossible perhaps, but yet a properly written move order from one province to another which will certainly fail.
A Lon-Neptune. Vague? No. Invalid? Yes. (have no idea where Neptune is on this map). So it is ignored. Unordered unit is considered ordered to Hold.
A Lon-Nor. Vague? Yes. Nor could mean Norway or Norwegian Sea, so it is deemed vague and is ignored. Unordered unit is considered ordered to Hold.
(A GM may consider that one not vague if he considers that an army cannot go to the Norwegian Sea - but vagueness is purely whether it is vague to the GM)
F MAO-Spa. Vague? Yes. Could mean either coast, so ignored, Holds.
F Mar-Spa. Vague? No. Can only go to one coast, so it is not vague. Ordered appropriately.
A Lon-Bol. Vague? Certainly. Bul? Hol? Bel? Any of those would be a slight typo from a valid space, but there is no way to know the intent. Unit Holds.
A Lon-Bra. Vague? Tough one. There is no Bra on the map, but there is Bre, and that seems to make sense, but this would come down to GM interpretation if he considered this vague or not. Personally I think this should be a misorder, as Brest doesn't even contain an 'a' there's no reason to assume this is Bre. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question - AceRimmer (Nov 12, 2010, 10:14 am) |
Maslow, I'd say that your question is rendered moot by the section of the rules entitled:
"Support" Cannot Be Convoyed.
At least that puzzle is easily solved [Reply] |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question - Blueraider0 (Nov 12, 2010, 2:07 am) |
I won't spoil any of the opinions Adam and I have in store, but I was reviewing the rules per Michael's reference, and found this gem:
"The province to which a unit is providing support must be one to which the supporting unit could have legally moved to that turn." I then considered it and thought up this conundrum:
Let us say there are 3 French units:
A Pic
A Bel
F ECH
There is a unit in Lon, it is not French, and it doesn't matter whose it is because it is holding throughout these examples.
A Pic to Lon
A Bel supports Pic to Lon
F ECH convoys Pic to Lon
This appears as though the Bel support is irrelevant (I use relevant and irrelevant in place of valid/invalid when speaking of supports, and the reasoning will be explained in Adam's post). A shrewd player might point out, though, Bel "could have legally moved to" Lon via ECH. A wise GM would say, no, because ECH can only convoy one unit, and therefore the French player could NOT legally do both moves to Lon, and therefore the support is irrelevant.
What if there is also a French fleet in Nth? Now we can:
Pic to Lon
Bel to Lon
ECH convoys Pic to Lon
Nth convoys Bel to Lon.
Indeed this is wholly legal. Both units can be moved to London. So Bel should be able to provide support. The advantages are obvious, now Nth needs to be dislodged to disrupt the convoy which prevents Bel from reaching Lon for the support to be irrelevant. This requires more than one unit just cutting support....
I guess it depends a lot on the definition of "could." Technically if a foreign fleet in Nth is present, the player could argue the unit in Bel COULD have been convoyed, and therefore the support is relevant, even though it was not. Or the GM could require the convoy to actually have been ordered. Is it that the unit possibly providing the convoy was present, or the the unit possibly providing the convoy actually order it? Once the convoy order is published, the unit COULD move across the water, if it was ordered. But it ordered to support. But it could have gone there, so the support must be relevant, technically speaking.[Reply] |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) AceRimmer Nov 12, 10:14 am |
Maslow, I'd say that your question is rendered moot by the section of the rules entitled:
"Support" Cannot Be Convoyed.
At least that puzzle is easily solved |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question - garry.bledsoe (Nov 11, 2010, 3:29 pm) |
So I have a bit of a different take. I think that the rules are only sort of black and white because they still require a GM to make a decision - does a typo/mistake by the player allow a unit to hold? That is essentially what scenarios 2,3 and 5 are asking a GM to do. #4 is different because the GM should clearly decipher that as a Hold order or NMR (which is a hold)- all funny thing are Hold orders, right?
I guess my problem with it is basically self-correcting a player error which then gives them the power to hold and receive support. A player error should not give them the right to receive support in my opinion (however, I could see it as a diplomatic ploy...oh, darn, I just misordered).
So in that rendering, scenarios 2,3 and 5 are all invalid support orders because they are errors but the attempt to move was there (my opinion). HOWEVER, if you go with the opposite then all three should be valid because of what Sean points out.
Should we put out clarification or let GM's handle it through their house rules as they prefer?
lord of the march[Reply] |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) Blueraider0 Nov 12, 02:07 am |
I won't spoil any of the opinions Adam and I have in store, but I was reviewing the rules per Michael's reference, and found this gem:
"The province to which a unit is providing support must be one to which the supporting unit could have legally moved to that turn." I then considered it and thought up this conundrum:
Let us say there are 3 French units:
A Pic
A Bel
F ECH
There is a unit in Lon, it is not French, and it doesn't matter whose it is because it is holding throughout these examples.
A Pic to Lon
A Bel supports Pic to Lon
F ECH convoys Pic to Lon
This appears as though the Bel support is irrelevant (I use relevant and irrelevant in place of valid/invalid when speaking of supports, and the reasoning will be explained in Adam's post). A shrewd player might point out, though, Bel "could have legally moved to" Lon via ECH. A wise GM would say, no, because ECH can only convoy one unit, and therefore the French player could NOT legally do both moves to Lon, and therefore the support is irrelevant.
What if there is also a French fleet in Nth? Now we can:
Pic to Lon
Bel to Lon
ECH convoys Pic to Lon
Nth convoys Bel to Lon.
Indeed this is wholly legal. Both units can be moved to London. So Bel should be able to provide support. The advantages are obvious, now Nth needs to be dislodged to disrupt the convoy which prevents Bel from reaching Lon for the support to be irrelevant. This requires more than one unit just cutting support....
I guess it depends a lot on the definition of "could." Technically if a foreign fleet in Nth is present, the player could argue the unit in Bel COULD have been convoyed, and therefore the support is relevant, even though it was not. Or the GM could require the convoy to actually have been ordered. Is it that the unit possibly providing the convoy was present, or the the unit possibly providing the convoy actually order it? Once the convoy order is published, the unit COULD move across the water, if it was ordered. But it ordered to support. But it could have gone there, so the support must be relevant, technically speaking. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) AceRimmer Nov 12, 10:14 am |
Maslow, I'd say that your question is rendered moot by the section of the rules entitled:
"Support" Cannot Be Convoyed.
At least that puzzle is easily solved |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question - s2000chops (Nov 11, 2010, 11:25 am) |
I think, for the same reason, that order #2 (with A Bel - Par) should also be valid. Par is not a valid destination from Belgium, so the move is invalid and the unit holds.
The NAF case is the trickiest one; what's the wording on armies being convoyed?[Reply] |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) garry.bledsoe Nov 11, 03:29 pm |
So I have a bit of a different take. I think that the rules are only sort of black and white because they still require a GM to make a decision - does a typo/mistake by the player allow a unit to hold? That is essentially what scenarios 2,3 and 5 are asking a GM to do. #4 is different because the GM should clearly decipher that as a Hold order or NMR (which is a hold)- all funny thing are Hold orders, right?
I guess my problem with it is basically self-correcting a player error which then gives them the power to hold and receive support. A player error should not give them the right to receive support in my opinion (however, I could see it as a diplomatic ploy...oh, darn, I just misordered).
So in that rendering, scenarios 2,3 and 5 are all invalid support orders because they are errors but the attempt to move was there (my opinion). HOWEVER, if you go with the opposite then all three should be valid because of what Sean points out.
Should we put out clarification or let GM's handle it through their house rules as they prefer?
lord of the march |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) Blueraider0 Nov 12, 02:07 am |
I won't spoil any of the opinions Adam and I have in store, but I was reviewing the rules per Michael's reference, and found this gem:
"The province to which a unit is providing support must be one to which the supporting unit could have legally moved to that turn." I then considered it and thought up this conundrum:
Let us say there are 3 French units:
A Pic
A Bel
F ECH
There is a unit in Lon, it is not French, and it doesn't matter whose it is because it is holding throughout these examples.
