Yes a supporting unit can be supported but, the support can be cut; Support can be cut without a dislodge. The system is programmed right.

But support was not cut in that turn, right? He attacked my supporter, I supported my supporter, therefore my supporter should be able to support.

No Support can be cut without a dislodge.
If you ordered
F Tys S Ion-Tun
F Ion-Tun
F Apu-Ion
Turkey
F Aeg-Ion
You would of taken Tunis but, a stand-off would occur at the Ionian

But that means I need 3 supporters against 2 attackers (in the scenario that occurred, with F Tys attacking and F Ion supprting).

Unit A can support B who is supporting C to move to D. If C is hit be E, then C's support of D is cut. Unit A's support of B is only to hold its position. It does not stop the support from being cut.

Really, with all these elementary problems, Kestas should post the Avalon rules here.

That would be really helpful, since I based my moves on the rulebook I have for the game.

As for Alderian: So, if A, B, and C support D who is supporting E. and F attacks D, is support cut?

From the Rulebook (2000):
Support is cut if the unit giving support is attacked from any province except the one where support is being given. The support is cut whether this attack succeeds or not.

Yes D's support is cut. D was going to help out E but now he has to defend himself.

When the rules say support can be supported, they mean you can keep the supporting unit from being _dislodged_. You can't keep it's support from being cut.

But the rulebook (2000) also says that "support cannot be convoyed." Conserving the usage of the term throughout the whole rulebook is the only logical way to write a rulebook. Thus, "support can be supported" implies that the _support itself_ is supported, and not simply the unit's position. Think about it. It makes no sense in the context "every unit is of equal strength."

Oh, and I wouldn't be spending so much time arguing this if I didn't think that this site is awesome. I am going to lose that game anyway. A, T, and R have a triple alliance, and F, E, and G are trying to kill each other. I am in the middle; so don't think I am merely being petty.

Your on the loosing end on this argument. The language of the rule book, or any statement, can be misconstrued. But the rule is simple. an attack on a supporting unit - cut support. Support is against dis-lodgement only. It has always been thus.

TheSleepingBear, trust us when we say this is how the hobby's been played for the past few decades.

It makes absolute sense in the context of every unit is of equal strength. Without the Aegean Sea and Apulia, it would be two on two and nothing would happen. With them, it's 3-on-3 and nothing happens.

Support cannot be supported, but supporting units can be supported.

If you want more info on all kinds of rules issue, you can look at my DATC:

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/L.B.Kruijswijk

I also wrote an article about adjudication in the last Pouch:

http://www.diplom.org/Zine/S2009M/Kruijswijk/DipMath_Chp1.htm

The adjudicator of this site is tested against the DATC and the DATC is independent from this site. So, it is verified against an independent set.

Lucas

I still disagree, so I emailed Avalon (which is now owned, I guess, by Wizards of the Coast).

i can bet this game is twice as old as you :-) are you saying people have been playing wrongly for the last 40 years?

No, but maybe you have been. Anyways, is it a crime to question? Furthermore, you argument is pretty weak: just because you do something doesn't make it correct.

Look, all I am pointing out is that the _spirit_ of the support rule is to allow a unit to do something that it otherwise could not do, such as support another unit because it is being attacked. Simply adhering to the wording of a rule can work most of the time, but, since this game is awesome enough for complex situations to arise, a more thoughtful reading of the rules is necessary.

Finally, before you take pot shots at my age (ad hominem?), try reading some Thoreau.

In any case, Wizards/Avalon will probably agree with you, so no worries. I will post the email when I get it.

TheSleepingBear, you seem to be under the impression that this is a debate. This is not the case. There's no ad hominem, and we're not appealing to tradition.

If it were a debate, I would point out that support of a moving unit allows that unit to take more strength when moving, but support of a non-moving unit allows it to hold it's position with more strength, with no regards to it's supports.

I would also point out that despite we've appealed to authority, and pointed out that the rules have been much more carefully thought out before, you've decided to ignore this and instead go with Wizards/Avalon, which is but another appeal to authority. There have been many debates about rules over the years, but this has not been one of them. Lucas, who's done extensive work on adjudication has already posted... so have many experienced players... I don't think Wizards/Avalon know the answer better than Lucas or say, Edi Birsan, who may or may not grace this thread with his presence.

