Pike & Shotte Errata and questions to date

[SteveMorgan]

Hi
Now the initial euphoria of having my first book published has faded, and the Salute show is out of the way, it seems a good time to address some initial questions that have been raised about the Pike & Shotte book and also some errors that have passed the editing process.
This is a little embarrassing, as obviously I would have liked everything to be perfect in the book, so I apologise for the mistakes. It seems sensible to deal with some of the questions at the same time.
Editing and layout mistakes:
P8. First paragraph. It should read ‘fearsome’ not ‘fiercesome’.
No idea how this got in there, I’m not known for deliberately abusing the English language. A kind soul has suggested that ‘fiercesome’ is a word found in the Urban Dictionary and therefore it could have been intentional, but it is definitely a mistake.

P115. The Ordnance listing for the English Tudor Army
It states one artillery ‘pieces’ per battalia. Obviously this should read ‘piece’. Once again apologies to the English language.

P141. Troop listing for Isaak Axelsson.
The army list for the scenario played has 4 Units of Saxon Harquebusiers. This force should be 3 Swedish Harquebusiers and 2 Finnish Cavalry (basically a Swedish battalia). It is correct on the map on page 140.
Also on the map on page 140 it may be worth noting that Stenbock’s command of the Cuirassier reserve is the single unit at the rear in the centre.

P156. Parliamentarian Dragoons troop entry in army list.
The line underneath about maximum units relating to Irish Cavalry should be discarded. A cut and paste gone wayward I’m afraid.

P163. Scots Royalist Highlanders points cost.
Should not be in Roman numerals. This was not an attempt to be clever, but a place holder that didn’t get edited. They should be 38 points (or XXXVIII if you prefer).

Other Questions:
P29. Do I have to set my troops up in these formations?
Absolutely not, these are purely for information purposes. Many books talk about ‘Dutch Systems’ and ‘Tercios’ but not how they relate to miniatures on the table. It has been pointed out that, from a gaming point of view, it would be mad to arrange troops in a tercio as many of the missile troops cannot give fire. That is true, and there is good reason that the tercio was replaced by more advanced formations, but some people want to know how to give a fair representation of how their army fought rather than just playing a game to win.


P81. Clarity of rules on Dragoons giving closing fire.
I had hoped that the special rule of ‘Fire and Evade’ would cover this, but it seems clarity is needed. It does say that skirmishing dragoons suffer all penalties of skirmishers, and so it could be seen to contradict the fact they can be given the special rule. The special rule applies to all Dragoons, so they can all Fire & Evade (or stand and fire if preferred) as the rule allows. Maybe an addition of ‘Dragoons suffer all the penalties of skirmishers not covered by their special rule of ‘Fire & Evade’ would help.

P98. Reiters in the Italian Wars Imperial list
I am happy with their inclusion as Reiters did see service in the Italian Wars, albeit in the last decade, within the Imperial Army. They are certainly more common after the Italian Wars across most armies of the late 16th Century, but should be included for completeness sake (they also appear in just about every Italian Wars miniatures range). They are not included in the Pavia 1525 scenario at all, being introduced over 20 years after this, but the army list in which they are included is to cover troop choices to allow later armies. I have steered clear of adding ‘late war only’ type additions to the list or to create specific lists such as ‘Milanese 1530’s’; I’m sure more detailed lists for the period will become available to cover such detail.

P132. Swedish Cavalry, are these right?
Short answer is yes. The standard Swedish cavalryman is covered by the ‘Harquebusier’ entry, which is the standard cavalry troop choice of the Swedes and their Saxon allies. The light cavalry listing is for skirmish horse that were drafted in addition to these basic troops. Finnish cavalry, the ‘hakkapeliitta’ have their own entry as they were different enough to warrant this.

If you find any more things that need clarifying (or Lord help me, any mistakes) pleased drop me a line at steve.morgan@warlordgames.com

All the Best
Steve Morgan
Warlord Games

[SteveMorgan]

Oh, and thank you to all those guys who popped by the stand at Salute to say hi and have a chat about the book. I was rather nervous about the launch and you certainly made me feel a whole lot better....really good to put some faces to names on the forum too.
Cheers
Steve

[sane max]

Tee hee, you should have done all the points in Roman Numerals. That would have shut up the people who say the rules lack refinement!

Pat

[Chilledenuff]

Many thanks for this. Probably the quickest rulebook errata ever!

[pogo]

Quick read thru the Early Parliament army list
What is the line beneath the Dragoons stats mentioning Irish cavalry ?

Alex

[Jammers]

Could you clarify the use of Cuirass as Gallopers please in the ECW Royalist list. Looking at the example game the Lifeguard Cuirass are also Gallopers although the Rupert entry would seem to suggest that they couldn''t be??

@ Alex - check out the first post; its an error

[SteveMorgan]

Hi

On page 167 it does list Rupert's Lifeguard having Galloper, which does contradict the Royalist army list.

This probably should have been removed, but scenario games are different from 'points games'. The guys who set up the scenario wanted the Lifeguard to have galloper to see what they would be like...as there we no arguments from the opposition (at first) it was allowed. This should be seen more as an example of people tinkering with the lists to suit scenarios (a good example would be if you wanted an entirely Cornish army you would need to deviate from the lists a fair bit). If you want an 'even' fight then the lists are good things to use; if you are playing scenario driven games in the vein of BP please feel free to mess about with the 'Useful Rules' section.
In hindsight, for clarities sake, we should have removed this, but that is how we played the scenario out (may well edit out in the reprint for this reason). Good spot though

Cheers

Steve

[Jammers]

I'm not feeling the love towards us Parliamentarians

[red]

The Break Test table on page 207 makes no reference to Disorder, whereas the table page 76 does.
Could this be clarified?

[Pelopidas42]

@Red
I thought that was odd - I've been playing a solo walk through of the rules and played it off the summary in the back so units were retiring without disorder.
In addition the summary doesn't mention the stamina and h-t-h penalties for small units, just the -1 firing penalty, which is obviously just an omission, and not a fundamental mechanics issue like your point.