Welcome Guest!  [Log In]  [Sign Up]

Diplomaticcorp Discussion Forum:  Community

(community(at)diplomaticcorp(dot)com)


Post:< 18460 >
Subject:< For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question >
Topic:Community >
Category:General >
Author:Blueraider0
Posted:Nov 12, 2010 at 2:07 am
Viewed:1381 times

  [New Post]  [Reply]  [Quote]

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.

This message is in reply to post 18453:

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

There are 16 Messages in this Thread:


For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (AceRimmer) Nov 10, 10:06 am

For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (FuzzyLogic) Nov 10, 09:39 pm

For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (FuzzyLogic) Nov 10, 09:54 pm

For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (s2000chops) Nov 11, 11:25 am

For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (garry.bledsoe) Nov 11, 03:29 pm

For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Blueraider0) Nov 12, 02:07 am

For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (AceRimmer) Nov 12, 10:14 am

For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (AceRimmer) Nov 12, 10:23 am

For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Blueraider0) Nov 13, 12:12 am

For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (FuzzyLogic) Nov 15, 09:49 am

Reply notification (AceRimmer) Nov 15, 10:56 am

For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (FuzzyLogic) Nov 15, 11:20 am

For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Blueraider0) Nov 19, 01:49 am

For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (FuzzyLogic) Nov 19, 08:48 am

For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (AceRimmer) Nov 19, 11:17 am

For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (FuzzyLogic) Nov 19, 12:05 pm

There are 181 Threads in Community:


Back after a while and hoping to play. (diplocowboy) [2 Replies]

Back after a while and hoping to play. (diplocowboy)

DC Games (DealingFungus66)

Cousins game (Sean2010) [3 Replies]

Cousins game (Sean2010)

Looking for one more player (Slangers)

Just Joined (Spindoctor6)

is DC dead ? (ruler462)

Brother's War (Conquest) (Sean2010)

Getting Started (DealingFungus66)

Sign Ups not working (umbletheheep)

2021 Winter Blitz? (umbletheheep)

PERFIDIOUS#2 (THC)

A Dip Read (THC)

Time for Games? (garry.bledsoe)

Spaces for Standard players (Slangers)

Offering a new way to play Diplomacy (Slangers)

New Member (Skeleton) [2 Replies]

First Intimate Game Ends! (Slangers)

Weekly Diplomacy Newsletter (umbletheheep)


1 - 20 of 181 shown [More]

Diplomacy games may contain lying, stabbing, or deliberately deceiving communications that may not be suitable for and may pose a hazard to young children, gullible adults, and small farm animals.

Powered by Fuzzy Logic · You are visitor number 55609 · Page loaded in 0.6445 seconds by DESMOND