Questions about navies - asked by Neil Williamson, 16 January 2022

Naval Gazing

A few curly rules questions.

Page 10 "... each naval element always carries and can disembark one land element..."

This seems to suggest that the two elements are separate.

However, you can argue that because the naval element cannot move if there is no land unit aboard, then they are treated as a combined unit.

Questions

1. Does a general on a naval element add a +1 combat factor if the naval element is in combat or being shot at?

2. Does a general on a naval element that is in frontal combat suffer command difficulty?

3. If regular naval elements carry irregular troops do they still benefit from -1 PIP for one move or halt?

4. Can a naval element make a tactical move to shore, and then the land element make a tactical move in the same bound to disembark?

5. Can a land element embark and then, in the same bound, the naval element make a tactical move ?

If they are separate elements then I think the answers are

No, no, yes, yes, yes.

If they are a combined unit then I think the answers are the opposite

Yes, yes, no, no, no.

Or I suppose we could pick individual situations that suit us at the time lol.

Any thoughts if wisdom? 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/824840264342234/posts/1981891735303742/

• Keith V Trye

  1, yes he is now a Admiral/Gen

  2, yes. It is very hard giving sound orders under fire

  3, yes, quirk of the rules

  4, No, only by march moves if you want to dock then disembark troops

  5, yes if you wish to embark troops then move naval, has to be by march moves, remember there is +2pips to embark

  

  2

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 
    Share
  •  · 3d
• Active

  Vincent Cholewa

  Admin

  Group expert

  Knights of St John are bringing a navy?

  

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 
    Share
  •  · 3d
  • Active

    Neil Williamson

    Author

    Vincent Cholewa don't worry. I'll invade you overland so it won't happen

    

    1

    • Like
    •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 
      Share
    •  · 3d

  Active

  
  

  Write a public reply…
• Active

  Neil Williamson

  Author

  Keith V Trye thanks Keith. With 4 and 5 I did specify tactical moves.

  In summary you interpret the naval and land elements as being combined (except for irregular land being carried by regular naval)? … 

  See more

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 
    Share
  •  · 3d
  • Allen Yaxley

    Neil Williamson , starting to sound like the Vicar of Dibley……No No No No Yes…..

    

    1

    • Like
    •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 
      Share
    •  · 3d
• Dirk Heinsius

  Personally, without referencing the rules, I would treat them as combined. Or actually I would go for movement treat Naval as regular if regular, with the generals (Admirals) bonus reflecting order transmission etc.

  So

  Yes, Yes, Yes, No, No

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 
    Share
  •  · 3d
• Bruce Ferguson

  My first instinct was they must be separate elements, but then the fact that the naval element can't do anything without the land element embarked ruins that idea.

  I think its best to think of them the same way as horses for a dismounted element, but when embarked there is just the naval element so I don't see why the passengers elements modifiers should apply

  So No to all.

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 
    Share
  •  · 2d
  •  · 
    Edited
  • Active

    Neil Williamson

    Author

    Bruce Ferguson So Sea Horses then 

    

    1

    • Haha
    •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 
      Share
    •  · 2d
• Active

  Neil Williamson

  Author

  Well one person has replied from the UK DBMM, copied below. He has a very pragmatic approach to answering the rule query.

  It takes me full circle to what I thought would be the correct way to play before I started to read the rules and then wondering what the correct interpretation is.

  So far there has been no response from any members of the rules committee. However, I think that, unless there is any contradiction from the rules committee, then the following interpretation is how naval elements should be played.

  Allen Yaxley I will be employing naval elements so please confirm if the interpretation below is what you'd expect for the upcoming tournament (sorry there is a lot to read). In Vicar of Dibley speak it is a Yes, Yes, N/A, No, No.

  "As I have two armies with significant numbers of naval elements, I have had similar ponderings.

  In relation to generals, I think the question is one of command difficulty (p.27). If a general is on a naval vessel, is he 'on the battlefield'? I would say that he is. Even though his element is not on the table, his troops know where he is and can see his vessel. (Indeed, I have to have something that clearly identifies my general's vessel so that I know which one he is on!) For sure, the men on his vessel will know that he is with them.

  Following from that, answering 'yes' to both questions 1 and 2 seems reasonable, especially 2.

  I am not entirely sure that I understand question 3. Whether a naval element is regular or irregular is determined by the vessel's type, not how it's crew moves on land. A naval and its embarked element do not a group make, so I suspect this is a non-issue. (As an aside, some crews might be particularly adept at sailing but then poor at soldiering to the point that they only become available at all when the naval has already been taken, typically marines.)

  The example of marines, while not proof, reinforces why the answers to questions 4 and 5 are 'no'. I don't know of a list that allows marines to be taken without the naval they crew. In some lists, the only troops that can go on the naval are marines - they must go together.

  Finally, consider the parallel of mounted infantry and their mounts: would anybody allow mounted infantry to move on their mounts and then dismount and move again and not call that marching? Or anything mounted - for example, Kn move and dismount as BdS, then the BdS move. Was the BdS element part of the Kn move?

  Anthony"