A Pic to Lon
A Bel supports Pic to Lon
F ECH convoys Pic to Lon
This appears as though the Bel support is irrelevant (I use relevant and irrelevant in place of valid/invalid when speaking of supports, and the reasoning will be explained in Adam's post). A shrewd player might point out, though, Bel "could have legally moved to" Lon via ECH. A wise GM would say, no, because ECH can only convoy one unit, and therefore the French player could NOT legally do both moves to Lon, and therefore the support is irrelevant.
What if there is also a French fleet in Nth? Now we can:
Pic to Lon
Bel to Lon
ECH convoys Pic to Lon
Nth convoys Bel to Lon.
Indeed this is wholly legal. Both units can be moved to London. So Bel should be able to provide support. The advantages are obvious, now Nth needs to be dislodged to disrupt the convoy which prevents Bel from reaching Lon for the support to be irrelevant. This requires more than one unit just cutting support....
I guess it depends a lot on the definition of "could." Technically if a foreign fleet in Nth is present, the player could argue the unit in Bel COULD have been convoyed, and therefore the support is relevant, even though it was not. Or the GM could require the convoy to actually have been ordered. Is it that the unit possibly providing the convoy was present, or the the unit possibly providing the convoy actually order it? Once the convoy order is published, the unit COULD move across the water, if it was ordered. But it ordered to support. But it could have gone there, so the support must be relevant, technically speaking. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) AceRimmer Nov 12, 10:14 am |
Maslow, I'd say that your question is rendered moot by the section of the rules entitled:
"Support" Cannot Be Convoyed.
At least that puzzle is easily solved |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question - FuzzyLogic (Nov 10, 2010, 9:54 pm) |
Upon further review, I believe even #5 is clear:
An Army can be ordered to move into an adjacent inland or coastal province.
and...
A Fleet can be ordered to move to an adjacent water province or coastal province.
So the manual defines movement as only valid when ordering to an ADJACENT province. (not to the province itself). So Bel-Bel is definitely not a valid move order. The unit holds, support for it holding is valid.[Reply] |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) s2000chops Nov 11, 11:25 am |
I think, for the same reason, that order #2 (with A Bel - Par) should also be valid. Par is not a valid destination from Belgium, so the move is invalid and the unit holds.
The NAF case is the trickiest one; what's the wording on armies being convoyed? |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) garry.bledsoe Nov 11, 03:29 pm |
So I have a bit of a different take. I think that the rules are only sort of black and white because they still require a GM to make a decision - does a typo/mistake by the player allow a unit to hold? That is essentially what scenarios 2,3 and 5 are asking a GM to do. #4 is different because the GM should clearly decipher that as a Hold order or NMR (which is a hold)- all funny thing are Hold orders, right?
I guess my problem with it is basically self-correcting a player error which then gives them the power to hold and receive support. A player error should not give them the right to receive support in my opinion (however, I could see it as a diplomatic ploy...oh, darn, I just misordered).
So in that rendering, scenarios 2,3 and 5 are all invalid support orders because they are errors but the attempt to move was there (my opinion). HOWEVER, if you go with the opposite then all three should be valid because of what Sean points out.
Should we put out clarification or let GM's handle it through their house rules as they prefer?
lord of the march |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) Blueraider0 Nov 12, 02:07 am |
I won't spoil any of the opinions Adam and I have in store, but I was reviewing the rules per Michael's reference, and found this gem:
"The province to which a unit is providing support must be one to which the supporting unit could have legally moved to that turn." I then considered it and thought up this conundrum:
Let us say there are 3 French units:
A Pic
A Bel
F ECH
There is a unit in Lon, it is not French, and it doesn't matter whose it is because it is holding throughout these examples.
A Pic to Lon
A Bel supports Pic to Lon
F ECH convoys Pic to Lon
This appears as though the Bel support is irrelevant (I use relevant and irrelevant in place of valid/invalid when speaking of supports, and the reasoning will be explained in Adam's post). A shrewd player might point out, though, Bel "could have legally moved to" Lon via ECH. A wise GM would say, no, because ECH can only convoy one unit, and therefore the French player could NOT legally do both moves to Lon, and therefore the support is irrelevant.
What if there is also a French fleet in Nth? Now we can:
Pic to Lon
Bel to Lon
ECH convoys Pic to Lon
Nth convoys Bel to Lon.
Indeed this is wholly legal. Both units can be moved to London. So Bel should be able to provide support. The advantages are obvious, now Nth needs to be dislodged to disrupt the convoy which prevents Bel from reaching Lon for the support to be irrelevant. This requires more than one unit just cutting support....
I guess it depends a lot on the definition of "could." Technically if a foreign fleet in Nth is present, the player could argue the unit in Bel COULD have been convoyed, and therefore the support is relevant, even though it was not. Or the GM could require the convoy to actually have been ordered. Is it that the unit possibly providing the convoy was present, or the the unit possibly providing the convoy actually order it? Once the convoy order is published, the unit COULD move across the water, if it was ordered. But it ordered to support. But it could have gone there, so the support must be relevant, technically speaking. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) AceRimmer Nov 12, 10:14 am |
Maslow, I'd say that your question is rendered moot by the section of the rules entitled:
"Support" Cannot Be Convoyed.
At least that puzzle is easily solved |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question - FuzzyLogic (Nov 10, 2010, 9:39 pm) |
The pertinent rules are:
(1) A unit not ordered to move can be supported by a support order that only mentions its province. A unit that is ordered to hold, convoy, support, or not ordered at all can receive support in holding its position. For example, if the order is written “F Den S F Bal,” then the Fleet in Denmark will support the Fleet in the Baltic Sea as long as the Fleet in the Baltic is holding, convoying, or supporting. If the Fleet in the Baltic attempts to move, then the support from Denmark is invalid.
And...
(2) A unit ordered to move can only be supported by a support order that matches the move the unit is trying to make. For example, an Army in Bohemia is ordered to support an Army in Munich in its move to Silesia (A Boh S A Mun–Sil). However, the Army in Munich is ordered to move to Tyrolia instead (A Mun–Tyr). The support order fails because the move it’s supporting isn’t the move that was ordered. This support order doesn’t become a support order to hold.
Case 1:
Germany: A Bel-Lon.
Support of Bel Holding FAILS.
Clearly, A Bel ordered to London, and the support order does not meet the requirements of (2) above. The support order fails. Ruh simply is not adjacent to Lon, and thus it couldn't even support the Bel moving to Lon if it wanted to.
Case 2:
Germany: A Bel-Par.
Support of Bel Holding FAILS.
Same as case 1. Ruh could have supported Bel-Par, but it didn't do that.
Case 3:
A Bel-Naf
Support of Bel Holding FAILS.
Still nothing different here. Bel ordered to move. The support didn't match. CLEARLY fails per the rulebook (2) above.
Case 4:
A Bel-Neptune.
A Bel-Neptune is invalid.
Per the manual again,
Any vague or invalid orders are ignored.
This order is both not clear AND invalid, and thus it is ignored. The order is completely ignored. Later in the manual, we have:
Not giving a unit an order is interpreted as ordering it to hold.
Because Bel was not given an order (the only order given was ignored, thus it has no order) is ordered to hold. Since Bel Holds, Ruh S Bel is VALID.
Case 5:
A Bel-Bel
Not EXPLICITLY covered in the manual, but the manual does go to the extent to define that a MOVE order involves moving from one province to another, and it gives the example that an army in Paris could order to move to Pic, Bre, Bur, or Gas (not "move" to it's own space Paris).
Thus this order is simply invalid and the unit Holds.
Support for Bel Holds is VALID.
Case 6:
Germany: A Bel - no order received
Support for Bel Holds is DEFINITELY VALID.
Manual is clear that an unordered unit is by default ORDERED to HOLD. So supporting an unordered unit in place is perfectly valid.
That's my take! It is my opinions, but I don't see much room for debate on these they're all pretty clearly explained by the manual, aside from #5 which is clear only by similar example in the manual, not explicit statement.[Reply] |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 10, 09:54 pm |
Upon further review, I believe even #5 is clear:
An Army can be ordered to move into an adjacent inland or coastal province.
and...
