Rule dispute

Forum rules
This is an area for new members or members looking for help with the site or Diplomacy. Off topic threads and replies will be moved to the appropriate category.

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.
Smilies
:points: :-D :eyeroll: :neutral: :nmr: :razz: :raging: :-) ;) :( :sick: :o :? 8-) :x :shock: :lol: :cry: :evil: :?: :smirk: :!:
View more smilies
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is OFF
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below.

Expand view Topic review: Rule dispute

Re: Rule dispute

by VirtualBob » Fri May 16, 2025 7:15 pm

JECE wrote: ↑
Fri May 16, 2025 11:36 am
Well yes, but webDip doesn't let you order such illegal moves.
True, though I do enjoy ordering odd convoys -- especially in Gunboat. A SWE->SPA (via ludicrously unlikely convoys in SKA, NTH, ENG, and MAO) are fun. But only when I do not need F BTH s A SWE H.

Re: Rule dispute

by JECE » Fri May 16, 2025 11:36 am

David E. Cohen wrote: ↑
Thu May 15, 2025 7:53 pm
Spartaculous wrote: ↑
Wed May 14, 2025 2:46 am
ForGrandFenwick wrote: ↑
Wed May 14, 2025 2:41 am
 My ally and I are disputing whether if Unit A taps Unit B it cuts Unit C's support hold of Unit A. I argue that it does, they seem to be arguing that since Unit A does not move the hold goes through and they said they tested it on backstabber. I do not know what backstabber is or if it uses the same rules as this site. But while lying is part and parcel of this game, lying about the rules themselves seems unsportsmanlike. Of course it is also possible that one of us is simply wrong. Could we get a public ruling?
If Unit A is ordered to move, then any support hold order of Unit A will fail.
Not necessarily. The unit must have been ordered to make a LEGAL move, with legal meaning in conformity with the rules given the state of the map prior to adjudication.

So, A Sweden-Warsaw, A Sweden-Jupiter and A Sweden-Berlin (with no fleet olin the Baltic Sea) should all be adjudicated as Hold orders and A Sweden could receive support to hold.
Well yes, but webDip doesn't let you order such illegal moves.

Re: Rule dispute

by David E. Cohen » Thu May 15, 2025 7:53 pm

Spartaculous wrote: ↑
Wed May 14, 2025 2:46 am
ForGrandFenwick wrote: ↑
Wed May 14, 2025 2:41 am
 My ally and I are disputing whether if Unit A taps Unit B it cuts Unit C's support hold of Unit A. I argue that it does, they seem to be arguing that since Unit A does not move the hold goes through and they said they tested it on backstabber. I do not know what backstabber is or if it uses the same rules as this site. But while lying is part and parcel of this game, lying about the rules themselves seems unsportsmanlike. Of course it is also possible that one of us is simply wrong. Could we get a public ruling?
If Unit A is ordered to move, then any support hold order of Unit A will fail.
Not necessarily. The unit must have been ordered to make a LEGAL move, with legal meaning in conformity with the rules given the state of the map prior to adjudication.

So, A Sweden-Warsaw, A Sweden-Jupiter and A Sweden-Berlin (with no fleet olin the Baltic Sea) should all be adjudicated as Hold orders and A Sweden could receive support to hold.

Re: Rule dispute

by JECE » Thu May 15, 2025 8:46 am

Spartaculous wrote: ↑
Wed May 14, 2025 2:46 am
ForGrandFenwick wrote: ↑
Wed May 14, 2025 2:41 am
 My ally and I are disputing whether if Unit A taps Unit B it cuts Unit C's support hold of Unit A. I argue that it does, they seem to be arguing that since Unit A does not move the hold goes through and they said they tested it on backstabber. I do not know what backstabber is or if it uses the same rules as this site. But while lying is part and parcel of this game, lying about the rules themselves seems unsportsmanlike. Of course it is also possible that one of us is simply wrong. Could we get a public ruling?
If Unit A is ordered to move, then any support hold order of Unit A will fail.
This wasn't clear to me on my initial reading of the rules many years ago, but yes: a unit ordered to move, even if it fails to move, cannot receive any support hold.

If you have access to a computer, you can use this website to share a URL to the specific scenario that you are discussing with your ally:
http://gamesbyemail.com/Games/Politics/Judge

Re: Rule dispute

by Ernst_Brenner » Wed May 14, 2025 9:36 pm

They probably tested it on 'backstabbr' -- notice the missing 'e'.

Well, I shouldn't say that. They are probably claiming they tested it on backstabbr. I have no idea whether they did or not. You know diplomacy players, they're an unsavory lot.

Re: Rule dispute

by Spartaculous » Wed May 14, 2025 2:46 am

ForGrandFenwick wrote: ↑
Wed May 14, 2025 2:41 am
 My ally and I are disputing whether if Unit A taps Unit B it cuts Unit C's support hold of Unit A. I argue that it does, they seem to be arguing that since Unit A does not move the hold goes through and they said they tested it on backstabber. I do not know what backstabber is or if it uses the same rules as this site. But while lying is part and parcel of this game, lying about the rules themselves seems unsportsmanlike. Of course it is also possible that one of us is simply wrong. Could we get a public ruling?
If Unit A is ordered to move, then any support hold order of Unit A will fail.

Rule dispute

by ForGrandFenwick » Wed May 14, 2025 2:41 am

My ally and I are disputing whether if Unit A taps Unit B it cuts Unit C's support hold of Unit A. I argue that it does, they seem to be arguing that since Unit A does not move the hold goes through and they said they tested it on backstabber. I do not know what backstabber is or if it uses the same rules as this site. But while lying is part and parcel of this game, lying about the rules themselves seems unsportsmanlike. Of course it is also possible that one of us is simply wrong. Could we get a public ruling?

Top