Page 2 of 3

Re: House Rule that Eliminates "via convoy"

PostPosted: 17 Jun 2019, 19:08
by NoPunIn10Did
When an army in location A is ordered to move to adjacent location B, and a legal convoy path between A and B could also be ordered that turn, the army will move via convoy if and only if a unit in location B is ordered to move to A and there is a legal undisrupted convoy route provided from A to B.

Re: House Rule that Eliminates "via convoy"

PostPosted: 17 Jun 2019, 19:24
by jay65536
I like it. Clear and concise.

(Of course that's just for the second option in the poll.)

EDIT: Here's similar language for the first option:

When an army in location A is ordered to move to adjacent location B, and a legal convoy path between A and B could also be ordered that turn, the army will move via convoy if and only if a unit in location B is ordered to move to A and the army's move would succeed via convoy.

Re: House Rule that Eliminates "via convoy"

PostPosted: 17 Jun 2019, 20:02
by NoPunIn10Did
jay65536 wrote:I like it. Clear and concise.

(Of course that's just for the second option in the poll.)

EDIT: Here's similar language for the first option:

When an army in location A is ordered to move to adjacent location B, and a legal convoy path between A and B could also be ordered that turn, the army will move via convoy if and only if a unit in location B is ordered to move to A and the army's move would succeed via convoy.


I guess the one thing I dislike there is more technical in nature: you potentially have to determine whether a move succeeds twice. A’s order execution depends on A’s hypothetical order resolution.

Re: House Rule that Eliminates "via convoy"

PostPosted: 17 Jun 2019, 20:13
by NoPunIn10Did
FYI, it looks like Backstabbr is likely using your version of the rule.

https://www.backstabbr.com/sandbox/5655408910270464

I'm on the fence between the two, to be honest.

Re: House Rule that Eliminates "via convoy"

PostPosted: 17 Jun 2019, 21:06
by jay65536
Wow, that's crazy! I made my rule up completely independently of all this stuff you're showing me.

I do agree in theory about that one aspect of the rule you bring up, but personally I think the positives outweigh that one negative with my rule, in terms of having one concise rule that takes care of all those fringe adjudications in an agreeable* way.

(*Obviously debatable whether the community prefers the rulings that my rule would imply, hence the thread.)

Re: House Rule that Eliminates "via convoy"

PostPosted: 18 Jun 2019, 02:08
by ColonelApricot
I voted for the second option because I think what happens in the current location of the army should not depend on whether the army moved by land or by convoy ("Location A"). To me the priority rule is that a bounced unit can only defend with one strength. Whether the unit moved by land or by convoy does not change the fact that it bounced.

Jay: yes I do have a semantic issue with the use of the terms "invalidated" and "succeed". By invalidated I think you mean "has no effect" and by succeed I think you mean "moves to its destination" (Location B).

I know what you mean but it's important that there is no ambiguity that could lead to misinterpretation, for example that the success of the convoy order is not the same as the success of the move order (similar to the support situation where the success of the support order is not the same as the success of the move order).

..CA

Re: House Rule that Eliminates "via convoy"

PostPosted: 18 Jun 2019, 02:13
by NoPunIn10Did
ColonelApricot wrote:I voted for the second option because I think what happens in the current location of the army should not depend on whether the army moved by land or by convoy ("Location A"). To me the priority rule is that a bounced unit can only defend with one strength. Whether the unit moved by land or by convoy does not change the fact that it bounced.

Jay: yes I do have a semantic issue with the use of the terms "invalidated" and "succeed". By invalidated I think you mean "has no effect" and by succeed I think you mean "moves to its destination" (Location B).

I know what you mean but it's important that there is no ambiguity that could lead to misinterpretation, for example that the success of the convoy order is not the same as the success of the move order (similar to the support situation where the success of the support order is not the same as the success of the move order).

..CA


If you would indeed prefer the dislodge not to occur regardless of whether the attack came from land or convoy, you are more likely to prefer the first option in the poll.

Re: House Rule that Eliminates "via convoy"

PostPosted: 18 Jun 2019, 10:44
by Woolgie
Yes, CA, I think you prefer the first option. As do I. The route of the army should not matter.

Re: House Rule that Eliminates "via convoy"

PostPosted: 18 Jun 2019, 13:25
by ColonelApricot
Got it. Changed my vote.

Re: House Rule that Eliminates "via convoy"

PostPosted: 19 Jun 2019, 05:51
by GhostEcho
I quite like PlayDip's current house rule. If there's a better way to implement it, that's great, but I'm not thrilled by the proposed rule. Here's why:

Principle: A unit is only given a single order.
Fact : Moving an army by convoy requires a different path than a move by land.

I'm even dubious about multiple-route convoy orders (e.g. if Edi-Nwy, Nth C Edi-Nwy, Nwg C Edi-Nwy, and Nth is dislodged, the convoy through Nwg still succeeds), but I don't see any practical way around them. But a player really should know whether he's trying to move a unit by convoy or not - even if that's not a requirement of the rules as published.