A Fleet can be ordered to move to an adjacent water province or coastal province.
So the manual defines movement as only valid when ordering to an ADJACENT province. (not to the province itself). So Bel-Bel is definitely not a valid move order. The unit holds, support for it holding is valid. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) s2000chops Nov 11, 11:25 am |
I think, for the same reason, that order #2 (with A Bel - Par) should also be valid. Par is not a valid destination from Belgium, so the move is invalid and the unit holds.
The NAF case is the trickiest one; what's the wording on armies being convoyed? |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) garry.bledsoe Nov 11, 03:29 pm |
So I have a bit of a different take. I think that the rules are only sort of black and white because they still require a GM to make a decision - does a typo/mistake by the player allow a unit to hold? That is essentially what scenarios 2,3 and 5 are asking a GM to do. #4 is different because the GM should clearly decipher that as a Hold order or NMR (which is a hold)- all funny thing are Hold orders, right?
I guess my problem with it is basically self-correcting a player error which then gives them the power to hold and receive support. A player error should not give them the right to receive support in my opinion (however, I could see it as a diplomatic ploy...oh, darn, I just misordered).
So in that rendering, scenarios 2,3 and 5 are all invalid support orders because they are errors but the attempt to move was there (my opinion). HOWEVER, if you go with the opposite then all three should be valid because of what Sean points out.
Should we put out clarification or let GM's handle it through their house rules as they prefer?
lord of the march |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) Blueraider0 Nov 12, 02:07 am |
I won't spoil any of the opinions Adam and I have in store, but I was reviewing the rules per Michael's reference, and found this gem:
"The province to which a unit is providing support must be one to which the supporting unit could have legally moved to that turn." I then considered it and thought up this conundrum:
Let us say there are 3 French units:
A Pic
A Bel
F ECH
There is a unit in Lon, it is not French, and it doesn't matter whose it is because it is holding throughout these examples.
A Pic to Lon
A Bel supports Pic to Lon
F ECH convoys Pic to Lon
This appears as though the Bel support is irrelevant (I use relevant and irrelevant in place of valid/invalid when speaking of supports, and the reasoning will be explained in Adam's post). A shrewd player might point out, though, Bel "could have legally moved to" Lon via ECH. A wise GM would say, no, because ECH can only convoy one unit, and therefore the French player could NOT legally do both moves to Lon, and therefore the support is irrelevant.
What if there is also a French fleet in Nth? Now we can:
Pic to Lon
Bel to Lon
ECH convoys Pic to Lon
Nth convoys Bel to Lon.
Indeed this is wholly legal. Both units can be moved to London. So Bel should be able to provide support. The advantages are obvious, now Nth needs to be dislodged to disrupt the convoy which prevents Bel from reaching Lon for the support to be irrelevant. This requires more than one unit just cutting support....
I guess it depends a lot on the definition of "could." Technically if a foreign fleet in Nth is present, the player could argue the unit in Bel COULD have been convoyed, and therefore the support is relevant, even though it was not. Or the GM could require the convoy to actually have been ordered. Is it that the unit possibly providing the convoy was present, or the the unit possibly providing the convoy actually order it? Once the convoy order is published, the unit COULD move across the water, if it was ordered. But it ordered to support. But it could have gone there, so the support must be relevant, technically speaking. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) AceRimmer Nov 12, 10:14 am |
Maslow, I'd say that your question is rendered moot by the section of the rules entitled:
"Support" Cannot Be Convoyed.
At least that puzzle is easily solved |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) AceRimmer Nov 12, 10:23 am |
Generally, I agree with poobaloo's interpretations.
Maslow and I did go back to the rulebook. Maslow pointed out the rule stating "An Army can be ordered to move into an adjacent inland or coastal province" and also "An Army can move across water provinces from one coastal province to another via one or more Fleets." Therefore, by definition, a unit can not be ordered to move from Belgium to Paris (*if* one assumes that the above rules are 100% complete... which is a matter of interpretation).
I countered with the rules stating when a support can be given. The emphasis is on whether a unit is ordered to move or not. And this left me with the same question that Garry asked: Can a unit ordered to move *invalidly* receive support to hold? Is it trying to move? Or does its invalidity make it a holding unit? In fact, I referred to Garry's House Rules in the context of the discussion
In Maslow's interpretation, since invalid orders are, by definition, not allowed, then any invalidly ordered unit reverts to: "Not giving a unit an order is interpreted as ordering it to hold."
This is, by the way, how I interpret invalid orders. Still, what has been missing is an overt statement in the rules that an invalid movement order becomes an order to hold.
Mike Sims cited the following rule: "Any vague or invalid orders are ignored." Unfortunately... that rule appears in a section entitled "Writing Build and Disbandments". It clearly refers specifically to adjustments. There is not a complementary rule for movement orders.
In short... I see no clear correct answer.
Myself, I think that the general practice of "Invalid orders become orders to hold" takes precedence, and I would adjudicate as though all such units were ordered from the outset to hold.
Note: this is *not* how RP works. Or the judges. They will treat an invalid movement order as an attempt to move.
Like others, I agree that the really tricky scenario was A Bel-NAf. The rules say:
"If Fleets occupy adjacent water provinces, an Army can be convoyed through all these water provinces on one turn, landing in a coastal province adjacent to the final Fleet in the chain."
I would argue that, since there is not an unbroken chain of fleets running from Belgium to NAf, the army's order is invalid and should be treated as A Bel Holds.
A final thought: I have never encountered any of these scenarios in a real game. (And I hope that I never do).
Adam |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) Blueraider0 Nov 13, 12:12 am |
Aahhhh, dang it I apparently didn't actually post my response. Crud, and it was so brilliant and funny and intellectually stunning! Well, here's take 2. And if it sucks, just know there is a better version somewhere in the ether. Just out of reach...
So initially I thought Adam's comeback was pretty good. It seems to destroy my puzzle pretty quickly. But looking at the wording, it does nothing of the sort. If anything, it further complicates the matter. If the unit COULD move to a province via convoy (as described before), then the support should be relevant. But if the unit is actually convoyed, then the support is invalid per Adam's reference. We can see how this would really screw things up, perhaps forcing Nth to convoy a foreign unit against itself in Lon to prevent that unit from giving support against Lon. And then maybe that player outsmarts the Nth player and actually orders TO Lon, sabotaging the saboteur.
Now obviously what I am saying is wrong. There is no way NAf can support Yor to Lon just because there is a fleet in MAO and ECH. I bring it up to say the rules are very unclear in many instances. As for the original rules reference from Sims, if the rule was "A unit can give support to or against a province if the provinces border AND if the unit (army or fleet (on a certain coast if applicable)) in the province of origin could move to the destination this turn." This clarifies the whole situation. But that is not as the rule is written, and I think we should discuss that.
On that, the cited rule really only forbids something like Nth C Bel S Pic to Lon. Which is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the word 'could.' Bel COULD move to Lon via Nth, and therefore Bel could support an attack against Lon regardless of what Nth does. Or perhaps a GM might insist Bel COULDN'T actually move because the fleet did something else besides convoy. In that case what if Nth C Bel to Lon? Then Bel can support because it COULD have moved. That's a different situation than Nth C Bel S Pic to Lon. I feel we'd be wrongly applying a specific rule to a larger situation. It's like deducing someone that doesn't like grape juice doesn't like sugar because sugar is in grape juice. It's a pretty huge leap..... |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 15, 09:49 am |
I would argue that, since there is not an unbroken chain of fleets running from Belgium to NAf, the army's order is invalid and should be treated as A Bel Holds.
I would insist that the valid set of moves for a unit are not dependent on the lack or presence of other units. I think if you order A Lon-Pic, even if there is no fleet in ENG, it is as valid a move order as any.
So are you saying, Adam, that if Lon-Pic, and no F ENG, you would order that as invalid and therefore Holds?
