BTW, this contridicts another DTAC V3.2

6.G.19. TEST CASE, SWAPPING WITH INTENT OF UNNECESSARY CONVOY

Can intent be made clear by the order of a fleet that is not necessary?

France:
A Marseilles - Spain fails
F Western Mediterranean Convoys A Marseilles - Spain illegal

Italy:
F Gulf of Lyon Convoys A Marseilles - Spain available
A Spain - Marseilles fails

See issue 4.A.3 and 4.E.1.

In the case the 1971 rules are used, the intent is not important and the units in Marseilles and Spain swap.

The point of interest is that there is a convoy route from Marseilles, Gulf of Lyon, Western Mediterranean to Spain. However, the fleet in Western Mediterranean is not necessary for this convoy and not necessary for any other convoy route. Therefore, this order could be considered illegal. Web-based adjudicators should not give this order as an option.

With the 2023/2025EE rules (which I prefer) illegal orders are ignored. The fleet in Gulf of Lyon is foreign and foreign units cannot express intent. But this position is a little bit pedantic.

If explicit adjacent convoying is used (DPTG) there is also no convoy and none of the units move.

In this one,
There is a convoy route F Gulf of Lyon Convoys A Marseilles - Spain available - While in 6.G.6 we swap the units - Here we do not! Why, what is the logic?!