Obsidian Forums Diplomacy Game 3 (OBS-03)

[Reveilled]

A Pic-Bel cuts the support of F Bel, thus F Lon-ENG is unsupported, thus F ENG is not dislodged, thus it is not destroyed.

[jaguars4ever]

If I'm not mistaken Russia should also have units in Bul and Rum.

[Deraldin]

If I'm not mistaken Russia should also have units in Bul and Rum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You are mistaken. Turkey bumped you out of Bulgaria so you're move there failed.

[jaguars4ever]

If I'm not mistaken Russia should also have units in Bul and Rum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You are mistaken. Turkey bumped you out of Bulgaria so you're move there failed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No - I'm afraid you're mistaken. I moved into Bul with a force of two. Re-read the orders please:

 

Russia: A Rum-Bul

 

Austria: A Ser S Russian A Rum-Bul

 

Turkey: A Con-Bul

 

---

 

[Deraldin]

If I'm not mistaken Russia should also have units in Bul and Rum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You are mistaken. Turkey bumped you out of Bulgaria so you're move there failed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No - I'm afraid you're mistaken. I moved into Bul with a force of two. Re-read the orders please:

 

Russia: A Rum-Bul

 

Austria: A Ser S Russian A Rum-Bul

 

Turkey: A Con-Bul

 

---

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Ah. I missed the Austrian support order.

[Bokishi]

Who wants pie?

[jaguars4ever]

*Tsar Jaguar ships a crate of his finest vodka to his fellow leaders*

[alanschu]

Just so you all haven't forgotten:

 

 

[jaguars4ever]

[Daroowise]

Just so you all haven't forgotten:

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Gah... now I'm blind... AND scarred for life!

[jaguars4ever]

Gah - stop quoting it!

[Archmonarch]

Jags is right. The Russian order to Bul succeeds. However, I believe you are wrong, Reveilled. Germany's A Hol supported its F Bel, thus preventing you from disrupting its support to English F Lon.

[Reveilled]

Jags is right. The Russian order to Bul succeeds. However, I believe you are wrong, Reveilled. Germany's A Hol supported its F Bel, thus preventing you from disrupting its support to English F Lon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I can't find a place in the rules which says that support of a unit prevents its support being cut. From where do you draw this?

 

"Support is cut if the unit giving support is attacked from any province except the one where support is being given. The support is cut whether this attack on the supporting unit is successful or not."

Cutting support, p10

[Archmonarch]

It never explicitly says it in the rules, but it never explicitly denies it either. All games evolve. This would seem to me a fitting change. It makes tactical and realistic sense.

[Reveilled]

It never explicitly says it in the rules, but it never explicitly denies it either. All games evolve. This would seem to me a fitting change. It makes tactical and realistic sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It doesn't seem like a fitting change to me! You're admitting that the rules don't say that this is correct, but doing it anyway? The rules list only one exception to the rule that support is cut by an attack on the supporter's province: when the attack comes from the province into which support is being provided. The fact that this is the only exception they mention would seem to imply to me that it is the only exception.

 

It explicitly tells you that "Support is cut if the unit giving support is attacked from any province except the one where support is being given". The unit giving support was attacked from a province which wasn't the one where support was being given, therefore support is cut.

[Bokishi]

Just so you all haven't forgotten:

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I can't believe it's not butter!

[Skynet]

So what was the fate of FerdinAllan anyway? Did the mobs of wild and crazy women find out he was really just a lonely old man and beat him to death or what?

 

 

Not counting WOT, this is my 100th post!

[alanschu]

FerdinAllan was taken away to Castle Anthrax, at which point he was never heard from ever again.

[Skynet]

[Archmonarch]

It never explicitly says it in the rules, but it never explicitly denies it either. All games evolve. This would seem to me a fitting change. It makes tactical and realistic sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It doesn't seem like a fitting change to me! You're admitting that the rules don't say that this is correct, but doing it anyway? The fact that this is the only exception they mention would seem to imply to me that it is the only exception.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

First of all, a lesson in life: trying to strongarm someone in a position of authority rarely works. Fortunately for you, I have not based my decision upon this.

 

Nothing is static; all things change. Given your thorough knowledge of the rules, I would have thought you would understand this is true of Diplomacy as well. Do not try to deny it. There have been new strategies, new subtleties, even new updates. It makes sense, in these settings, that if a supporting unit is supported, it cannot be directly attacked. It merely requires a slight extension of existing rules in ways already applied to non-supporting units.

