Rule query

Question about the rules of the game? Experienced Diplomacy veterans will help you! There is also a Common Questions section.
Forum rules
In addition to the general Forum Guidelines (see here: http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/view ... 30&t=15441), there are additional rules for posting in this forum.
1. Members should not refer directly to a specific situation in an active game. It is usually possible to provide an example of a similar situation elsewhere on the board.
2. It follows that links, images, game name and/or number should not be added to a post if the game is active.
3. Questions should only request rules be clarified and not request advice about how to resolve a situation.
4. When answering a question, members should restrict themselves to answering the question and not give advice on how to get around the situation.
Posts which break these rules will be subject to editing or removal; see here: http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/view ... 13&t=42845

Rule query

Postby wiledafoe47 » 08 Feb 2021, 16:33

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’?
wiledafoe47
 
Posts: 1
Joined: 08 Feb 2021, 16:28

Re: Rule query

Postby Phlegmatic » 08 Feb 2021, 16:52

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!
Phlegmatic
Premium Member
 
Posts: 141
Joined: 18 Jul 2018, 16:50
Location: Cheshire, UK
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1462
All-game rating: 1512
Timezone: GMT

Re: Rule query

Postby jay65536 » 08 Feb 2021, 22:19

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.
jay65536
 
Posts: 594
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 18:13
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1120
All-game rating: 1126
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Rule query

Postby David E. Cohen » 09 Feb 2021, 13:28

What is the 'house rule' exception?
The Academy of Creative Destruction is looking for new members. Please contact me if you have questions or are interested in joining the ACD.
User avatar
David E. Cohen
 
Posts: 510
Joined: 28 Jan 2008, 11:30
Location: Treading the Path to Diplo-Shambhala
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Rule query

Postby jay65536 » 09 Feb 2021, 15:24

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.
jay65536
 
Posts: 594
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 18:13
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1120
All-game rating: 1126
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Rule query

Postby super_dipsy » 09 Feb 2021, 17:44

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
User avatar
super_dipsy
Premium Member
 
Posts: 12207
Joined: 04 Nov 2009, 17:43
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (931)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Rule query

Postby David E. Cohen » 10 Feb 2021, 20:49

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.
The Academy of Creative Destruction is looking for new members. Please contact me if you have questions or are interested in joining the ACD.
User avatar
David E. Cohen
 
Posts: 510
Joined: 28 Jan 2008, 11:30
Location: Treading the Path to Diplo-Shambhala
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Rule query

Postby jay65536 » 13 Feb 2021, 00:01

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.
jay65536
 
Posts: 594
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 18:13
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1120
All-game rating: 1126
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Rule query

Postby super_dipsy » 13 Feb 2021, 21:12

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
User avatar
super_dipsy
Premium Member
 
Posts: 12207
Joined: 04 Nov 2009, 17:43
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (931)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Rule query

Postby David E. Cohen » 13 Feb 2021, 23:06

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.
The Academy of Creative Destruction is looking for new members. Please contact me if you have questions or are interested in joining the ACD.
User avatar
David E. Cohen
 
Posts: 510
Joined: 28 Jan 2008, 11:30
Location: Treading the Path to Diplo-Shambhala
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5


Return to Diplomacy Rules Questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests