Moves question - convoyless paradox?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

I have a situation that I'm not sure how to adjudicate. It looks like
a paradox, of the "internal inconsistency" type (rather than the "two
valid adjudications" type). The specific situation is as follows:

Austria:
A Vie-Tyr
A Tri S A Vie-Tyr
Italy:
A Ven-Tri
A Tyr S A Ven-Tri

The problem stems from a dislodged unit being unable to give support.
Since the situation is symmetric, if it is ruled that support is cut in
this case, then the attacking armies lack the strength to dislodge the
supporting armies... which means that support is not cut, since support
is not cut by an attack from the province into which support is being
given. But if the support is not cut, then the supporting armies are
dislodged, support must be cut, and we're back to square one. Is there
a common agreement on how to rule this? Or have I missed something
obvious?

I suppose, technically speaking, there are two valid solutions: favor
one side or the other. The actions become consistent with the rules,
but then we merely have a paradox of the other type.

Oh, I am using the 4th edition of the rules, in case that makes a
difference.

(I apologize if this is covered somewhere, but any search about
paradoxes on this group returns a quagmire of examples involving
convoys, which is obviously not what I'm looking for.)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Ah, yes, I see that now. Neither army is being attacked from the
province that it is sending support to. Don't know why I didn't see
that earlier. Thanks.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

No paradox here. You are misapplying the support cutting rule. Ven cuts
the support of Tri, and Vie cuts the support of Tyo. The attacks each fail,
1v1.



"Keiran Halcyon" <keiranhalcyon31@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127784955.097177.291780@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I have a situation that I'm not sure how to adjudicate. It looks like
> a paradox, of the "internal inconsistency" type (rather than the "two
> valid adjudications" type). The specific situation is as follows:
>
> Austria:
> A Vie-Tyr
> A Tri S A Vie-Tyr
> Italy:
> A Ven-Tri
> A Tyr S A Ven-Tri
>
> The problem stems from a dislodged unit being unable to give support.
> Since the situation is symmetric, if it is ruled that support is cut in
> this case, then the attacking armies lack the strength to dislodge the
> supporting armies... which means that support is not cut, since support
> is not cut by an attack from the province into which support is being
> given. But if the support is not cut, then the supporting armies are
> dislodged, support must be cut, and we're back to square one. Is there
> a common agreement on how to rule this? Or have I missed something
> obvious?
>
> I suppose, technically speaking, there are two valid solutions: favor
> one side or the other. The actions become consistent with the rules,
> but then we merely have a paradox of the other type.
>
> Oh, I am using the 4th edition of the rules, in case that makes a
> difference.
>
> (I apologize if this is covered somewhere, but any search about
> paradoxes on this group returns a quagmire of examples involving
> convoys, which is obviously not what I'm looking for.)
>