Rule Problem 18: Effect of convoy to province of dislodging unit

[David E. Cohen]

If a unit convoyed to an adjacent province is dislodged by a unit originating in the destination province of the convoy,

Alternative A: the convoyed unit may have an effect on a move by another unit to the destination province.

Alternative B: the convoyed unit will have no effect on a move by another unit to the destination province.

[Edi Birsan]

A unit that is dislodged has no effect on the province from which it is dislodged.

[David E. Cohen]

A unit that is dislodged has no effect on the province from which it is dislodged.
Ordinarily that would be the case, but here we must also deal with a conflict with the rule that allows two units to exchange places via convoy. Just as with the question on retreats, I would rule that if the unit could otherwise move there (and it could, if no other unit opposed it-unlike a direct attack by the dislodging unit) it could bounce another unit attacking with equal force.

[RuHurt]

Consider the unit to attempt to convoy to the province BEFORE it is dislodged, and it would have an effect on that province. If, however, you consider that the dislodgment effect overrules the convoy effect, then yes, the unit could not effect the province. Personally, I'd say the move WOULD have an effect, but it's mainly an arbitrary decision, and one I'd say should not be covered by the rule book, but rather decided before the game, as players may wish to decide for themselves which they like better.

[David E. Cohen]

Consider the unit to attempt to convoy to the province BEFORE it is dislodged, and it would have an effect on that province. If, however, you consider that the dislodgment effect overrules the convoy effect, then yes, the unit could not effect the province. Personally, I'd say the move WOULD have an effect, but it's mainly an arbitrary decision, and one I'd say should not be covered by the rule book, but rather decided before the game, as players may wish to decide for themselves which they like better.
:^))) The whole point is to fix the rules, so that it *won't* be an arbitrary decision.

P.S. I consider that all attempts to move are made simultaneously, so the convoy isn't before the dislodgement. As to whether the dislodgement overrules the convoy, well that is the question being asked: Does the special rule about swapping places via convoy overrule the general rule of a dislodged unit not having an effect on the province of origin of its attacker? The rulebook, unfortunately, does not answer this question, and as you can see from Edi's and my messages, people can interpret the rules differently regarding this.

[GROGnads]

Ordinarily that would be the case, but here we must also deal with a conflict with the rule that allows two units to exchange places via convoy. Just as with the question on retreats, I would rule that if the unit could otherwise move there (and it could, if no other unit opposed it-unlike a direct attack by the dislodging unit) it could bounce another unit attacking with equal force. :confused: You've 'posed' a situation wherein there is an 'equal' desire for every Unit to 'move' into the same area and that is NOT possible. Since if it is contested or otherwise, then ONLY the Unit with the 'Superior' amount of 'desire'(Support) is going to be able to accomplish this, no matter WHAT means are used. An 'exchange' of the sort that you've described IS possible IF you follow the Rules as it is explained. ;)

[David E. Cohen]

The units are not all moving to the same area. I am not suggesting that the unit convoyed is successful against any possible opposition. I am only suggesting that the specific rule permitting 2 units to trade positions if one of them is convoyed may provide an exception to the general rule that a dislodged unit may not have influence over the province from which its attacker came. Here is an example:

Russia:
A Swe-Den
F Bal-Supports A Swe-Den
F Nwy-Swe

Germany:
A Den-Swe
F Ska-Convoys A Den-Swe


In the example, if the specific convoy rule modifies the general rule on dislodged units, F Nwy and A Den "bounce" in Swe, with F Nwy staying put, and A Den being dislodged. If the specific convoy rule does not modify the general rule on dislodged units, A Den is still dislodged, but F Nwy-Swe succeeds.


As a general rule of construction, the specific does modify the general, unless there is clear language to the contrary, so the most logical interpretation of the rules (in the same vein as my conclusion for Rule Problem 13, that retreating to an attacker's province when the attacker is convoyed is possible), would be that the two units bounce in Swe.

[Y2UAsk]

In fact, I think that the latest edition of the rulebook does clarify (or at least imply) that David's sample move would result in Russia occupying Denmark and Germany occupying Sweden. Diagram 28 (page 15) shows the French and English swapping London and Belgium via convoys through the North Sea and English Channel. If this were a land move, the armies would standoff. The rule and the example make it clear that this case is not handled like a normal move. Since they can swap places without support, it seems to me that they can still swap places with support. The support is superfluous to the situation.

Again, this is an interpretation, but I think it's one that's well supported by the rules and examples.

Steve

[msjells]

The rules are intended to prevent units from moving "through" each other, which is avoided by using the convoy. Once "at sea", the unit is making a normal attack against the space, and could either take it or be bounced from it depending on what other orders are written. If bounced, it would retreat from it's original space. In David's example, you have a 1:1 standoff in Sweden (returning Army Denmark to its home) and a 2:1 successful attack on Denmark (forcing the German army to retreat from that space).

