Embarking contradiction

[landmeister]

Hi,

I need some help on embarking troops. On page 10 you can read 2 contradictory sentences.
a) Naval Landing Forces: "Mounted elements CAN abandon their mounts and embark as foot".
b) Exchanging Mounted and Foot Elements: "Mounted troops MUST dismount to defend fortifications or embark".

In both cases capitals are mine. Any help? 

Thank you in advance.

[Aloysius the Gaul]

I dont' see anywhere it says that mounted MUST dismount to enbark.

On page 10 it says that "Others can dismount only if....(b) to embark,....."

Paeg 10 lists a number of times mounted can dismount - some can do so as listed in the army lists.  If not listed they can only do so as per the 4 cases (a), (b), (c), (d).

Secondly - some naval elements can carry mounted troops - clearly then there is no need to dismount these.

However most naval elements cannot.  However the first rule you mention allows you to dismount any mounted troops to their foot type in order to embark the dismounted element (within the limitations of hte dismounting rules eg yuo cannot dismount elephants)

Eg is you had an army of Kn that cannot normally dismount, and some ships that are allowed to carry Bd, then you can dismount the Kn as Bd(S) and carry them on the ship(s).

[landmeister]

I dont' see anywhere it says that mounted MUST dismount to enbark.

On page 10 it says that "Others can dismount only if....(b) to embark,....."

Paeg 10 lists a number of times mounted can dismount - some can do so as listed in the army lists.  If not listed they can only do so as per the 4 cases (a), (b), (c), (d).

Both sentences are on page 10, but in different places.
a) Sentence 1. Naval Landing Forces (title). Last Para. Third line.
b) Sentence 2. Exchanging mounted and foot elements (title). First para. First line.

Why is the first one specifiying that dismounted embark as foot while the second treat al dismounted equal? This is what I can't understand. I don't see it as a question depending on each concrete army list. I would say it's just a mistake in the text, but I would appreciate other opinions.

Thank you.

[Aloysius the Gaul]

ah - I missed the obvious one right at the start of the section!!

IMO the one that says that mounted troops must dismount to embark is an error - clearly there are naval units that carry mounted troops in their full mounted glory.

The bit about "can dismount" allows any mounted troops to dismount to become foot allowed to be carried by naval, even if the army lsit does not normally allow those mounted to dismount...IMO.

[landmeister]

I agree. How could I tell Phil about this mistake?

[Barritus]

Landmeister

Are you part of the DBMM email list? If so, post the problem there, and it should be able to be added to the official errata.

Otherwise, you might like to send a Personal Message through this board to Toby Partridge, who's looking after the errata (IIRC).

[toby]

If you aren't on the DBMM List, I'm happy to post it there and just check that there isn't some bizarre reason why this isn't a mistake, then I'll put it in the errata.

Toby

[landmeister]

If you aren't on the DBMM List, I'm happy to post it there and just check that there isn't some bizarre reason why this isn't a mistake, then I'll put it in the errata.

Toby

I've enlisted the DBMM list but I found no refernces about it at all. when was it posted there?

[toby]

Ah - I haven't yet. I'll do it now.

[toby]

Duncan on the DBMMList points out that the mounted troops dismount to embark, but are not forced to discard their mounts. They then disembark and may remount as part of the disembarkation move. So they are only actually dismounted while they are actually on the ship.

I don't know if this makes any sense - I don't have a copy of the rules at work - but I will try and remember to check this evening.

[Aloysius the Gaul]

Yes it makes sense and is correct....but it's pretty stupid stuff to include in the rules - utterly pointless in fact - all players need to know is that mounted troops can go on some ships and come off as mounted troops again at the otehr end.

Anything more than that is added complications that leads to this sort of thread!!

[landmeister]

I agree. I think it's addind too much complications to the text. 

[toby]

You can't accuse Phil of not adding detail where its not needed and skating over the bits where it is most essential. These do seem to be some of his best efforts so far though. Its a pity there is a very playable game inside all this trying to get out.

[Aloysius the Gaul]

the game is fine - I play it without much bother at all.

But people spot different things - the rigmarole about mounted troops dismounting to board ships and then mounting again afterwards is simply unnecessary.  It has never bothered me because I didn't know it was there until this thread, and I can fulfill it's requirements without know it at all!