Can Mounted become a Garrison?

I think you dead a good job pointing out the inconsistencies, and it's clear that the text alone can't resolve the question, so I'd propose the following as the solution that is in my view closest to the letter of the rules as written:

- A player can only voluntarily garrison a city (either at the beginning of the game or by moving into it during the game) with foot troop elements.
- However, mounted elements (Scythed Chariots, which cannot assault the city, and Elephants, which won't move into the city even if they successfully assault it) can enter a city and sack it if they beat its defenders.
- As long as they are sacking the city, mounted elements count as occupying but not garrisoning it (so no +4 but no pursuing).
- Once the sacking is complete, the mounted unit becomes a garrison, entitled to the combat factor and subject to the PIP penalty. If it were to leave the city, it couldn't come back to garrison it again, as only foot (except WWg) can do that.

So, in this way, both foot and mounted (except El, SCh) can garrison a city, but the only way mounted can get into that position is by successfully assaulting an enemy city, moving into it and completing the sacking; only foot can be placed as a garrison "voluntarily".

People are certainly free to make up any rules they want, but the intent for a Garrison was for it to be Foot. Note the words "if eligible" in the text below. Only foot are "eligible."

"If a garrison vacates the city, the denizens continue to defend it. If the garrison is destroyed, they do not. When a garrison or denizens are destroyed in close combat, any one assaulting enemy element (except elephants or a mobile tower) occupies the city and sacks it until its player has a PIP score of 5 or 6. The sacking element can then either garrison the city if eligible to do so, or vacate it. Prior to that, the sacking element does not get a garrison tactical factor in close combat and cannot shoot or be shot at. "

Actually Bob and Martin, I’m on your side.
I want only foot to be a garrison...indeed, I have a vested interest in doing so; it means I don’t have to change my “Detailed Crib Sheets” (or buy my mate a drink!). However, I am unable to point a finger at a line in the rules that says there, that definitely proves it.

Take that rule that you quoted:-
“Sacking [7.3]: The sacking element (after a PIP roll of 5 or 6) can then either garrison the city if eligible to do so, or vacate it.”

Does this rule mean that if a mounted element finds itself in an captured enemy city, it MUST spend the very first PIP to vacate it?
After all, there are only two options given...if mounted are not ‘eligible’ to become a garrison, their only other option is to leave.
The third option, to remain as mere ‘occupiers’, is not given as a choice.
This is fine for cities, but what about when mounted find themselves inside a captured enemy fort?
There is no sacking when an enemy fort is captured. Do they also HAVE to spend a PIP to leave as well?
This would solve the issue...mounted would never be inside a city/fort (except when they are sacking it).

And I would be interested in how you Bob, Martin, and other players resolve the following inconsistencies, which I posted earlier but will repeat here for convenience:-

The Inconsistencies
Rule 7.3: “If a city has surrendered and there is no enemy troop garrison, the original owner can pay 5 PIPs for its denizens to revolt.”
(If mounted are not a ‘garrison’, can a city revolt if it is only ‘occupied’ by the mounted element that assaulted and captured it?)

Rule 8.7: “Pay an extra PIP if an element is currently garrisoning a city, fort or camp.”
(If mounted are not a ‘garrison’, do they only pay 1 PIP to leave a city or fort they have assaulted and captured?)

Rule 9.8: “The area within 1 BW of any point of a camp, city or garrisoned fort is its Threat Zone.”
(If mounted are not a ‘garrison’, do ‘occupying’ mounted exert a Threat Zone from inside an enemy fort they have assaulted and captured?)

There are many references in the rules saying that mounted cannot be deployed in or enter a city or fort.
But although he has ample opportunity to do so, Mr Barker fails to mention whether mounted can be given garrison status if they find themselves inside a captured city or fort:-
　　Tactical Factors [11.3]: “+4  if garrisoning a city or fort”...(note there is no exemption for being mounted).
　　Denizens [7.3]: “(Denizens) are not a garrison.”....(note no mention of mounted also not being a garrison).
　　And there are also the inconsistencies that I noted above.
Revolt [7.3] is an interesting case in point: “If a city has surrendered and there is no enemy troop garrison...”
Phil could, and perhaps should, have used the phrase “...and if there is no occupying enemy troops...”
But he instead deliberately chose “no enemy troop garrison”.

