New Rulebook Edition

[David E. Cohen]

The new Renegade edition of the rules is now available at https://renegadegamestudios.com/diplomacy/

[gimix]

Thanks for posting that.
At a quick glance I didn't find any significant difference from the previous edition, did you?

[David E. Cohen]

I have not yet performed a line by line comparison, but a quick look revealed:

1. A further clarification that impossible order=hold order; and

2. A new, clear procedure for civil disorder removals.

[David E. Cohen]

I have performed a comparative analysis of the Renegade's 6th Edition (2023) rule book and the previous 5th edition (2008) rule book. Disregarding cosmetic and non-substantive changes (such as changing the colors of the example maps or dropping a reference the CD-Rom version of the game), there are a handful of substantive changes, as follows:

1. The rule book has added, to the traditional outcomes of solo and DIAS, possible results for time-limited or turn-limited games.

"A game of Diplomacy can end in one of four ways:

1. Control 18 Supply Centers: As soon as one Great Power controls 18 supply centers, it’s considered to have gained control of Europe.
2. Draw Involving All Survivors: All players who still have supply centers agree to share equally in a draw.
3. Turn Limit: Game ends after a number of predetermined turns (e.g., after Fall 1907) and the winner is the player with the most centers. Tied players share in victory.
4. Time Limit: Game ends after a predetermined number of hours (e.g., 4 hours, 8 hours) and the winner is the player with the most centers. Tied players share in victory."

Leaving aside the question of whether a victory can be shared, this change does not really have a practical impact for other than "friendly" FTF games. Unless you are in a tournament, on line or otherwise, games are very rarely either time-limited or turn-limited. If you are in a tournament, those outcomes are too simplistic and will be superseded by the tournament scoring system.


2. Rather than a vague statement that units "farthest from the country are removed first", there is now a clear methodology:

"In the event of a power going into civil disorder or when a power does not order a required removal, (a) No unit on a supply center is to be removed unless there are no viable options and (b) Unit precedence for removal starts with furthest from an owned supply center, by counting absolute adjacent provinces regardless of the ability of the unit to move into it, are removed first. Fleets are removed before armies, and then units are removed in alphabetic order of the name of the province on the map."

Perhaps not the most elegantly written the rule, but certainly serviceable and a since it is unambiguous, a big improvement over the previous rule. Most, if not all platforms will need to revise their code to comply with this rule.


3. The previous rule book clarification about impossible orders being hold orders if further, unequivocally clarified with capital letters, no less):

"A unit given an impossible order results in the unit HOLDING so it can be supported in place. For example, “A Burgundy—Moon” or “A Bohemia—Edinburgh” are impossible moves."

At least one platform is not compliant with this rule.


4. The next change is a clarification (and tightening up) of "matching" in support order for units with multiple coasts, so that a player may now specify support to a particular coast:

"The specification of Support to a specific coast in a split province such as Spain must match the move of the piece ordered to that province. For instance:

France: F Portugal S F Mid-Atlantic - Spain (sc); F Mid-Atlantic - Spain (nc)

The movement is valid but the support order is invalid because it identified an incorrect coast. If the order was F Mid-Atlantic - Spain (sc), then the support order would be valid."

The concept of "matching" was undefined in previous editions of the rule book, and while I can understand the opinion of those that wanted matching to be limited to a province, rather than a coast, I feel that this clarification aligns more with the overall spirit of the rule. I believe multiple platforms are not compliant with the rule.


5. The last change relates to a conflict between two rules in previous editions, with one rule forbidding a retreat by a unit to "the province from which its attacker came" and the rule which permits two units to switch places if one or both are convoyed, the issue coming up when a convoy from an adjacent province succeeds and dislodges a unit. The new edition resolves the conflict:

"A dislodged unit can retreat to the position of the attacker when there is a convoy to an adjacent province. For example:

England: A Edi-Yor; F Nth C A Edi-Yor; A Lon S A Edi-Yor
Germany: A Yor H

The German army is dislodged from Yorkshire. If the army in Edinburgh had attacked via land to Yorkshire, then the German army could not retreat to Edinburgh. Since the attack is coming from the convoy in the North Sea, the army in Yorkshire can legally retreat to Edinburgh."

