Unused Naval due to missing terrain

[arnimlueck]

I believe this one was asked before but I could not find the older answer:

browsing through some army lists, I found that e.g. the Khitan Liao (B3. L56) do have ships in their army list but do not have access to sea or waterway. I read terrain placing rules on page 21 in the way that I may place a sea or waterway only if
a) I am the defender and the sea/waterway is compulsory
or
b) I am the invador and both lists allow for a sea/waterway

in consequence the Khitan Liao will never ever see a sea/waterway, their ships can never be deployed. What is the reason to put them in the list? At least from the historical perspective the northern (more chinese part) of the Liao empire can motivate ships in the list AND this part would also qualify for sea (and according to my memory also for WW).

Who remembers the genius/rationale behind this case

Puzzled
Arnim

[LawrenceG]

The invader can place sea or waterway if it is compulsory for the defender.

Still, this doesn't help a great deal, unless you have arranged a game in advance and know that the other player's army has compulsory water.

[william]

  I have thought about this type of naval stuck high and dry before, happens in a few lists I think.

It is possible that the rules may change over a period of time, it takes much longer to change army books, so sooner or later you might get to use such land bound Naval elements.

I suppose the army lists are also now used for some DBMers and there fore use different terrian rules.

William

[arnimlueck]

True that it happens in more than one list.

I  would insist that DBMM lists should make sense in a DBMM context. And the only affected list I have some good literature here to read is the Liao. For that specific one my personal recommendation would be to write an errate and add WW to the list as it had access to ports in northern China and areas that today are in Korea.