https://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/diplomacy.pdf
page 14 of the pdf file
"Exchanging places via a Convoy: Two units can exchange places if either or both are convoyed."

Interesting thanks! I actually just tried it in a game here, but it failed. May contact the mods about it.

It's a bug indeed then. vDip's adjudicating engine is supposed to do that normally, as seem here on https://vdiplomacy.com/datc.php#section7.

rannjohnson: Was the army yours? The webDip/vDip implementation of the rules doesn't let you kidnap armies.

If that is the case JECE, *and* the player with the army is allowed to specify that it is moving via convoy, and then the move is adjudicated as successful, then the rule is implemented correctly.

Correct, the move may have failed if the order was not specified "via convoy". The drop down menu provides this clarification choice.

In dituations where it's possible for an army to move to its destinbation via either regular movement or convoy, the army should have an extra box at the end of its move line that defaults to 'via [land]'. If you want to specify that it moves via convoy, just switch that to 'via [convoy]'.

This absolutely allows for units to swap positioned if ordered correctly.

That's what I meant, David. Because you have to specify 'via army', the interface doesn't let you kidnap armies. I thought that rannjohnson's scenario may have had the army controlled by another power.

mouse: "via convoy" actually means "either" in our implementation.

JECE, If the player with the army orders it to move 'via convoy' and the convoy is not ordered, but the army is adjudicated as successfully having moved overland, then the rule is not implemented correctly.

David: It's by design. Check the DATC.

David - You are incorrect in your interpretation. The relevant excerpt follows:

A: No. The Rules (VII.1, third paragraph) clearly state that an army may move to an adjacent province if unopposed. In this situation, the convoy order is not relevant to the army's ability to move

I'm not sure that that's the relevant excerpt since it comes from an interpretation of the rules that the DATC doesn't prefer, but you can read the rest of the section here:
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/L.B.Kruijswijk/#4.A.3

And this is the relevant test case, David:
"
6.G.8. TEST CASE, EXPLICIT CONVOY THAT ISN'T THERE

What to do when a unit is explicitly ordered to move via convoy and the convoy is not there?

France:
A Belgium - Holland via Convoy

England:
F North Sea - Helgoland Bight
A Holland - Kiel

The French army in Belgium intended to move convoyed with the English fleet in the North Sea. But the English changed their plans.

. . .

If the 1982/2000 rulebook is used (choice d, which I prefer), the "via Convoy" has meaning, but only when there is both a land route and a convoy route. Since there is no convoy the "via Convoy" directive should be ignored. And the move from Belgium to Holland succeeds.

. . .
"
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/L.B.Kruijswijk/#6.G.8

Thanks JECE. I was on my phone and the DATC is hard to read on that. My quote was from the apparent paradoxes section talking about highjacked units not being allowed. Yours is a much better demonstration.

The DATC, while a useful resource, ain't Holy Writ. Lucas Kruiswijk admits a preference in this case for an out of date rule. That's all it is, his personal preference. My preference is different, but more importantly, I feel that unless a rule is "broken" (and it is not, in this case), it is much preferable that adjudication software use the current rules.

The current rule is slightly ambiguous, but the most reasonable interpretation is that a player can avoid moving overland through the use of the "via convoy" order form. The contrary interpretation renders the rule pretty much superfluous.

"The contrary interpretation renders the rule pretty much superfluous."

If you actually had read 4.A.3 carefully, you wouldn't be saying that. The entire reason behind forcing players to add "via convoy" to their orders when they mean to move by convoy (with a foreign fleet) is to prevent your armies from getting "kidnapped", or convoyed when you had no intention of convoying. You're flipping the reason that "via convoy" exists on its head by claiming that the notation is used to "avoid moving overland".

"The DATC, while a useful resource, ain't Holy Writ. Lucas Kruiswijk admits a preference in this case for an out of date rule. That's all it is, his personal preference."

The entire document is phrased in terms of what Lucas 'prefers'. That doesn't mean his reasoning isn't very well thought out. Nobody else's work even comes close to his dedication to detail, faithfulness to the official rules, emphasis on rules that can always be adjudicated and attention to historical interpretations of the rules. In this case, Lucas chooses to follow the guidance in the official rulebook. He is only reluctant because he thinks that adding "via convoy" to orders is too stringent. You prefer an interpretation that is even more strict, so it's a bit hypocritical for you to make an appeal to "an out of date rule."

