Page 1 of 1

Rule query

PostPosted: 08 Feb 2021, 16:33
by wiledafoe47
Ok so Rome and Tuscany (Turkey and Italy respectively) have attacked each other. Turkey is supported from Venice so Tuscany loses. Rome moves into Tuscany. Turkey in the same order set has ordered a piece into Rome (from Apulia). Question: does Turkey’s move from Apulia to Rome fail as a standoff with Italy, or is Italy’s attempt to move to Rome no longer functional as a standoff due to being defeated and needing to retreat to ‘anywhere but Rome’?

Re: Rule query

PostPosted: 08 Feb 2021, 16:52
by Phlegmatic
Good question. It's not obvious to a new player, but Tuscany fails to bounce Rome in this case.

Think of it as Tuscany never making it over the border to Rome to cause the bounce, because there was more force (Rome plus its support) coming the other way.

To be 100% sure, always use the Orders Solver tool on this site to play out the scenario in question and avoid an unpleasant surprise!

Re: Rule query

PostPosted: 08 Feb 2021, 22:19
by jay65536
There is a rule that explicitly states “a dislodged unit can have no impact on the province it was attacked from.”

In this case, the rule implies that because Rome dislodged Tuscany, Tuscany can’t affect anything happening in Rome, so it can’t cause a bounce there.

PlayDip actually has carved out an exception to this via a house rule, but it is an extreme fringe case and you probably don’t
need to worry about it.

Re: Rule query

PostPosted: 09 Feb 2021, 13:28
by David E. Cohen
What is the 'house rule' exception?

Re: Rule query

PostPosted: 09 Feb 2021, 15:24
by jay65536
Suppose in this example that an Italian F Tys was ordered to convoy Tus-Rom. Now Rome would be a bounce by the PD house rule.

Re: Rule query

PostPosted: 09 Feb 2021, 17:44
by super_dipsy
For anyone interested, the full list of Playdip rule interpretations from the officially written rule set to those used on Playdip are here https://playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=646&t=41661

Re: Rule query

PostPosted: 10 Feb 2021, 20:49
by David E. Cohen
jay65536 wrote:Suppose in this example that an Italian F Tys was ordered to convoy Tus-Rom. Now Rome would be a bounce by the PD house rule.


Not exactly a house rule. This is an interpretation of a gap/conflict in the rules. Evidently, in this case, precedence is given to the rule that states two units can exchange places if one or both are convoyed. I am personally in agreement with this interpretation, but I am aware that this is indeed a gap/conflict in the rules.

Re: Rule query

PostPosted: 13 Feb 2021, 00:01
by jay65536
The rules are not ambiguous; this is a house rule. It is a reasonable extension of a player’s intuition about what should happen, but the rule that a dislodged unit cannot affect the attacker’s province is not superseded by the rule that carved out the convoy exception.

Re: Rule query

PostPosted: 13 Feb 2021, 21:12
by super_dipsy
jay65536 wrote:The rules are not ambiguous; this is a house rule. It is a reasonable extension of a player’s intuition about what should happen, but the rule that a dislodged unit cannot affect the attacker’s province is not superseded by the rule that carved out the convoy exception.

I'm afraid I have to disagree Jay.

The problem occurs because three rules clash;the rule about a dislodged unit not affecting the attacker's province, the one for units being able to exchange places when a convoy is used andthe one that two units moving tot he same location without support bounce. If A attacks C and C attacks A, they bounce according to the head to head rules. But if C is convoyed to A, there is no conflict and the units exchange places. The same is true even if A attacks C with support from B. C still moves to A. But now what happens when Z wants to to go to A. We already know from the first rule that C will move to A with no problem since there is no head-to-head. however it cannot do that because the rules say that if two units try to move to the same location with no support then they bounce. Because the unit in C is bounced form moving to A, it is then subsequently dislodged from C.

So the cofnlict is a combination of all 3 rules.
- The rule about exchanging places means that C moves to A and A moves to C
- Given that C would have moved to A but can't because it is bounced by Z, the rules state Z and C stay where they are
- But C cannot stay where it is because the strength of the attack overcomes it, so it is dislodged by A
- But if A is dislodged, the rules say it cannot affect the location the attacker came frrom (A) and therefore Z should move to A

Re: Rule query

PostPosted: 13 Feb 2021, 23:06
by David E. Cohen
jay65536 wrote:The rules are not ambiguous; this is a house rule. It is a reasonable extension of a player’s intuition about what should happen, but the rule that a dislodged unit cannot affect the attacker’s province is not superseded by the rule that carved out the convoy exception.


Nowhere in the rule book does it state which rule has precedence. Hence the ambiguity.