Welcome Guest!  [Log In]  [Sign Up]

Diplomaticcorp Discussion Forum:  Community

(community(at)diplomaticcorp(dot)com)


Post:< 18524 >
Subject:< For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question >
Topic:Community >
Category:General >
Author:FuzzyLogic
Posted:Nov 19, 2010 at 8:48 am
Viewed:1430 times

  [New Post]  [Reply]  [Quote]

We're in agreement here, no?  I can't quite tell these examples are so wacky.  Smile


Therefore Lon to Bel might be illegal because of other units.




Lon-Bel is valid even if you have your own army in Bel, cuz you could be ordering Bel-Ruh.  If Bel-Ruh fails, then Lon-Bel will fail.  But it was still a move order, and so an order of Wal S Lon would fail.


The manual does go to the extent to say that ordering a unit into another unit of yours does NOT cut the support.  Therefore it is clearly legal to order a move that you absolutely know is impossible to succeed.  (Bel-Ruh and Ruh S Mun)  Bel-Ruh is still a move order, and Ruh support of Mun is not cut because of the "cannot cut your own support rule".  It doesn't say you can't order the movment, just that the support is not cut.


Point is, ordering moves that are "impossible to have the movement succeed" are definitely not disallowed, therefore the impossibility of actual movement resulting from a move order does not rule the order invalid and revert it to Unordered / Hold.


If you order a unit to move, from one province to another, then you have ordered it to move.


If you order Par-Neptune, The GM should look and see if Neptune is a space in this variant.  Maybe it is in the "Milky Way" variant.  If he can't find a space by that name that is unambiguous (to the GM) then the entire order is ruled invalid and the unit is treated as if unordered.


If that's the case, when would an order ever be invalid or illegal?




Per above.  Par-Neptune would be an invalid order.  There is no province named Neptune.


I suppose attempting to move a unit that is not one's own, or ordering a unit that does not exist is invalid




Not sure why this example.  A GM will skip over flavor text in analyzing orders, including things like "dear GM please accept these orders" - that is not an order in the game sense, it is normal discussion.  Orders for anything other than your own units are ignored.


Therefore, it oughtn't depend on even where even the single unit is.




In determining if AN order is valid, sure, it doesn't matter.  We can look and say "Is an order of F Con-Bul/ec" a valid way to order Con to the east coast of Bul.  Yes it is.  But we're talking about the more specific scenario of "what are valid orders for this unit" (which does happen to be somewhere).  So IF I have an army in London, what are valid orders for it.  That is what we're discussing.


The rest of your post is discussing semantics / word games, and we're not really concerned w the concept of GM trickery here.  Like "Yesterday I took my Bell to London for a cleaning." and later alleging to the GM you intended Bel to Lon and the presence of other words before and after it were irrelevant.  That's another discussion.


The question of this topic, is "Is A Lon-Bel" a move order in all cases, and I still (I think, agree w you) that it is.  So be it that if there is no fleet nearby to convoy it, it is very likely to fail.


The order is fine, it just may not work, whether for that turn (Bel to Lon but no convoy) or forever (Bel to Par).




I think we're in agreement here.


 

This message is in reply to post 18523:

If that's the case, when would an order ever be invalid or illegal? I suppose attempting to move a unit that is not one's own, or ordering a unit that does not exist is invalid, But even then, you say "you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are"." Therefore, it oughtn't depend on even where even the single unit is. If Lon to Bel is a valid order whether a convoy is possible or not, Lon to Bel should be valid whether there is a unit in Lon or not. Lon to Bel is a valid order - but there might not be a unit in London to move (or, a unit of a different Power). The written order is always going to be valid, even if it cannot be implemented.

But I suppose my definition of a valid move order should be stated. Forgive me if I've already used this analogy. I can write 2+2=5. It is a legitimate thing to write. All those symbols exist, and we all understand what is happening. That said, suspending any 1984 references, it is a false statement. Similarly, I can SAY my mother was Harriet Tubman, but she is not. But I can construct the sentence. It has no necessary root in reality, and requires none. Even dividing by zero CAN be written, even if it cannot be done. When something is written, it must be evaluated based on accepted definitions. Then the statement can be verified against known facts. 2+2=5 is false. But are Frxhhz more likely to eat a marshmallow than a Tredkfl? It's an unanswerable question, because two of the terms are undefined. It is not true or false, it's nonsensical.