I know that all this is rather trivial, and having a mounted element inside a a captured enemy city or fort is a fairly rare event.
But I don’t want to be accused of spreading false information in my “Crib Sheets”, so it’s important that I get it right.
(Besides, my mate is getting thirsty!) 


P.S.
Actually, this is not a matter of being ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.
I just need to know what the consensus of the majority of the DBA community is, so we all play the same, no matter what the rules do or don’t say.
(And my mate will just have to buy his own drinks!) 

I think Stevie's point is as follows: OK, but given that NOWHERE ever in the entire DBx system is there a compulsion to make your next move with your first PIP something like removing the mounted element after it is done sacking the city, what if you just leave it there, because you have more pressing items demanding your precious PIPs? What then?

It is not a garrison, but neither is it under any compulsion to leave either...

I USE CAPS JUST TO DIFFERENTIATE MY COMMENTS FROM STEVIE'S TEXT. NOT YELLING

Actually Bob and Martin, I’m on your side.
I want only foot to be a garrison...indeed, I have a vested interest in doing so; it means I don’t have to change my “Detailed Crib Sheets” (or buy my mate a drink!). However, I am unable to point a finger at a line in the rules that says there, that definitely proves it.

Take that rule that you quoted:-
“Sacking [7.3]: The sacking element (after a PIP roll of 5 or 6) can then either garrison the city if eligible to do so, or vacate it.”

Does this rule mean that if a mounted element finds itself in an captured enemy city, it MUST spend the very first PIP to vacate it?
NO, THEY CAN STAY AS LONG AS THEY WANT, OR CAN, JUST LIKE FOOT OCCUPIERS PRIOR TO ROLLING 5-6. "CAN VACATE", NOT MUST VACATE. I ONCE OCCUPIED A CITY FOR 6 TURNS WITH FOOT.

After all, there are only two options given...if mounted are not ‘eligible’ to become a garrison, their only other option is to leave.
NO REASON THEY CANNOT STAY AS LONG AS THE WANT OR CAN EVEN AS OCCUPIERS.

The third option, to remain as mere ‘occupiers’, is not given as a choice.
IT IS THE OBVIOUS DEFAULT. RULE SAYS "CAN VACATE" NOT MUST VACATE

This is fine for cities, but what about when mounted find themselves inside a captured enemy fort?
CAN WE SAVE FORTS FOR ANOTHER THREAD, I, AT LEAST, CAN ONLY DEAL WITH ONE ISSUE AT A TIME

There is no sacking when an enemy fort is captured. Do they also HAVE to spend a PIP to leave as well?
DITTO

This would solve the issue...mounted would never be inside a city/fort (except when they are sacking it).

And I would be interested in how you Bob, Martin, and other players resolve the following inconsistencies, which I posted earlier but will repeat here for convenience:-

The Inconsistencies
Rule 7.3: “If a city has surrendered and there is no enemy troop garrison, the original owner can pay 5 PIPs for its denizens to revolt.”
(If mounted are not a ‘garrison’, can a city revolt if it is only ‘occupied’ by the mounted element that assaulted and captured it?)
AN OCCUPIED CITY CANNOT SURRENDER
"If it is not occupied by the enemy or it is vacated; a puppet administration has been put in power and its denizens will defend the city for the enemy. Denizens of a surrendered city cannot sally, as the puppet administration is fully occupied holding down a doubtful populace. If a city has surrendered during the game [OMIT TEXT RELATED TO CAMPAIGN] or this has been destroyed by shooting, the player that originally owned the city can pay 5 PIPs at the start of any of its side’s bounds for its denizens to revolt against and overthrow the puppet administration, resume their original loyalty and defend the city

Rule 8.7: “Pay an extra PIP if an element is currently garrisoning a city, fort or camp.”
(If mounted are not a ‘garrison’, do they only pay 1 PIP to leave a city or fort they have assaulted and captured?)
SO IT SEEMS. ONLY A GARRISON PAYS EXTRA PIP. VERY CLEAR. THE IMPORTANT POINT HERE IS, DOES A CAMP HAVE A GARRISON?

Rule 9.8: “The area within 1 BW of any point of a camp, city or garrisoned fort is its Threat Zone.”
(If mounted are not a ‘garrison’, do ‘occupying’ mounted exert a Threat Zone from inside an enemy fort they have assaulted and captured?)
ANY POINT OF A CITY -- OCCUPIED, GARRISONED, PUPPET GOVERNMENT, OR EMPTY.