 

Given that I am GM, the final decision is mine, unless you are able to present a majority vote of no confidence by the OBS-03 players.

[jaguars4ever]

Let me see what my interpretation of the rules yields. And yes I agree - we mustn't get all huffy about it - Rev, Arch, myself or anyone else involved.

 

Support can be cut. This will cause the order to fail and support will not be given.

 

Support is cut if the unit giving support is attacked from any province except the one where support is being given. The support is cut whether this attack on the supporting units succeeds or not.

 

In Diagram 15, the support from the Army in Silesia is cut by an attack from Bohemia. Note that it was enough to attack the Army giving support to cut that support. It was not necessary to dislodge the support unit to cut that support.

 

(page 10)

 

 

 

----

 

Now if we substitute Rev, Eru & Ender's moves into this example:

 

Substitute Eru's London Fleet for the A Prussia;

Substitute Ender's support from Belgium Fleet for the A Silesia (that's supporting);

Substitue Rev's Picardy Army for Bohemia (cutting the support).

Substitute the English Channel for Warsaw.

 

=====

 

Hence, upon inserting the above:

 

 

In our map, the support from the Fleet in Belgium is cut by an attack from Picardy. Note that it was enough to attack the Fleet giving support to cut that support. It was not necessary to dislodge the support unit to cut that support.

 

 

---

[Child of Flame]

It never explicitly says it in the rules, but it never explicitly denies it either. All games evolve. This would seem to me a fitting change. It makes tactical and realistic sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It doesn't seem like a fitting change to me! You're admitting that the rules don't say that this is correct, but doing it anyway? The fact that this is the only exception they mention would seem to imply to me that it is the only exception.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

First of all, a lesson in life: trying to strongarm someone in a position of authority rarely works. Fortunately for you, I have not based my decision upon this.

 

Nothing is static; all things change. Given your thorough knowledge of the rules, I would have thought you would understand this is true of Diplomacy as well. Do not try to deny it. There have been new strategies, new subtleties, even new updates. It makes sense, in these settings, that if a supporting unit is supported, it cannot be directly attacked. It merely requires a slight extension of existing rules in ways already applied to non-supporting units.

 

Given that I am GM, the final decision is mine, unless you are able to present a majority vote of no confidence by the OBS-03 players.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Wouldn't doing that mean we'd have to go back several moves?

 

It's fine with me really, I'm in a new game that I'm doing well enough in.

 

Two games at the same timeis somewhat hard to keep track of anyway.

[jaguars4ever]

Wouldn't doing that mean we'd have to go back several moves? 

 

It's fine with me really, I'm in a new game that I'm doing well enough in. 

 

Two games at the same timeis somewhat hard to keep track of anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I shouldn't think so; but even we were to incorporate Archie's Ammendment, we would probably just continue from there. Thus far, I'm inclined to agree with Rev's standpoint - but ultimately I'll leave the decision in GM Arch's hands.

[Reveilled]

It never explicitly says it in the rules, but it never explicitly denies it either. All games evolve. This would seem to me a fitting change. It makes tactical and realistic sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It doesn't seem like a fitting change to me! You're admitting that the rules don't say that this is correct, but doing it anyway? The fact that this is the only exception they mention would seem to imply to me that it is the only exception.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

First of all, a lesson in life: trying to strongarm someone in a position of authority rarely works. Fortunately for you, I have not based my decision upon this.

 

Nothing is static; all things change. Given your thorough knowledge of the rules, I would have thought you would understand this is true of Diplomacy as well. Do not try to deny it. There have been new strategies, new subtleties, even new updates. It makes sense, in these settings, that if a supporting unit is supported, it cannot be directly attacked. It merely requires a slight extension of existing rules in ways already applied to non-supporting units.

 

Given that I am GM, the final decision is mine, unless you are able to present a majority vote of no confidence by the OBS-03 players.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It is one thing to change the rules. It is quite another to change them in the middle of the game, without any warning, in a manner which contradicts the rules, to the detriment of one of the game's players.

 

The rules should be static once the game has started.

[Archmonarch]

Do you somehow expect me to have predicted this event? I am much newer to Diplomacy than yourself, and possess a great deal less technical knowledge. I cannot be expected to understand every nuance and subtlety. It makes sense to me that this should be how things function. It is your prerogative to disagree, but as I said, unless you get a majority of the other players to agree with you, I doubt I will change it.