A move that is perfectly valid (and common nonetheless) in many game scenarios? |
| Reply notification (Community) AceRimmer Nov 15, 10:56 am |
"I would insist that the valid set of moves for a unit are not dependent on the lack or presence of other units. I think if you order A Lon-Pic, even if there is no fleet in ENG, it is as valid a move order as any."
That's how Maslow argued it in our conversation before posting it to the community, too.
"So are you saying, Adam, that if Lon-Pic, and no F ENG, you would order that as invalid and therefore Holds?"
Yes, I would.
I should note, this is different from the common GM practice of not interpreting a unit's order based on the *orders* of another unit. What I'm suggesting is that I'm interpreting a unit's order based on the *presence* of another unit.
In a manner, I think this interpretation is a corollary to that of ruling A Bel-Par as invalid (which has been discussed earlier in this forum thread). According to the rules:
"An Army can be ordered to move into an adjacent inland or coast province... [or] across water provinces from one coastal province to another via one or more Fleets. This is called a "convoy.""
By this, we note that Paris is neither adjacent to Belgium, nor is it an eligible destination for a convoy. Therefore, A Bel-Par is invalid, and the unit holds. (Note: we assume that the above rule is complete).
So, returning to the impossible convoy of A BEL-NAF when there is no fleet in MAO, the rules state:
"If Fleets occupy adjacent water provinces, an Army can be convoyed through all these water provinces on one turn, landing in a coastal province adjacent to the final Fleet in the chain."
Combining the two rules, and beginning with the first, we note that North Africa is not adjacent to Belgium, so a direct move is (obviously) impossible. However, they are both coastal provinces, so a convoy could be possible. Unfortunately, switching to the rule for convoys across several water provinces, we can clearly see that there is not a chain of fleets between BEL and NAF. Therefore, assuming this second rule is complete unto itself, an army _cannot_ be convoyed when there are no fleets present to make the convoy.
The second rule does not conflict with the first, because the first clearly refers to coast-to-coast movement as a convoy and implicitly assumes that all pre-conditions for a convoy have been satisfied.
At least, that's how I see it
In closing, I want to clarify:
A BEL-ECH-MAO-NAF is invalid if there is no fleet in MAO.
A BEL-ECH-MAO-NAF is valid if there are fleets in both ECH and MAO, even if those fleets do not attempt to convoy the army. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 15, 11:20 am |
I see the logic, it just seems you should be able to determine if a unit's order is valid w/o regard for other units' positions. i.e. you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are".
My answer would be YES, A Lon-Bel (with an army in Lon) IS a valid, legally written move order. The presence of other units in nearby sea zones may affect the success of this order, but not it's legality as a valid order.
Sure it "cannot be convoyed" by your rules below. But that doesn't mean ordering it to do so is illegal. The move just fails. Same thing w if someone actually in ENG fails to order the convoy order.
The impossibility of the move does not make it illegal or invalid. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) Blueraider0 Nov 19, 01:49 am |
If that's the case, when would an order ever be invalid or illegal? I suppose attempting to move a unit that is not one's own, or ordering a unit that does not exist is invalid, But even then, you say "you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are"." Therefore, it oughtn't depend on even where even the single unit is. If Lon to Bel is a valid order whether a convoy is possible or not, Lon to Bel should be valid whether there is a unit in Lon or not. Lon to Bel is a valid order - but there might not be a unit in London to move (or, a unit of a different Power). The written order is always going to be valid, even if it cannot be implemented.
But I suppose my definition of a valid move order should be stated. Forgive me if I've already used this analogy. I can write 2+2=5. It is a legitimate thing to write. All those symbols exist, and we all understand what is happening. That said, suspending any 1984 references, it is a false statement. Similarly, I can SAY my mother was Harriet Tubman, but she is not. But I can construct the sentence. It has no necessary root in reality, and requires none. Even dividing by zero CAN be written, even if it cannot be done. When something is written, it must be evaluated based on accepted definitions. Then the statement can be verified against known facts. 2+2=5 is false. But are Frxhhz more likely to eat a marshmallow than a Tredkfl? It's an unanswerable question, because two of the terms are undefined. It is not true or false, it's nonsensical.
A move order is X to Y. Perhaps X --> Y or X moves to Y. It is one province, some symbol or word indicating movement, and another province. The first province is the origin, the second the destination. Neptune to G4 is a valid move order, even though it makes absolutely no sense. It cannot be translated onto the board, but the order is not invalid. The best you could do is call it irrelevant.
Even moves traditionally understood as illegal If I am England, it is acceptable for the GM to assume I am ordering my own units. Therefore if I order a different power's unit, the GM has two options. I either mistakenly thought it was mine or am cunningly attempting to use it. In the first case, the order (let's say, Par to Bur) is valid, but irrelevant, because there is no English unit in Par. In the second, the order is irrelevant because I simply cannot under any circumstance order an opponent's unit. But the order is valid anyway, even if my intention was a direct violation of the rules. If I say "FRENCH Par to Bur," is that illegal? It's illegal for the MOVE to happen, but what about the order? That depends on your interpretation of the rule about ordering other units (I actually can't find it in the rulebook. Maybe it's not there, because the whole idea is so clearly against the rules. Battleship doesn't specify you can't yell Fire and then as your opponent panics you look at where there ships are....
The only move I'd say is definitely illegal is a move to Switzerland. Unlike Neptune or G4 or Mushroom Kingdom, the rules explicitly state Switzerland cannot be occupied. Actually, even then MOVING to Switzerland is not forbidden, just occupying it. So the move is only illegal if it would cause the player to occupy it. If two players move to Switzerland and bounce, technically Switzerland remained empty because of the usual game mechanics, not because of any special rules.
Another thought, a Power cannot dislodge or support the dislodgement of its own unit. Therefore Lon to Bel might be illegal because of other units. Let's say Bel to Ruh and Hol supports Lon to Bel and ECH convoys Lon to Bel, all owned by the same Power. Mun goes to Ruh and bounces Bel. Lon to Bel is now illegal, even if Pic and Bur also supported the move.
So except for situations explicitly stated in the rules, I see no reason to declare any moves illegal, and I find the phrase invalid to be misleading. The order is fine, it just may not work, whether for that turn (Bel to Lon but no convoy) or forever (Bel to Par). |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 19, 08:48 am |
We're in agreement here, no? I can't quite tell these examples are so wacky.
Therefore Lon to Bel might be illegal because of other units.
Lon-Bel is valid even if you have your own army in Bel, cuz you could be ordering Bel-Ruh. If Bel-Ruh fails, then Lon-Bel will fail. But it was still a move order, and so an order of Wal S Lon would fail.
The manual does go to the extent to say that ordering a unit into another unit of yours does NOT cut the support. Therefore it is clearly legal to order a move that you absolutely know is impossible to succeed. (Bel-Ruh and Ruh S Mun) Bel-Ruh is still a move order, and Ruh support of Mun is not cut because of the "cannot cut your own support rule". It doesn't say you can't order the movment, just that the support is not cut.
Point is, ordering moves that are "impossible to have the movement succeed" are definitely not disallowed, therefore the impossibility of actual movement resulting from a move order does not rule the order invalid and revert it to Unordered / Hold.
If you order a unit to move, from one province to another, then you have ordered it to move.
If you order Par-Neptune, The GM should look and see if Neptune is a space in this variant. Maybe it is in the "Milky Way" variant. If he can't find a space by that name that is unambiguous (to the GM) then the entire order is ruled invalid and the unit is treated as if unordered.
If that's the case, when would an order ever be invalid or illegal?
Per above. Par-Neptune would be an invalid order. There is no province named Neptune.
I suppose attempting to move a unit that is not one's own, or ordering a unit that does not exist is invalid
Not sure why this example. A GM will skip over flavor text in analyzing orders, including things like "dear GM please accept these orders" - that is not an order in the game sense, it is normal discussion. Orders for anything other than your own units are ignored.
Therefore, it oughtn't depend on even where even the single unit is.
In determining if AN order is valid, sure, it doesn't matter. We can look and say "Is an order of F Con-Bul/ec" a valid way to order Con to the east coast of Bul. Yes it is. But we're talking about the more specific scenario of "what are valid orders for this unit" (which does happen to be somewhere). So IF I have an army in London, what are valid orders for it. That is what we're discussing.
