Nope. In order for a support hold to work, the supported unit needs to hold, not move. Failing a move isn't the same thing as a hold. It's a failed move.

It doesn't work like that. A support hold only works on an army which is supporting another army or holding. A failed move doesn't count as a hold.

You can support hold a unit that is doing any of the following; holding, support holding another unit, or supporting the move of another unit. You cannot successfully support hold a unit that is moving.

You can also support hold a fleet convoying an army...

okay, thanks.

From the official rules: "Any unit that moves away from a support must be removed from the board for a season and the nearest owned supply center returned to the discard pile. Draw a card and continue play to the left."

I have another one ...
I know a unit can not cut the support for an attack against itself. But what would happen if ... let's say ... North Sea convoys an army from London to Denmark while Denmark supports an attack from English Channel to North Sea.
One could argue that the convoyed army cuts the support into North Sea, therefore North Sea will not be dislodged. North Sea would be used to cut a support against itself, but the attack that would actually cut the support would not come from North Sea itself.
But one could also argue that said army can not cut that support as the convoy is not happening due to North Sea being dislodged.

we had this discussion a few weeks ago:

"A convoyed Army does not cut the support of a unit supporting an attack against one of the Fleets necessary for the Army to convoy."
https://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/diplomacy.pdf ; p.16

dirge: In the first games I played Diplomacy (1 vs. 1 in person with my father, neither of whom had seen the game played before), I interpreted the rules in the same way you have here. But you've been on a website that adjudicates moves automatically for about a year now and played dozens of games on it; how haven't you noticed this yet, ha ha? It comes up all the time.

@Sevyas: Yeah, as I mentioned in the other topic. A good way to look at that and more simply understand how it works is that the game must check if the convoy was successful before anything else. Therefore it must check that the convoying fleet wasn't dislodged first. So, once you do that simple check first, it really makes looking at nearly all the paradoxes with a lot more understanding.

JECE -- I've known the site handles it this way. It just didn't jive with my understanding of the rules.

And what do you think is more likely? That all the people who have been avid diplomacy players so CE the 60s as well as the game's inventor are wrong or that you just didn't grasp the subtlety of "ordering a move is not a hold even if it fails, therefore can ot be support held"?

"Since the 60s" and "cannot be".

@Sevyas
The way I make sense of it is that the North Sea fleet has to actually hold its position in order to do any convoying. If the North Sea fleet is dislodged, then it isn't actually available to convoy the army out of London and the army ends up completely stuck in London visiting Wembley or whatever. And since that army is stuck in London and doesn't have a fleet available to convoy it anywhere, it couldn't possibly cut the support from Denmark.

I'm not sure if that's the actual logic behind it, but it's what makes the official rules and adjudication seem reasonable to me.

I just asked for clarification you fucking turds.

dirge: Only two people have posted since your last post. One of these wasn't talking to you and didn't address your post either. The only logical conclusion is that Draugnar is "fucking turds." Fair enough.

yeah, pretty much draugnar. But he is enough of a turd to warrant a plural.

I'm not the one continuously questioning the sites adjudication (which conforms to the DATC - the equivalent to the governing body in other games like chess).