The fleets sink each other.

The world ends

Not true,1 build occurs. It's not like a bounce.

Do you know which build occurs Split if they build an army and a fleet?

No.If there are two armies or two fleets. I've built two armies in Marseille once.One showed up though. And it seems logic to me,it's not a bounce,like I said.

According to the official rules, neither should take place. It is supposed to be treated like a bounce. Doesn't mean that the site has that right though.

I once built two armies in Munich and I GOT TWO ARMIES! It was awesome! Highly recommend building two units on one center.

I think you built two units on one center more then once.Much more.

The first order goes through. No preference for fleets or armies i think. Just the first order on the sheet.

I am going to try that the next time I have more builds than open centers. Could be interesting.

@Draug Just took a look, doesnt seem to be that rule. Only 'vague and invalid' orders are ignored. These are clear and valid, just contradictory. Reading the overall section on writing orders, it could be interpreted as the first written order takes precedence. So this may not be a bad way to adjudicate at all.

By the way, whatever happened to the misadjudication of auto-disbands? Is that fixed?

See to me, conflicting orders, while individually valid, would collectively be invalid just like retreats that disband because they conflict.

Well, if you read the section onn writing orders, it says that each order must be read out loud, and if valid, must be executed. This implies that orders are done consequetively, meaning first order stands. Fleet Brest? Valid, done. Army Brest? Invalid, fleet already there.

@TMoW, from what I saw, Kestas fixed the auto-disband issue, although I haven't seen it in action.

That would then mean the first retreat order or the first move order to an empty SC read went through but clearly that isn't the case.

In face-to-face games, if you issue the same order multiple times, it is generally treated as having been ordered once.

So, if in S1901 France orders Bre - ENG, Bre - MAO, then Bre does neither. But if France orders Bre - MAO, Bre - MAO, then Bre goes to MAO. Bre - MAO, Bre - MAO, Bre - ENG would mean no order.

@CS - If you do Build A Bre and Build F Bre, what typically happens in F2F?

In a tournament, you'd get a TD ruling and some strange looks, and I think it depends on the TD and their house/tournament rules. If I were TD, I think I'd rule that as invalid and give you no build. However, if you order Build A Bre and Build A Bre, you'd get (one) A Bre. When I've run a tournament, the rule I've used (to be as nice as possible to newer players) is that any order which admits only one legal interpretation is considered valid, and orders that admit multiple legal interpretations are invalid. So, for example, I've had a player who liked to write "Norw." as the destination of a unit. If there was only one territory beginning with "Norw." to which that unit could move legally, it was a valid order and an admonition to be careful (F Edi - Norw.). However, if there were multiple (F North Sea - Norw.), then it was invalid.

However, webDip is a bit different, because webDip is intentionally set up to avoid allowing the possibility of invalid or ambiguous orders (which is unfortunate those times when an invalid order would be convenient...not that such times exist or anything!). So, I think on webDip, as a new player I'd tend to assume that anything which makes it past the parser is valid, and thus giving either an army of a fleet instead of neither seems like a more reasonable decision to me. The better answer, of course, is to have the website reject such orders. I believe that when I choose a unit type, the site repopulates the options for where to put it, so that I can't ask for a fleet in Moscow. Doing something similar when I select a build destination would be a better solution, IMO.