Rule Problem 13: Retreat of Units After Dislodgment by Convoyed Armies

[David E. Cohen]

If a unit has been dislodged by a convoyed army, the dislodged unit

Alternative A: may not retreat to the province from which the dislodging convoyed army originated.

Alternative B: may retreat to the province from which the dislodging convoyed army originated, if the retreat is otherwise legal.

[Edi Birsan]

You can never retreat to the province that the attack originated from.

[David E. Cohen]

Originally Posted by Edi Birsan

You can never retreat to the province that the attack originated from.

You can also never have two units that switch places, except when one of them moves via convoy. The rules do not explicitly state which rule takes precedence, and to me the logic of "If you can move there, you can retreat there." is persuasive.

[Edi Birsan]

"If you can move there, you can retreat there." is persuasive"

Not really since you can not retreat by convoy since convoy is not part of the retreat order.

[RuHurt]

I'd rule that, if you take "movement" (where no one gets dislodged) and "combat" (where someone does get dislodged) to be different phases of the game, then the rules governing "combat" would take precedence over those ruling "movement," and the unit could not retreat to the convoyed army's starting place.

[David E. Cohen]

Originally Posted by Edi Birsan

"If you can move there, you can retreat there." is persuasive"

Not really since you can not retreat by convoy since convoy is not part of the retreat order.

Not what I was talking about in the particular Rules Problem, as I think you realize, but let me give you an example:

France:
A Pic-Bel
F ECh-Convoys A Pic-Bel
A Bur-Supports A Pic-Bel

England:
A Bel

Absent any other units, England could *move* to Pic, since two adjacent units can switch places, if one of them moves by convoy. If England could move A Bel-Pic, It can retreat A Bel-Pic.

[Edi Birsan]

1999 rule book page 17 Rertreat abnd Disbanding Phase
"A unit must retreat to an adjacent province"
"A unit cannot retreat to:
...the province from which the attacker came."

Again this thread is irrelevant and is covered in the current rule book.

[David E. Cohen]

Originally Posted by Edi Birsan

1999 rule book page 17 Rertreat abnd Disbanding Phase
"A unit must retreat to an adjacent province"
"A unit cannot retreat to:
...the province from which the attacker came."

Again this thread is irrelevant and is covered in the current rule book.

And again, you are incorrect as to both the relevance of the thread, and the rulebook status of this problem, since this rule is in conflict with the special exception stating that two pieces may exchange places one one or both are convoyed. Since this is a special exception, it is logical to assume that this rule takes precedence over the general retreat rule.

[RuHurt]

No, I have to agree with Edi, David; movement and combat should be taken as different phases, and I'd say that the "no retreating to the attacker's starting territory" overrules the "switching places with use of convoy."

[David E. Cohen]

Originally Posted by RuHurt

No, I have to agree with Edi, David; movement and combat should be taken as different phases, and I'd say that the "no retreating to the attacker's starting territory" overrules the "switching places with use of convoy."

You may be right. There are people out there that agree with each of us on this. As I have said any number of times in these threads, it would be nice if the rulebook said something about this.