David's argument is irrelevant where this site is concerned phpDiplomacy (the original code upon which webDip and vDip are based) is DATC compliant.

Like it or not, the DATC has become the standard for all adjudicator software. Even the latest email judges use it. So moaning about something being wrong in your viewpoint is, as Sam Axe says, being a "whiny little bitch". Sorry, watching reruns of Burn Notice and that just popped out.

In the FTF rules I seem to rebember that the intent should be sought "in the totality of the written orders". That doesnt help much. I have been in FTF games where the Tournament director has allowed a "kidnapped army". The analogy is that you can give an unwanted support.

4th edition Dip rules: If at least one of the convoying Fleets belongs to the player who controls the Army, then the convoy is used. The land route is disregarded. If none of the convoying Fleets belong to the player who controls the army, then the land route is used. However, the player controlling the army can use the convoy route if he/she indicated ‘via convoy’ on the Army move order in question

Still, for example if I order Bel-Lon and Nth C Bel-Lon I might think that if Nth is dislodged I will retreat the fleet to Lon and remain with A Bel. If France orders Eng C Bel-Lon then I might get my army to Lon AND the fleet in Nth dislodged. On the Ken Lowe email judges you had to exactly specify the convoy by ordering Bel-Nth-Lon. That solves this, but is actually not true to the rules.

JECE, I have read the test case, and in fact the whole DATC carefully. Even the convoy paradox sections, which always make my head hurt.

I think Lucas has done an excellent job and he knows I feel that way from our discussions over the years. I agree with almost all of his preferences and interpolations, where there are gaps, ambiguities or contradictions in the rules. Just not in this case.

The notation may have come into existence for a corllary reason, but among tge purposes it is used for is to avoid moving overland in this situation. To not follow the most logical and less, not more, restrictive interpretation is a mistake, in this instance.

YouCan'tHandleTheTruth, I am well aware that the DATC is widely used. So was the DPTG before it. That doesn't mean it can't be improved. It has been in the past. If a little whining and bitching is necessary to get there, I am willing to do my part.

P.S. I liked Burn Notice when it first came out, but it jumped the shark after the first season or two.

vixol, convoy route specification is a different, though closely related issue, and is a hole in the current rule set. For the record, I am in favor of allowing convoy rout specification, as a corollary to the anti-kidnapping rule.

To quote the DATC, "The idea of the DATC is not to enforce one way of interpretation of the rules. Therefore, you may call an adjudicator '2000 rulebook/DATC compliant' as long as you list the deviations with the specified requirements. However, the adjudicator may not fail on any of the test cases (of course, the results must be according to chosen preferences). Deviations does not need to be listed, when they can be turned off or when it is an extension in a client program that does not change anything when it is not used (for instance choice b for 4.A.6, choice a for 4.E.4 and choice a for 4.E.5).

Damnit. Fat fingers and a bouncy train! Only meant to quote the first 3 sentences. You have a menu of choices to work with in some situations, which makes the structure of the DATC underpinning the actual test cases similar to that of the Model House Rules. I am, of course, in favor of that. :^)

David, I agree they can be improved on but this forum is too small with almost none of the dignitaries from the global hobby present (like Manus Hand for instance) so while a fun discussion, no change is likely to come of it. It is merely a mind exercise.

Burn Notice jumped the shark when Jessie joined the team, I think.

Also rewatching Covert Affairs (sorta jumped in Season 5), Chuck (went out on a high note never jumping the shark), and Babylon 5 (season 5 sucked with Tracy Scroggins running the station instead of Claudia Christian (Cmdr Susan Ivanova).

Diplomacy is a mind exercise! You never know who these conversations might influence, YouCan'tHandleTheTruth. Even preachy rules-lawyers like me change our positions once in a while. And there is nothing wrong with the current rules that a 200-300 page supplement wouldn't fix. LOL

Once upon a time I thought that Diplomacy's rules were pretty much universal and comprehensive. Now my heads hurts and my faith is shaken a little bit.

Am I correct in understanding from this that in the scenario where 'via convoy' is specified, a convoy is *not* given, but an equivalent land-based move is unopposed, the move succeeds?

And David your preferred interpretation would be that 'via convoy' should preclude an otherwise legitimate and successful land movement?

And I seem to remember that 'via convoy' and 'via army' didn't even exist as necessary components of order-writing in the original rules right?