I have always been of the opinion that if a unit could have moved to a province successfully in the movement phase, the unit could be legally ordered to retreat to that province in the subsequent retreat phase. I think there are multiple platforms which are not compliant with this rule.

[Octavious]

Is there any reason why sites should be compliant with the latest publications from Hasbro, Incorporated? I'd be keen on knowing how they determine their rule changes before seeing them as anything other than suggestions

[JECE]

Comparing with Stabbeurfou's errata for the 2000 rules, it seems like the first two issues remain uncorrected:
https://web.archive.org/web/20191228034 ... ro_en.html

The civil disorder rule is quite different in that it seems to prioritize keeping units in any supply center, not just home supply centers.

[JECE]

Is there any reason why sites should be compliant with the latest publications from Hasbro, Incorporated? I'd be keen on knowing how they determine their rule changes before seeing them as anything other than suggestions

Take that up with Lucas B. Kruijswijk:
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/L.B.Kruijswijk/

[David E. Cohen]

Is there any reason why sites should be compliant with the latest publications from Hasbro, Incorporated? I'd be keen on knowing how they determine their rule changes before seeing them as anything other than suggestions

Other than that these are the rules of the game? LOL

[Octavious]

Is there any reason why sites should be compliant with the latest publications from Hasbro, Incorporated? I'd be keen on knowing how they determine their rule changes before seeing them as anything other than suggestions

Other than that these are the rules of the game? LOL

They are one of many sets of rules for the game. If a kid gets diplomacy for Christmas he will play by his interpretation of whatever version of the rules happens to be in the box. If he joins a website he will play by whatever version of the rules is used by the website.

Now, it may be that the changes are good, in which case bully for everyone, but there's no reason to automatically assume Hasbro's latest musings are more authoritative than one of the versions written by Calhamer, or one of the website interpretations

[captainmeme]

Is there any reason why sites should be compliant with the latest publications from Hasbro, Incorporated? I'd be keen on knowing how they determine their rule changes before seeing them as anything other than suggestions

As far as I can tell, they brought in a face to face tournament director (Tom Haver, who runs the events at GenCon and a couple of others) as an expert consultant and he made the rewrites/clarifications.

It's an attempt to bring the rulebook in-line with the way the game is played, which I think it does well at in most areas. But I'd say there's no requirement to update websites to match this rulebook, the purpose is the reverse of that.

[David E. Cohen]

Is there any reason why sites should be compliant with the latest publications from Hasbro, Incorporated? I'd be keen on knowing how they determine their rule changes before seeing them as anything other than suggestions

Other than that these are the rules of the game? LOL

They are one of many sets of rules for the game. If a kid gets diplomacy for Christmas he will play by his interpretation of whatever version of the rules happens to be in the box. If he joins a website he will play by whatever version of the rules is used by the website.

Now, it may be that the changes are good, in which case bully for everyone, but there's no reason to automatically assume Hasbro's latest musings are more authoritative than one of the versions written by Calhamer, or one of the website interpretations

First off, its not Hasbro. Renegade bought the rights.

And no, the latest version of the rules published by the entity which owns the rights to the game is pretty much the definition of 'authoritative'. Departures from those rules, for whatever reason, and there are good ones, are pretty much in house rule, if not variant territory. Allowing communication in retreat and adjustnent phases is n excellent example.

[Octavious]

Is there any reason why sites should be compliant with the latest publications from Hasbro, Incorporated? I'd be keen on knowing how they determine their rule changes before seeing them as anything other than suggestions

As far as I can tell, they brought in a face to face tournament director (Tom Haver, who runs the events at GenCon and a couple of others) as an expert consultant and he made the rewrites/clarifications.

It's an attempt to bring the rulebook in-line with the way the game is played, which I think it does well at in most areas. But I'd say there's no requirement to update websites to match this rulebook, the purpose is the reverse of that.

Ah, that sounds dangerously close to being impressive. Arguably a tad Americentric, but I guess it is an American game at the end of the day. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Cheers, Cap