The rest of your post is discussing semantics / word games, and we're not really concerned w the concept of GM trickery here. Like "Yesterday I took my Bell to London for a cleaning." and later alleging to the GM you intended Bel to Lon and the presence of other words before and after it were irrelevant. That's another discussion.
The question of this topic, is "Is A Lon-Bel" a move order in all cases, and I still (I think, agree w you) that it is. So be it that if there is no fleet nearby to convoy it, it is very likely to fail.
The order is fine, it just may not work, whether for that turn (Bel to Lon but no convoy) or forever (Bel to Par).
I think we're in agreement here.
|
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) AceRimmer Nov 19, 11:17 am |
Maslow, I'm going to agree with poobaloo here: your post is discussing semantics / word games.
Chiefly, you seem to be trying to define a difference between invalid and illegal. I'm guessing that your sense of order and precision compels you to discern between the two.
For my part... what I care about is: does the difference affect how an order is actually adjudicated? If it doesn't affect the adjudication, then to be blunt, I don't care.
So, perhaps, I should restate the issue at hand as I see it:
When should a GM declare that a unit's order is unadjudicable and therefore defaults to 'Unit Holds'?
And just to throw a log on the fire, I deny the premise of the following statement, which is alright, because there is no one correct answer (except that the GM's decision is final!):
"you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are"
Adam |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 19, 12:05 pm |
So, perhaps, I should restate the issue at hand as I see it:
When should a GM declare that a unit's order is unadjudicable and therefore defaults to 'Unit Holds'?
Ok, so what would your answer to the ? be?
The manual takes a stab at answering:
Any vague or invalid orders are ignored.
Isn't that pretty clear? Any order is enacted as written, unless it's either vague or invalid, in which case it's ignored.
A Lon-Bel. Vague? No. Invalid? No. So it is enacted as written. If a fleet is in ENG and it orders a convoy, the order may succeed. If not, it'll fail.
A Lon-Mun. Vague? No. Invalid? No. Impossible perhaps, but yet a properly written move order from one province to another which will certainly fail.
A Lon-Neptune. Vague? No. Invalid? Yes. (have no idea where Neptune is on this map). So it is ignored. Unordered unit is considered ordered to Hold.
A Lon-Nor. Vague? Yes. Nor could mean Norway or Norwegian Sea, so it is deemed vague and is ignored. Unordered unit is considered ordered to Hold.
(A GM may consider that one not vague if he considers that an army cannot go to the Norwegian Sea - but vagueness is purely whether it is vague to the GM)
F MAO-Spa. Vague? Yes. Could mean either coast, so ignored, Holds.
F Mar-Spa. Vague? No. Can only go to one coast, so it is not vague. Ordered appropriately.
A Lon-Bol. Vague? Certainly. Bul? Hol? Bel? Any of those would be a slight typo from a valid space, but there is no way to know the intent. Unit Holds.
A Lon-Bra. Vague? Tough one. There is no Bra on the map, but there is Bre, and that seems to make sense, but this would come down to GM interpretation if he considered this vague or not. Personally I think this should be a misorder, as Brest doesn't even contain an 'a' there's no reason to assume this is Bre. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question - AceRimmer (Nov 10, 2010, 10:06 am) |
Maslow and I have been having a conversation about supports offered to invalidly ordered units. I am curious what other GMs think. Since we're soliciting opinions, we will wait a little while before venturing our own.
Here are some examples. In each case, say whether the unit in Belgium receives support or cannot receive support. If you can, please explain where you draw the line. There are not (to my knowledge) any correct answers, except for the first one.
In all cases, we'll assume:
France: F ECh S A Pic-Bel, A Pic-Bel
Germany: A Ruh S A Bel
Case 1:
Germany: A Bel-Lon
Case 2:
Germany: A Bel-Par
Case 3:
Germany: A Bel-NAf
(When there is no fleet in MAO)
Case 4:
Germany: A Bel-Neptune
Case 5:
Germany: A Bel-Bel
Case 6:
Germany: A Bel - no order received
(Note: this is not an NMR for Germany, just the unit).
Adam[Reply] |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 10, 09:39 pm |
The pertinent rules are:
(1) A unit not ordered to move can be supported by a support order that only mentions its province. A unit that is ordered to hold, convoy, support, or not ordered at all can receive support in holding its position. For example, if the order is written “F Den S F Bal,” then the Fleet in Denmark will support the Fleet in the Baltic Sea as long as the Fleet in the Baltic is holding, convoying, or supporting. If the Fleet in the Baltic attempts to move, then the support from Denmark is invalid.
And...
(2) A unit ordered to move can only be supported by a support order that matches the move the unit is trying to make. For example, an Army in Bohemia is ordered to support an Army in Munich in its move to Silesia (A Boh S A Mun–Sil). However, the Army in Munich is ordered to move to Tyrolia instead (A Mun–Tyr). The support order fails because the move it’s supporting isn’t the move that was ordered. This support order doesn’t become a support order to hold.
Case 1:
Germany: A Bel-Lon.
Support of Bel Holding FAILS.
Clearly, A Bel ordered to London, and the support order does not meet the requirements of (2) above. The support order fails. Ruh simply is not adjacent to Lon, and thus it couldn't even support the Bel moving to Lon if it wanted to.
Case 2:
Germany: A Bel-Par.
Support of Bel Holding FAILS.
Same as case 1. Ruh could have supported Bel-Par, but it didn't do that.
Case 3:
A Bel-Naf
Support of Bel Holding FAILS.
Still nothing different here. Bel ordered to move. The support didn't match. CLEARLY fails per the rulebook (2) above.
Case 4:
A Bel-Neptune.
A Bel-Neptune is invalid.
Per the manual again,
Any vague or invalid orders are ignored.
This order is both not clear AND invalid, and thus it is ignored. The order is completely ignored. Later in the manual, we have:
Not giving a unit an order is interpreted as ordering it to hold.
Because Bel was not given an order (the only order given was ignored, thus it has no order) is ordered to hold. Since Bel Holds, Ruh S Bel is VALID.
Case 5:
A Bel-Bel
Not EXPLICITLY covered in the manual, but the manual does go to the extent to define that a MOVE order involves moving from one province to another, and it gives the example that an army in Paris could order to move to Pic, Bre, Bur, or Gas (not "move" to it's own space Paris).
Thus this order is simply invalid and the unit Holds.
Support for Bel Holds is VALID.
Case 6:
Germany: A Bel - no order received
Support for Bel Holds is DEFINITELY VALID.
Manual is clear that an unordered unit is by default ORDERED to HOLD. So supporting an unordered unit in place is perfectly valid.
That's my take! It is my opinions, but I don't see much room for debate on these they're all pretty clearly explained by the manual, aside from #5 which is clear only by similar example in the manual, not explicit statement. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 10, 09:54 pm |
Upon further review, I believe even #5 is clear:
An Army can be ordered to move into an adjacent inland or coastal province.
and...
A Fleet can be ordered to move to an adjacent water province or coastal province.
So the manual defines movement as only valid when ordering to an ADJACENT province. (not to the province itself). So Bel-Bel is definitely not a valid move order. The unit holds, support for it holding is valid. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) s2000chops Nov 11, 11:25 am |
I think, for the same reason, that order #2 (with A Bel - Par) should also be valid. Par is not a valid destination from Belgium, so the move is invalid and the unit holds.
The NAF case is the trickiest one; what's the wording on armies being convoyed? |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) garry.bledsoe Nov 11, 03:29 pm |
So I have a bit of a different take. I think that the rules are only sort of black and white because they still require a GM to make a decision - does a typo/mistake by the player allow a unit to hold? That is essentially what scenarios 2,3 and 5 are asking a GM to do. #4 is different because the GM should clearly decipher that as a Hold order or NMR (which is a hold)- all funny thing are Hold orders, right?
I guess my problem with it is basically self-correcting a player error which then gives them the power to hold and receive support. A player error should not give them the right to receive support in my opinion (however, I could see it as a diplomatic ploy...oh, darn, I just misordered).