It is not a crime to question. But the rules are unambiguous about this matter. Take the passage I quoted. Your interpretation of the rules is not logically consistent with the stated rules. How else could the quote I provided be interpreted?

It's great to question. Just listen to the answer - especially when it is not one to your liking.

Chrispminis:

"If it were a debate, I would point out that support of a moving unit allows that unit to take more strength when moving, but support of a non-moving unit allows it to hold it's position with more strength, with no regards to it's supports."

--Doesn't this actually support my idea that support allows a unit to do what it couldn't do alone?

"There's no ad hominem, and we're not appealing to tradition."

--See alamothe's post above, and your's..."TheSleepingBear, trust us when we say this is how the hobby's been played for the past few decades."

--With regard to your third paragraph. The posts above didn't appeal to any authority other than the authority of the author of the post. Avalon Hill makes the rules, right? So that is a true appeal to authority.

TheClark:

--It's not about not liking the answer so much as not liking that the answer isn't backed up with logic. Sure, this may have been resolved before (although I think someone above said that this issue has never come up), but no one is addressing the fact that other rules and statements in the rulebook contradict the attack = cut rule (or at least complicate it).

Spyman:

--Sigh...As I keep stating, other rules/statements contradict (or at least complicate) the issue.

You have stated that you perceived a contradiction but you have not demonstrated an actual contradiction. The complication is only in your mind. *sigh* :P
I think the origin of your confusion is the following statement from the rules:
"Support can be offensive (supporting an attacking move order) or defensive (supporting a hold, support, or convoy order)."
Taken out of context I can see how this statement could be ambiguous. The ambiguity however is resolved within a few paragraphs by this statement:
"Support is cut if the unit giving support is attacked from any province except the one where support is being given. The support is cut whether this attack on the supporting unit succeeds or not."
It is inconceivable that the above statement is logically consistent with your interpretation of the rule. Thus you are wrong and have been proven to be wrong.
Don't get me wrong it is good to question these things if only to gain a better understanding. But you claim to be arguing from logic, but I am afraid you are not.

Btw at no point in the official rules does the phrase "support can be supported" appear.

You're right, I should have put the full quote in the first place, my bad: Page 9, Overview, paragraph 2--
"Support can be offensive (supporting an attacking move order) or defensive (supporting a hold, support, or convoy order). By supporting each other, attacking or defending units gain increased strength."

Funny how it specifies between a hold versus support...!

You're not the first person to raise this question. The first edition of the rules was ambiguous about supports. But the main issue was whether the attacked unit could cut the support of an attack upon itself by attacking the supporting unit (it can't and this was made clear in a later edition of the rules).
I have read somewhere online that in the early days there was debate between prominent members of the hobby about whether you should be able "to cut the cutting of support". But this idea did not gain traction.

The rules of the game will not always comport to mathematical purity. I think your are basing your argument on an aesthetic principle of logic rather than the practical nature of the game. The kind of rule interpretation you are suggesting would not be workable.

And, I would submit that in any human institution, (this game and its community, worldwide, certainly are an institution) tradition is all important.

This game essentially took 5 years to workout the details of play. It has been played by a community that has understood the rule you question for 50 years. Many professional diplomats have stated this is their favorite game. The likes of John Kennedy and Henry Kissinger. I mention this to emphasize the solid traditions. The rule was in the original game as developed by Allan Calhamer and it has remained the rule. The rule has been understood for all those years. When I began playing it with my friends, we misinterpreted a few rules, probably even this one.

Many playing see ways to change the game. They create their own variants. You sound like a smart, creative person. Create a variant, involve the community at large and see if it gains traction. If it works for enough folks, you have the sleeping bear variant.

Thanks for the two above posts. It seems like you two (and probably the others) really know the history of the development of this game.

I think spyman's and my disagreement mainly comes from a difference in how to interpret texts. A similar battle over arguably much more imporant documents, such as the bible, or the US constitution. Some people focus on a single line or rule within the text. Others look at the intent of the author(s), the historical context, context of the rule within the wording of the whole text, etc. Both sides make rational arguments, and both are right, in that sense.

I think TheClark's latest post is probably the most important to this thread: if an interpretation of a rule does not work practically with the game, then that interpretation is invalid. Tradition, with respect to the interpretation of rules, is therefore important (i.e. you guys have hammered it out what works over 50 or so years).

Thanks for your time. Sorry I got sorta feisty; not my original intent.

"...docments _exists_," is what I meant.