[Y2UAsk]

You're applying sound logic, but it's the logic of land moves and bounces. My understanding is that land logic doesn't apply to convoys, otherwise two armies couldn't swap places the way they're shown in the rulebook example. I interpret the rule and example to mean that once an army is ordered into a convoy, it effectively doesn't count as occupying its space of origin unless it bounces from its destination. In David's example, there is no 1:1 standoff in Sweden. The German Army can convoy into Sweden because Sweden is effectively empty -- the Russian Army, being ordered into convoy, doesn't count as being in Sweden. Likewise, the Russian Army can wade ashore in Denmark with or without support because the German Army doesn't count as being there -- it, too, is "aboard ship."

This is the only interpretation of the convoy rules I can see that is entirely consistent with all the rules and examples and that follows the spirit of the rules. While I can see where your interpretation comes from, it makes the convoy rule an escalating exception -- convoys function outside the normal rules when support is equal, but not when support is unequal. I can't accept that because it's such an inelegant patch in an otherwise elegant set of rules, and there's a more elegant, consistent interpretation available. Here I apply the principle of "Occam's Razor of Gaming" -- where two interpretations of a rule are possible, that one that produces the fewest exceptions is most likely correct (or is, at least, preferable).

Steve

[GROGnads]

Russia:
A Swe-Den
F Bal-Supports F Swe-Den
F Nwy-Swe

Germany:
A Den-Swe
F Ska-Convoys A Den-Swe

In the example, if the specific convoy rule modifies the general rule on dislodged units, F Nwy and A Den "bounce" in Swe, with F Nwy staying put, and A Den being dislodged. If the specific convoy rule does not modify the general rule on dislodged units, A Den is still dislodged, but F Nwy-Swe succeeds.

As a general rule of construction, the specific does modify the general, unless there is clear language to the contrary, so the most logical interpretation of the rules (in the same vein as my conclusion for Rule Problem 13, that retreating to an attacker's province when the attacker is convoyed is possible), would be that the two units bounce in Swe.


First off, you've 'written' an Order WRONG as you have F--Bal S F-Den-Swe, but this shouldn't matter much. Then after 'Moves' resolutions, in which case A-Den 'bounces' with F-Nor, A-Den-Swe is forced to issue a 'Retreat' or 'Disband' order and does NOT move into Swe but 'should' and will prevent F-Nor-Swe. There is an ORDER of doing things that HAS to be followed in order for everything to take place in a timely and correct manner! I will also add that the case could be made that since F-Nor-Swe and A-Den-Swe isn't possible, then Swe should be considered 'contested' and prevent a 'Retreat' move into that as well. They may have to 'clarify' this further to prevent just such an incident from becoming a 'back door' approach, using this example.

[Y2UAsk]

After reading Grognad's post I realize, much to my chagrin, that I didn't read the sample move nearly carefully enough. The proposed situation is not what I thought it was. I have to agree with Grognad's interpretation here, and I would argue that the example has a crystal-clear resolution. The Army from Denmark and the Fleet from Norway bounce each other out of Sweden. The Army from Sweden, supported by the Fleet in the Baltic, then push the Army out of Denmark, so it must retreat or disband.

In my earlier responses I was ignoring the Nwy-Swe move, and that changed everything. Sorry for the confusion. (Re-read my posts with that in mind and they should make more sense.)

Steve

[David E. Cohen]

First off, you've 'written' an Order WRONG as you have F--Bal S F-Den-Swe, but this shouldn't matter much. Then after 'Moves' resolutions, in which case A-Den 'bounces' with F-Nor, A-Den-Swe is forced to issue a 'Retreat' or 'Disband' order and does NOT move into Swe but 'should' and will prevent F-Nor-Swe. There is an ORDER of doing things that HAS to be followed in order for everything to take place in a timely and correct manner! I will also add that the case could be made that since F-Nor-Swe and A-Den-Swe isn't possible, then Swe should be considered 'contested' and prevent a 'Retreat' move into that as well. They may have to 'clarify' this further to prevent just such an incident from becoming a 'back door' approach, using this example.
Oops. Well, Edi would certainly say it doesn't matter, but you get the point of the example, anyway. :^)))

[David E. Cohen]

After reading Grognad's post I realize, much to my chagrin, that I didn't read the sample move nearly carefully enough. The proposed situation is not what I thought it was. I have to agree with Grognad's interpretation here, and I would argue that the example has a crystal-clear resolution. The Army from Denmark and the Fleet from Norway bounce each other out of Sweden. The Army from Sweden, supported by the Fleet in the Baltic, then push the Army out of Denmark, so it must retreat or disband.

In my earlier responses I was ignoring the Nwy-Swe move, and that changed everything. Sorry for the confusion. (Re-read my posts with that in mind and they should make more sense.)

Steve
Yup, I was wondering what you were talking about. ;^) As seems to be the usual outcome, Edi disaagrees with me (and you and Grognads, in this case), but certainly, this is something that needs to be recitfied in the next edition of the rulebook.

[RuHurt]

I have to cast my lot with Grognad and Y2 in this case, David (don't feel bad; I'm usually on your side, after all ;) ). But I suppose you're right, it wouldn't hurt to have an example like yours in the rulebook, with the official ruling on how it would resolve.

[GROGnads]

Yes, I at least have HIM to thank for helping clear this up and don't ever believe that you, or others, can't provide an answer by submitting a worthy question. ;)