So in that rendering, scenarios 2,3 and 5 are all invalid support orders because they are errors but the attempt to move was there (my opinion). HOWEVER, if you go with the opposite then all three should be valid because of what Sean points out.
Should we put out clarification or let GM's handle it through their house rules as they prefer?
lord of the march |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) Blueraider0 Nov 12, 02:07 am |
I won't spoil any of the opinions Adam and I have in store, but I was reviewing the rules per Michael's reference, and found this gem:
"The province to which a unit is providing support must be one to which the supporting unit could have legally moved to that turn." I then considered it and thought up this conundrum:
Let us say there are 3 French units:
A Pic
A Bel
F ECH
There is a unit in Lon, it is not French, and it doesn't matter whose it is because it is holding throughout these examples.
A Pic to Lon
A Bel supports Pic to Lon
F ECH convoys Pic to Lon
This appears as though the Bel support is irrelevant (I use relevant and irrelevant in place of valid/invalid when speaking of supports, and the reasoning will be explained in Adam's post). A shrewd player might point out, though, Bel "could have legally moved to" Lon via ECH. A wise GM would say, no, because ECH can only convoy one unit, and therefore the French player could NOT legally do both moves to Lon, and therefore the support is irrelevant.
What if there is also a French fleet in Nth? Now we can:
Pic to Lon
Bel to Lon
ECH convoys Pic to Lon
Nth convoys Bel to Lon.
Indeed this is wholly legal. Both units can be moved to London. So Bel should be able to provide support. The advantages are obvious, now Nth needs to be dislodged to disrupt the convoy which prevents Bel from reaching Lon for the support to be irrelevant. This requires more than one unit just cutting support....
I guess it depends a lot on the definition of "could." Technically if a foreign fleet in Nth is present, the player could argue the unit in Bel COULD have been convoyed, and therefore the support is relevant, even though it was not. Or the GM could require the convoy to actually have been ordered. Is it that the unit possibly providing the convoy was present, or the the unit possibly providing the convoy actually order it? Once the convoy order is published, the unit COULD move across the water, if it was ordered. But it ordered to support. But it could have gone there, so the support must be relevant, technically speaking. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) AceRimmer Nov 12, 10:14 am |
Maslow, I'd say that your question is rendered moot by the section of the rules entitled:
"Support" Cannot Be Convoyed.
At least that puzzle is easily solved |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) AceRimmer Nov 12, 10:23 am |
Generally, I agree with poobaloo's interpretations.
Maslow and I did go back to the rulebook. Maslow pointed out the rule stating "An Army can be ordered to move into an adjacent inland or coastal province" and also "An Army can move across water provinces from one coastal province to another via one or more Fleets." Therefore, by definition, a unit can not be ordered to move from Belgium to Paris (*if* one assumes that the above rules are 100% complete... which is a matter of interpretation).
I countered with the rules stating when a support can be given. The emphasis is on whether a unit is ordered to move or not. And this left me with the same question that Garry asked: Can a unit ordered to move *invalidly* receive support to hold? Is it trying to move? Or does its invalidity make it a holding unit? In fact, I referred to Garry's House Rules in the context of the discussion
In Maslow's interpretation, since invalid orders are, by definition, not allowed, then any invalidly ordered unit reverts to: "Not giving a unit an order is interpreted as ordering it to hold."
This is, by the way, how I interpret invalid orders. Still, what has been missing is an overt statement in the rules that an invalid movement order becomes an order to hold.
Mike Sims cited the following rule: "Any vague or invalid orders are ignored." Unfortunately... that rule appears in a section entitled "Writing Build and Disbandments". It clearly refers specifically to adjustments. There is not a complementary rule for movement orders.
In short... I see no clear correct answer.
Myself, I think that the general practice of "Invalid orders become orders to hold" takes precedence, and I would adjudicate as though all such units were ordered from the outset to hold.
Note: this is *not* how RP works. Or the judges. They will treat an invalid movement order as an attempt to move.
Like others, I agree that the really tricky scenario was A Bel-NAf. The rules say:
"If Fleets occupy adjacent water provinces, an Army can be convoyed through all these water provinces on one turn, landing in a coastal province adjacent to the final Fleet in the chain."
I would argue that, since there is not an unbroken chain of fleets running from Belgium to NAf, the army's order is invalid and should be treated as A Bel Holds.
A final thought: I have never encountered any of these scenarios in a real game. (And I hope that I never do).
Adam |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) Blueraider0 Nov 13, 12:12 am |
Aahhhh, dang it I apparently didn't actually post my response. Crud, and it was so brilliant and funny and intellectually stunning! Well, here's take 2. And if it sucks, just know there is a better version somewhere in the ether. Just out of reach...
So initially I thought Adam's comeback was pretty good. It seems to destroy my puzzle pretty quickly. But looking at the wording, it does nothing of the sort. If anything, it further complicates the matter. If the unit COULD move to a province via convoy (as described before), then the support should be relevant. But if the unit is actually convoyed, then the support is invalid per Adam's reference. We can see how this would really screw things up, perhaps forcing Nth to convoy a foreign unit against itself in Lon to prevent that unit from giving support against Lon. And then maybe that player outsmarts the Nth player and actually orders TO Lon, sabotaging the saboteur.
Now obviously what I am saying is wrong. There is no way NAf can support Yor to Lon just because there is a fleet in MAO and ECH. I bring it up to say the rules are very unclear in many instances. As for the original rules reference from Sims, if the rule was "A unit can give support to or against a province if the provinces border AND if the unit (army or fleet (on a certain coast if applicable)) in the province of origin could move to the destination this turn." This clarifies the whole situation. But that is not as the rule is written, and I think we should discuss that.
On that, the cited rule really only forbids something like Nth C Bel S Pic to Lon. Which is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the word 'could.' Bel COULD move to Lon via Nth, and therefore Bel could support an attack against Lon regardless of what Nth does. Or perhaps a GM might insist Bel COULDN'T actually move because the fleet did something else besides convoy. In that case what if Nth C Bel to Lon? Then Bel can support because it COULD have moved. That's a different situation than Nth C Bel S Pic to Lon. I feel we'd be wrongly applying a specific rule to a larger situation. It's like deducing someone that doesn't like grape juice doesn't like sugar because sugar is in grape juice. It's a pretty huge leap..... |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 15, 09:49 am |
I would argue that, since there is not an unbroken chain of fleets running from Belgium to NAf, the army's order is invalid and should be treated as A Bel Holds.
I would insist that the valid set of moves for a unit are not dependent on the lack or presence of other units. I think if you order A Lon-Pic, even if there is no fleet in ENG, it is as valid a move order as any.
So are you saying, Adam, that if Lon-Pic, and no F ENG, you would order that as invalid and therefore Holds?
A move that is perfectly valid (and common nonetheless) in many game scenarios? |
| Reply notification (Community) AceRimmer Nov 15, 10:56 am |
"I would insist that the valid set of moves for a unit are not dependent on the lack or presence of other units. I think if you order A Lon-Pic, even if there is no fleet in ENG, it is as valid a move order as any."
That's how Maslow argued it in our conversation before posting it to the community, too.
"So are you saying, Adam, that if Lon-Pic, and no F ENG, you would order that as invalid and therefore Holds?"
Yes, I would.
I should note, this is different from the common GM practice of not interpreting a unit's order based on the *orders* of another unit. What I'm suggesting is that I'm interpreting a unit's order based on the *presence* of another unit.
In a manner, I think this interpretation is a corollary to that of ruling A Bel-Par as invalid (which has been discussed earlier in this forum thread). According to the rules:
"An Army can be ordered to move into an adjacent inland or coast province... [or] across water provinces from one coastal province to another via one or more Fleets. This is called a "convoy.""
By this, we note that Paris is neither adjacent to Belgium, nor is it an eligible destination for a convoy. Therefore, A Bel-Par is invalid, and the unit holds. (Note: we assume that the above rule is complete).
