I'm pretty sure that your fleet in the Tyrhennian fails and is displaced. The convoy does not work and your army stays in Tunis.

yep:)

GamesByEmail has a pretty good adjudicator that you can use to test out scenarios. Here's this one:

http://GamesByEmail.com/Games/Politics/Judge#0532m4002722S47353432S05403510m73040424722c3504822S47356612S35737322C4735

It appears that the convoy and move fail, but the fleet in the Tyrrhenian Sea is not dislodged.

Aric, I don't think that's the correct result at all. The convoyed attack has two supports, whereas the attack by the fleet in Rome has only one support.

Thus, one of two things are possible. Either the convoyed attack is assumed to be coming across the Rom-Tyn border, in which case it overwhelms the other attack and takes Rom, or it isn't coming over any particular border, in which case Tyn is dislodged. I can't see an interpretation of the rules which would allow Tyn to stay put but the convoy to fail.

indeed, menace is correct.

in this case however there are two possible solution each of which is self consistant.

Though i think the fleet gets dislodged.

the support from tuscany and venice doesn't really matter.
What's more interesting is if ion is moving to tyr with support from a fleet in rome.

here if the convoy succeeds the support is cut, and the convoy succeeds.
But if the support is not cut, then the convoy fails, and the spport is not cut...
again no paradox, just two possible resolutions.

i know there are paradoxs, i just can't think of an example right now.

This isn't a paradox.

Neither is it an attack from the TYS-Rom border. In a correct implementation of the rules an attack via convoy is direction-less. this allows the unit that would normally have lost to a powerful convoying force to attack a chain in the convoy.

The solution is simple: the fleet in TYS is dislodged and the convoy fails.

Even though you had a 3 v 2 situation, the fact that a convoy was needed balanced the whole situation out, as the opponent was simply able to break the weakest part of the move (the convoying fleet). Had you used a fleet (if the unit in Tus was a fleet) to support the hold in TYS the attack on your convoying fleet would have failed and your move succeeded. I'm guessing that you had an army in both Tus and Ven, and a very shrewd opponent who saw breaking the convoy as his only option.

To create a paradox, a convoyed army has to attack a unit that is supporting the attack on one of the convoying fleets. This is not what happened.

Churchill, do the rules actually say anywhere that a convoyed attack is directionless? Certainly, it makes the most sense, but in ambiguous situations it's always better to have a specific rule to support.

The rules do not actually state that a convoyed attack is directionless, I am saying this to save anyone the trouble of considering it. Even if you assign a direction to a convoyed attack (presumably the direction of the last fleet involved in the convoy-note that this could be more than one if multiple routes were specified!), attacking a fleet that was part of the convoy is a separate event to the attack by the convoying army. Thus assigning a direction on a convoy is pointless.

If you were to consider that the fleet and the convoying army were a unified force then it seems that a convoyed army should have the support of the last fleet that convoyed it. I guess, however, that you are thinking that a simple convoy could be repelled by a 3 (attacking army and 2 supports) on 3 (defending fleet attacking convoying fleet with 2 supports) type of attack. As the convoyed army attacking the territory and the fleet attacking the fleet performing the convoy are two separate events (as the fleet does not participate in the attack on land and the army does not defend the fleet at sea) there is no use for a direction.

What I'm trying to say in short is that no rule specifies that there is no direction, but assigning a direction to a convoyed attack would not change the interpretation or execution of any other rule.

What if you just considered the attack to be (in this case) from Tun-Rom? In that case, F Rom is not trying to cut support for an attack against itself, because F TYR is not supporting the attack. Therefore Rome's attack succeeds, the convoying fleet is dislodged, and the convoy itself fails.

Also, the adjudicator does require one to post that the support for a convoy is (in this case) A Tus S A Tun-Rom, rather than A Tus S F TYR-Rom or a Tus S A TYR-Rom (the latter of which not even making sense). I think it's less confusing if you think of that as the vector of attack, and just ignore the convoy route.

I like the way you put it. You are right to say that the attack comes from the origin of the army.

This is another of the game's astonishingly well written rules as otherwise, if given two or more routes for a convoy, players would argue incessantly about the outcome of a particular move. Additional rules would be required and the whole convoy move would be too complex (as if paradoxes aren't bad enough).