A move order is X to Y. Perhaps X --> Y or X moves to Y. It is one province, some symbol or word indicating movement, and another province. The first province is the origin, the second the destination. Neptune to G4 is a valid move order, even though it makes absolutely no sense. It cannot be translated onto the board, but the order is not invalid. The best you could do is call it irrelevant.

Even moves traditionally understood as illegal If I am England, it is acceptable for the GM to assume I am ordering my own units. Therefore if I order a different power's unit, the GM has two options. I either mistakenly thought it was mine or am cunningly attempting to use it. In the first case, the order (let's say, Par to Bur) is valid, but irrelevant, because there is no English unit in Par. In the second, the order is irrelevant because I simply cannot under any circumstance order an opponent's unit. But the order is valid anyway, even if my intention was a direct violation of the rules. If I say "FRENCH Par to Bur," is that illegal? It's illegal for the MOVE to happen, but what about the order? That depends on your interpretation of the rule about ordering other units (I actually can't find it in the rulebook. Maybe it's not there, because the whole idea is so clearly against the rules. Battleship doesn't specify you can't yell Fire and then as your opponent panics you look at where there ships are....

The only move I'd say is definitely illegal is a move to Switzerland. Unlike Neptune or G4 or Mushroom Kingdom, the rules explicitly state Switzerland cannot be occupied. Actually, even then MOVING to Switzerland is not forbidden, just occupying it. So the move is only illegal if it would cause the player to occupy it. If two players move to Switzerland and bounce, technically Switzerland remained empty because of the usual game mechanics, not because of any special rules.

Another thought, a Power cannot dislodge or support the dislodgement of its own unit. Therefore Lon to Bel might be illegal because of other units. Let's say Bel to Ruh and Hol supports Lon to Bel and ECH convoys Lon to Bel, all owned by the same Power. Mun goes to Ruh and bounces Bel. Lon to Bel is now illegal, even if Pic and Bur also supported the move.

So except for situations explicitly stated in the rules, I see no reason to declare any moves illegal, and I find the phrase invalid to be misleading. The order is fine, it just may not work, whether for that turn (Bel to Lon but no convoy) or forever (Bel to Par).

There are 16 Messages in this Thread:


For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (AceRimmer) Nov 10, 10:06 am

For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (FuzzyLogic) Nov 10, 09:39 pm

For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (FuzzyLogic) Nov 10, 09:54 pm

For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (s2000chops) Nov 11, 11:25 am

For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (garry.bledsoe) Nov 11, 03:29 pm

For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Blueraider0) Nov 12, 02:07 am

For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (AceRimmer) Nov 12, 10:14 am

For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (AceRimmer) Nov 12, 10:23 am

For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Blueraider0) Nov 13, 12:12 am

For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (FuzzyLogic) Nov 15, 09:49 am

Reply notification (AceRimmer) Nov 15, 10:56 am

For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (FuzzyLogic) Nov 15, 11:20 am

For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Blueraider0) Nov 19, 01:49 am

For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (FuzzyLogic) Nov 19, 08:48 am

For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (AceRimmer) Nov 19, 11:17 am

For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (FuzzyLogic) Nov 19, 12:05 pm

There are 181 Threads in Community:


Back after a while and hoping to play. (diplocowboy) [2 Replies]

Back after a while and hoping to play. (diplocowboy)

DC Games (DealingFungus66)

Cousins game (Sean2010) [3 Replies]

Cousins game (Sean2010)

Looking for one more player (Slangers)

Just Joined (Spindoctor6)

is DC dead ? (ruler462)

Brother's War (Conquest) (Sean2010)

Getting Started (DealingFungus66)

Sign Ups not working (umbletheheep)

2021 Winter Blitz? (umbletheheep)

PERFIDIOUS#2 (THC)

A Dip Read (THC)

Time for Games? (garry.bledsoe)

Spaces for Standard players (Slangers)

Offering a new way to play Diplomacy (Slangers)

New Member (Skeleton) [2 Replies]

First Intimate Game Ends! (Slangers)

Weekly Diplomacy Newsletter (umbletheheep)


1 - 20 of 181 shown [More]

Diplomacy games may contain lying, stabbing, or deliberately deceiving communications that may not be suitable for and may pose a hazard to young children, gullible adults, and small farm animals.

Powered by Fuzzy Logic · You are visitor number 55619 · Page loaded in 0.7196 seconds by DESMOND