So, returning to the impossible convoy of A BEL-NAF when there is no fleet in MAO, the rules state:
"If Fleets occupy adjacent water provinces, an Army can be convoyed through all these water provinces on one turn, landing in a coastal province adjacent to the final Fleet in the chain."
Combining the two rules, and beginning with the first, we note that North Africa is not adjacent to Belgium, so a direct move is (obviously) impossible. However, they are both coastal provinces, so a convoy could be possible. Unfortunately, switching to the rule for convoys across several water provinces, we can clearly see that there is not a chain of fleets between BEL and NAF. Therefore, assuming this second rule is complete unto itself, an army _cannot_ be convoyed when there are no fleets present to make the convoy.
The second rule does not conflict with the first, because the first clearly refers to coast-to-coast movement as a convoy and implicitly assumes that all pre-conditions for a convoy have been satisfied.
At least, that's how I see it
In closing, I want to clarify:
A BEL-ECH-MAO-NAF is invalid if there is no fleet in MAO.
A BEL-ECH-MAO-NAF is valid if there are fleets in both ECH and MAO, even if those fleets do not attempt to convoy the army. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 15, 11:20 am |
I see the logic, it just seems you should be able to determine if a unit's order is valid w/o regard for other units' positions. i.e. you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are".
My answer would be YES, A Lon-Bel (with an army in Lon) IS a valid, legally written move order. The presence of other units in nearby sea zones may affect the success of this order, but not it's legality as a valid order.
Sure it "cannot be convoyed" by your rules below. But that doesn't mean ordering it to do so is illegal. The move just fails. Same thing w if someone actually in ENG fails to order the convoy order.
The impossibility of the move does not make it illegal or invalid. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) Blueraider0 Nov 19, 01:49 am |
If that's the case, when would an order ever be invalid or illegal? I suppose attempting to move a unit that is not one's own, or ordering a unit that does not exist is invalid, But even then, you say "you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are"." Therefore, it oughtn't depend on even where even the single unit is. If Lon to Bel is a valid order whether a convoy is possible or not, Lon to Bel should be valid whether there is a unit in Lon or not. Lon to Bel is a valid order - but there might not be a unit in London to move (or, a unit of a different Power). The written order is always going to be valid, even if it cannot be implemented.
But I suppose my definition of a valid move order should be stated. Forgive me if I've already used this analogy. I can write 2+2=5. It is a legitimate thing to write. All those symbols exist, and we all understand what is happening. That said, suspending any 1984 references, it is a false statement. Similarly, I can SAY my mother was Harriet Tubman, but she is not. But I can construct the sentence. It has no necessary root in reality, and requires none. Even dividing by zero CAN be written, even if it cannot be done. When something is written, it must be evaluated based on accepted definitions. Then the statement can be verified against known facts. 2+2=5 is false. But are Frxhhz more likely to eat a marshmallow than a Tredkfl? It's an unanswerable question, because two of the terms are undefined. It is not true or false, it's nonsensical.
A move order is X to Y. Perhaps X --> Y or X moves to Y. It is one province, some symbol or word indicating movement, and another province. The first province is the origin, the second the destination. Neptune to G4 is a valid move order, even though it makes absolutely no sense. It cannot be translated onto the board, but the order is not invalid. The best you could do is call it irrelevant.
Even moves traditionally understood as illegal If I am England, it is acceptable for the GM to assume I am ordering my own units. Therefore if I order a different power's unit, the GM has two options. I either mistakenly thought it was mine or am cunningly attempting to use it. In the first case, the order (let's say, Par to Bur) is valid, but irrelevant, because there is no English unit in Par. In the second, the order is irrelevant because I simply cannot under any circumstance order an opponent's unit. But the order is valid anyway, even if my intention was a direct violation of the rules. If I say "FRENCH Par to Bur," is that illegal? It's illegal for the MOVE to happen, but what about the order? That depends on your interpretation of the rule about ordering other units (I actually can't find it in the rulebook. Maybe it's not there, because the whole idea is so clearly against the rules. Battleship doesn't specify you can't yell Fire and then as your opponent panics you look at where there ships are....
The only move I'd say is definitely illegal is a move to Switzerland. Unlike Neptune or G4 or Mushroom Kingdom, the rules explicitly state Switzerland cannot be occupied. Actually, even then MOVING to Switzerland is not forbidden, just occupying it. So the move is only illegal if it would cause the player to occupy it. If two players move to Switzerland and bounce, technically Switzerland remained empty because of the usual game mechanics, not because of any special rules.
Another thought, a Power cannot dislodge or support the dislodgement of its own unit. Therefore Lon to Bel might be illegal because of other units. Let's say Bel to Ruh and Hol supports Lon to Bel and ECH convoys Lon to Bel, all owned by the same Power. Mun goes to Ruh and bounces Bel. Lon to Bel is now illegal, even if Pic and Bur also supported the move.
So except for situations explicitly stated in the rules, I see no reason to declare any moves illegal, and I find the phrase invalid to be misleading. The order is fine, it just may not work, whether for that turn (Bel to Lon but no convoy) or forever (Bel to Par). |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 19, 08:48 am |
We're in agreement here, no? I can't quite tell these examples are so wacky.
Therefore Lon to Bel might be illegal because of other units.
Lon-Bel is valid even if you have your own army in Bel, cuz you could be ordering Bel-Ruh. If Bel-Ruh fails, then Lon-Bel will fail. But it was still a move order, and so an order of Wal S Lon would fail.
The manual does go to the extent to say that ordering a unit into another unit of yours does NOT cut the support. Therefore it is clearly legal to order a move that you absolutely know is impossible to succeed. (Bel-Ruh and Ruh S Mun) Bel-Ruh is still a move order, and Ruh support of Mun is not cut because of the "cannot cut your own support rule". It doesn't say you can't order the movment, just that the support is not cut.
Point is, ordering moves that are "impossible to have the movement succeed" are definitely not disallowed, therefore the impossibility of actual movement resulting from a move order does not rule the order invalid and revert it to Unordered / Hold.
If you order a unit to move, from one province to another, then you have ordered it to move.
If you order Par-Neptune, The GM should look and see if Neptune is a space in this variant. Maybe it is in the "Milky Way" variant. If he can't find a space by that name that is unambiguous (to the GM) then the entire order is ruled invalid and the unit is treated as if unordered.
If that's the case, when would an order ever be invalid or illegal?
Per above. Par-Neptune would be an invalid order. There is no province named Neptune.
I suppose attempting to move a unit that is not one's own, or ordering a unit that does not exist is invalid
Not sure why this example. A GM will skip over flavor text in analyzing orders, including things like "dear GM please accept these orders" - that is not an order in the game sense, it is normal discussion. Orders for anything other than your own units are ignored.
Therefore, it oughtn't depend on even where even the single unit is.
In determining if AN order is valid, sure, it doesn't matter. We can look and say "Is an order of F Con-Bul/ec" a valid way to order Con to the east coast of Bul. Yes it is. But we're talking about the more specific scenario of "what are valid orders for this unit" (which does happen to be somewhere). So IF I have an army in London, what are valid orders for it. That is what we're discussing.
The rest of your post is discussing semantics / word games, and we're not really concerned w the concept of GM trickery here. Like "Yesterday I took my Bell to London for a cleaning." and later alleging to the GM you intended Bel to Lon and the presence of other words before and after it were irrelevant. That's another discussion.
The question of this topic, is "Is A Lon-Bel" a move order in all cases, and I still (I think, agree w you) that it is. So be it that if there is no fleet nearby to convoy it, it is very likely to fail.
The order is fine, it just may not work, whether for that turn (Bel to Lon but no convoy) or forever (Bel to Par).
I think we're in agreement here.
|
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) AceRimmer Nov 19, 11:17 am |
Maslow, I'm going to agree with poobaloo here: your post is discussing semantics / word games.
Chiefly, you seem to be trying to define a difference between invalid and illegal. I'm guessing that your sense of order and precision compels you to discern between the two.
For my part... what I care about is: does the difference affect how an order is actually adjudicated? If it doesn't affect the adjudication, then to be blunt, I don't care.