There are many references in the rules saying that mounted cannot be deployed in or enter a city or fort.
But although he has ample opportunity to do so, Mr Barker fails to mention whether mounted can be given garrison status if they find themselves inside a captured city or fort:-
　　Tactical Factors [11.3]: “+4 if garrisoning a city or fort”...(note there is no exemption for being mounted).
IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED IN THE TEXT THAT MOUNTED CANNOT GARRISON A CITY. NO NEED TO RESTATE FACTS ALREADY IN EVIDENCE.

　　Denizens [7.3]: “(Denizens) are not a garrison.”....(note no mention of mounted also not being a garrison).

DITTO TO ABOVE
　　And there are also the inconsistencies that I noted above.
Revolt [7.3] is an interesting case in point: “If a city has surrendered and there is no enemy troop garrison...”
Phil could, and perhaps should, have used the phrase “...and if there is no occupying enemy troops...”
But he instead deliberately chose “no enemy troop garrison”.

AN OCCUPIED CITY CANNOT SURRENDER. THE RULES STATE THIS.

I know that all this is rather trivial, and having a mounted element inside a a captured enemy city or fort is a fairly rare event.
But I don’t want to be accused of spreading false information in my “Crib Sheets”, so it’s important that I get it right.
(Besides, my mate is getting thirsty!)


P.S.
Actually, this is not a matter of being ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.
I just need to know what the consensus of the majority of the DBA community is, so we all play the same, no matter what the rules do or don’t say.
(And my mate will just have to buy his own drinks!)

THE RULES CLEARLY STATE THAT ONLY APPROPRIATE FOOT CAN GARRISON A CITY. THERE ARE NO ANOMOLIES.

I’d like to thank everybody for their input. And you know what Bob...I think you’re right.

Just one minor quibble...
“Sacking [7.3]: The sacking element (after a PIP roll of 5 or 6) can then either garrison the city if eligible to do so, or vacate it.”
This line does not say “or CAN vacate it”. It just says “or vacate it”. It doesn’t offer a choice...it’s worded as if a command.
Nonetheless, as Primuspilus points out, it would be absurd to have compulsory PIP expenditure, so I think that Bob is right and it should say “or can vacate it”.

Very well, I have what I wanted.
The consensus of the majority of the DBA community seems to be that only foot can become a garrison.
This suits me, as those Crib Sheets are right and I don’t have to alter them (and my wallet is safe from another close call.  )

However, it does mean that we have to face the unpleasant fact that sometimes Phil Barker uses the word ‘garrison’ when he really means ‘occupy’, and those inconsistencies that I mentioned should really be worded as follows:-
        Rule 8.7: “Pay an extra PIP if an element is currently garrisoning occupying a city, fort or camp.”
        Rule 9.8: “The area within 1 BW of any point of a camp, city or garrisoned occupied fort, is its Threat Zone.”

And the following only applies after a city has surrendered:-
“Surrender [7.3]: If denizens defending inside a city are destroyed by artillery, the city surrenders and is not sacked.
An appropriate enemy element immediately becomes a garrison on moving into it (mounted may not move in - see Garrisons 7.1).
If not occupied by the enemy or it is vacated, a puppet administration has been put in power and its denizens will defend the city for the enemy. Denizens of a surrendered city cannot sally, as the puppet administration is fully occupied holding down a doubtful populace.
Revolt [7.3]: If a city has surrendered during the game or was captured earlier in a campaign and there is no enemy troop garrison occupying troops or this has been destroyed by shooting, the player that originally owned the city can pay 5 PIPs at the start of any of his side’s bounds for its denizens to revolt against and overthrow the puppet administration, resume their original loyalty and defend the city (treachery by an internal faction was the most common reason for a city’s fall).”


Footnote
Bob briefly mentioned the garrison situation concerning camps. I don’t think this is a problem:-
“Camp guards [7.9]: At the start of the game a camp can be occupied by either (a) 1 only non-allied troop element (except Elephants or Scythed chariots), which can subsequently vacate it and may be replaced by another such element, or (b) camp followers...”
This clearly indicates that you can deploy or move mounted (other than El or SCh) into a camp to defend it.

However, should you do so, then any mounted in a camp will not get the extra +2 for the defences (i.e. mounted are not a garrison):-
“Tactical Factors: [11.3]: +2 If camp followers or other foot occupying their camp, or denizens their city, (and either in close combat or being shot at).”