So, perhaps, I should restate the issue at hand as I see it:
When should a GM declare that a unit's order is unadjudicable and therefore defaults to 'Unit Holds'?
And just to throw a log on the fire, I deny the premise of the following statement, which is alright, because there is no one correct answer (except that the GM's decision is final!):
"you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are"
Adam |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 19, 12:05 pm |
So, perhaps, I should restate the issue at hand as I see it:
When should a GM declare that a unit's order is unadjudicable and therefore defaults to 'Unit Holds'?
Ok, so what would your answer to the ? be?
The manual takes a stab at answering:
Any vague or invalid orders are ignored.
Isn't that pretty clear? Any order is enacted as written, unless it's either vague or invalid, in which case it's ignored.
A Lon-Bel. Vague? No. Invalid? No. So it is enacted as written. If a fleet is in ENG and it orders a convoy, the order may succeed. If not, it'll fail.
A Lon-Mun. Vague? No. Invalid? No. Impossible perhaps, but yet a properly written move order from one province to another which will certainly fail.
A Lon-Neptune. Vague? No. Invalid? Yes. (have no idea where Neptune is on this map). So it is ignored. Unordered unit is considered ordered to Hold.
A Lon-Nor. Vague? Yes. Nor could mean Norway or Norwegian Sea, so it is deemed vague and is ignored. Unordered unit is considered ordered to Hold.
(A GM may consider that one not vague if he considers that an army cannot go to the Norwegian Sea - but vagueness is purely whether it is vague to the GM)
F MAO-Spa. Vague? Yes. Could mean either coast, so ignored, Holds.
F Mar-Spa. Vague? No. Can only go to one coast, so it is not vague. Ordered appropriately.
A Lon-Bol. Vague? Certainly. Bul? Hol? Bel? Any of those would be a slight typo from a valid space, but there is no way to know the intent. Unit Holds.
A Lon-Bra. Vague? Tough one. There is no Bra on the map, but there is Bre, and that seems to make sense, but this would come down to GM interpretation if he considered this vague or not. Personally I think this should be a misorder, as Brest doesn't even contain an 'a' there's no reason to assume this is Bre. |
| Dip in classroom - dknemeyer (Oct 15, 2010, 9:43 am) |
In real life I host my company's podcast. This week for our theme "Games and Learning" I had on a high school teacher who has a two week block each year dedicated to playing Diplomacy. Thought some of you might enjoy it:
http://www.goinvo.com/the-digital-life-episode-2/[Reply] |
| Diplomacy World #111 Released! - diplomacyworld (Oct 04, 2010, 4:17 pm) |
Here is my initial Diplomacy World announcement:
Diplomacy World #111, the Fall 2010 Issue, is now available! Inside you'll find:
* Conrad Woodring on one of the most difficult journeys ever to reach a World DipCon
* The final installment of the Known World Demo Game, including all EOG's (from players and commentators)
* Gwen Maggi on how he became world champion...and others on how they didn't.
* Jim O'Kelley on the Rise of the Weasels
* The Epistemology of Strategy by Richard Maltz
* and sooooo much more
Download it now from the official Diplomacy World website at http://www.diplomac yworld.net
...and start thinking about what article you can contribute to the next issue. Or, at the very least, send in a lettter for some feedback!
Happy stabbing!
....and here is what Jim Burgess added when he decided I wasn't being forthcoming enough about how good the issue turned out:
Sure, you can say I'm biased because I'm one of the editors, but there's a great deal of wonderful reading in this issue.
We ended up with a great balance that ranges from Astrology to Epistemology (really!).
There is a rather chilling article from Graham Woodring on how he almost didn't get to World DipCon and lots of other World DipCon and other FTF tournament stories, some great articles on internet diplomacy, articles from people of the long ago Diplomacy past, and one from someone who just found us. And yes, you can check out your Diplomacy sign and ponder Epistemlogy of Diplomacy. All that and the end of the Known World demo game and more from our Postal old fogies and some gorgeous Silver Age press.
Check it out! And start writing something for us for next issue!!
Jim-Bob[Reply] |
| Eternal Sunshine #45 Released - diplomacyworld (Sep 29, 2010, 11:02 am) |
The new October 2010 issue of Eternal Sunshine, #45, is now available in both pdf and html formats. You can find it at:
http://www.whiningkentpigs.com/DW/
Included in this issue is the usual junk, including:
Columns from Paul Milewski, Jack McHugh, and Richard Walkerdine
The start of the new Eternal Sunshine Movie Quote Quiz
Another "You Don't Know Me" Interview
Household updates on new dog Kayza
Game Openings in Diplomacy and Gunboat -> get in before they are gone!
Check it out, send in feedback, write sutff, sign up for games, try the new Movie Quote contest, the hypothetical questions, nominate someone to be the next interview subject....do it![Reply] |
| Next GM? - Sean2010 (Sep 24, 2010, 3:39 pm) |
Michael,
I'm interested in taking a shot at GMing standard since this will be my first attempt at Gming.[Reply] |
| Next GM? - FuzzyLogic (Sep 23, 2010, 12:57 pm) |
Woohoo!
Glad to have ya. Who's after Warren?
Any takers??
-mike[Reply] |
| Next GM? (Community) Sean2010 Sep 24, 03:39 pm |
Michael,
I'm interested in taking a shot at GMing standard since this will be my first attempt at Gming. |
| Next GM? - alwayshunted (Sep 21, 2010, 6:09 pm) |
| Put me on the list for another if you like Mike. [Reply] |
| Next GM? (Community) FuzzyLogic Sep 23, 12:57 pm |
Woohoo!
Glad to have ya. Who's after Warren?
Any takers??
-mike |
| Next GM? (Community) Sean2010 Sep 24, 03:39 pm |
Michael,
I'm interested in taking a shot at GMing standard since this will be my first attempt at Gming. |
| Will someone run a priivate game? - dknemeyer (Sep 20, 2010, 12:22 pm) |
| While I didn't want to take on another full game I would actually be happy to adjudicate in Garry's absence so this game can continued uninterrupted, if it is OK with Garry... [Reply] |
| Will someone run a priivate game? - garry.bledsoe (Sep 20, 2010, 10:18 am) |
Hey...my time away will be from the 13th of Oct to approx. the 29th of Oct. So there would be nothing completed during that time. Other than that I am ready to run it.
g[Reply] |
| Will someone run a priivate game? (Community) dknemeyer Sep 20, 12:22 pm |
| While I didn't want to take on another full game I would actually be happy to adjudicate in Garry's absence so this game can continued uninterrupted, if it is OK with Garry... |
| Next GM? - FuzzyLogic (Sep 18, 2010, 11:37 am) |
It is indeed! Either a Stonehenge or Dark Ages would probly fill fast.
We still need Standard game GMs! Our queue is down to 0 ready in the wings...
-mike[Reply] |
| Next GM? (Community) alwayshunted Sep 21, 06:09 pm |
| Put me on the list for another if you like Mike. |
| Next GM? (Community) FuzzyLogic Sep 23, 12:57 pm |
Woohoo!
Glad to have ya. Who's after Warren?
Any takers??
-mike |
| Next GM? (Community) Sean2010 Sep 24, 03:39 pm |
Michael,
I'm interested in taking a shot at GMing standard since this will be my first attempt at Gming. |
| Will someone run a priivate game? - MrSmiley (Sep 17, 2010, 10:58 am) |
Garry,
Yes! They would be signing up at DC! They have been looking over the site for the last couple weeks.
So that I know what to tell the other players, could we get someone to fill in while you are being strangled...eh hem, I mean getting married? Just kidding. Congrats on the big day coming up!
Will[Reply] |
| Will someone run a priivate game? (Community) garry.bledsoe Sep 20, 10:18 am |
Hey...my time away will be from the 13th of Oct to approx. the 29th of Oct. So there would be nothing completed during that time. Other than that I am ready to run it.
g |
| Will someone run a priivate game? (Community) dknemeyer Sep 20, 12:22 pm |
| While I didn't want to take on another full game I would actually be happy to adjudicate in Garry's absence so this game can continued uninterrupted, if it is OK with Garry... |
