Rules Question Thread

[Charge The Guns]

Hi John.

P54 Artillery has an arc 45 degrees either side of straight ahead.

P39 medium guns can move once and light guns twice. Pivoting counts as moving.

P55 light guns can move twice and fire. No other guns can move and fire in the same turn.

Interesting point to note is that heavy guns cannot move, including pivoting, during the game. Set them up wisely!

[John Towles]

Thanks for the speedy reply!
We are using Pike & Shotte to do the tabletop battles generated by the Pike & Plunder game of the Italian Wars.

[John Towles]

This one came up in our last game. How do units in skirmish do traversing fire since they do not have an actual “front” for an enemy unit to traverse? Or is it that since a skirmish unit may fire in any direction, they may fire traversing fire no matter where a unit moves around them? Or lastly, can a skirmish unit fire traversing fire at all?

[Charge The Guns]

Hi John, not sure I’ve ever come across this in a game, but we rarely use skirmishers other than the odd Dragoon unit.

I don’t see any reason why a Skirmish unit can not fire traversing fire. The rules allow hedgehogs, who fire all round, to use traversing fire (p53) so why not Skirmishers. I guess you have to be careful about how you judge covering at least half the width off the unit to qualify for traversing fire.

Hope this helps!

[John Towles]

Wow, really! We are placing nearly all of the crossbow and arquebus armed line units into skirmish formation. They become harder to hit with shot with no loss to their own firepower. They also are immune to close combat from a formed unit since they freely evade any attack (other than by another unit in skirmish formation).
Are we doing something very wrong in our understanding of the rules?

[Charge The Guns]

Hi John, I wouldn’t say you are doing anything wrong; the rule are there for you to use as you see fit. I would say that if the rules are giving you the feel of game that you want for the Italian Wars then crack on! 🙂

I’m not very well read on the fighting in the Italian Wars but I do note that the example lists in the main rule book don’t make the foot missile troops skirmishers. Perhaps try a game where they are just regular ‘battle line’ troops and see if you prefer how that game plays?

The only troops that I would be expecting to ‘skirmish’ (i.e. running away, coming back again with devastating fire power, running away again, etc.) in the Italian Wars would be those tricksy Stradiot types.

I have observed that we, as wargamers, are always at risk of making “skirmishers” of any period too much like Richard Sharpe and the Chosen men of the 95th rifles. All that being said, the thing I like most about Pike and Shotte is the flexibility of the rules; it is easy to tailor them to produce the sort of game which reflects how you think the fighting should be. So, don’t feel constrained by anyone else 🙂

[John Towles]

Thanks! The game worked more like we were expecting when we removed the skirmish formation from all the missile units.

[John Towles]

Another one came up at our last game. Can mounted missile units fire while mounted and if so, are there any restrictions? We have a problem seeing a mounted arqubus unit firing while moving!
We have seen some period art that seems to support them shooting but it looks like a single shot while moving into combat with other mounted units.

[Charge The Guns]

Hi John, glad you have sorted out the skirmisher issues.

Yes, cavalry can fire while mounted, just as they did during the period. There were probably different formations used to do this, but they would have involved subsequent ranks advancing, firing and then retiring to the rear to reload. This is similar to the way the foot fired firearms.

The rules allow most units to move and fire without penalty, foot and mounted. My group has a house-rule that if you move more than once then you can’t shoot. This is not part of the rules, just something we use amongst friends. You could try this if you don’t like a lot of movement and firing in a turn.

Note. There are mounted infantry, covered under the Dragoon rules, which move mounted and dismount to fire. This is a special set of rules. Not sure it would apply to Italian Wars troops.

[John Towles]

We found another rules conflict!
On page 37 – Troops That Leave The Table – It states that unit can leave the table via a blunder result or from a break test result. It goes on to say that such units can potentially return as described under Orders to Off Table Units.
However, on page 77 – Retiring Units – it states that units that retire from the table are deemed to be destroyed.

So when a unit is retired off the table via a break test and is NOT shaken, can it return to the table or not?

As always, any help you may provide is golden!

[Charge The Guns]

Hi John. Reading p 37 and and p 77 it seems clear to me. p 37 is perhaps vague. It does say “potentially” and I take this to mean troops who blundered off. However, p77 is very clear. If a unit leaves the table due to a break test result then it cannot return, irrespective of being shaken etc.

[Sadurian Mike]

A bow question.

Some units in the earlier period (Italian Wars) get the option to replace their arquebuses with crossbows for 0 points (pp98-99), but English Tudor longbowmen pay an extra 1 point per Shooting Value ‘pip’ for their bows (18″ range costs 2 points per pip instead of 1 point for 12″) (p.115).

According to p201 and the summary chart on p202, Crossbows and bows (which I assume includes longbows) should cost 2 points per Shooting Value ‘pip’ as they have an 18″ range, whereas the arquebus has a 12″ range and the unit cost is 1 point per Shooting Value ‘pip’. This despite bows and crossbows being unable to offer Closing Fire (because bows are… what?… slower to load?..?).

So, unless I am misreading or misinterpreting this, arquebus units swapping to crossbows are getting for free what costs English Tudor bowmen 2 points per unit. Is this valid? What makes it especially galling is that bow hits attract a +1 to their target’s Morale Save, whereas crossbows do not.

As someone currently painting up an Early Tudor English Army (looking at an army of Henry VIII), the issue of the cost of bow units is particularly pertinent, and something that I imagine most armies of the period covered by the P&S rules would never encounter. I could just ignore the extra points (it is only 2 points per longbow unit, after all), or (better still) give longbows the ability to offer Closing Fire. However, I’d prefer to discover the thinking behind the original calculations. After all, there may be a cunning reasoning that I am not seeing.

[Charge The Guns]

Hi Sadurian Mike – sorry now one has been along to comment before now. I think you’ve uncovered a bit of an inconsistency in the lists and rules. I would proceed as you suggest.

I’ve never understood bow not being able to fire when charged – I suspect it was a rule for xbows and the ‘bow’ was left in by mistake, not sure. Luckily we always forget that rule when playing :-).

I must admit to not using bows very much and I have just one or two units of bow in my Highland forces for the ECW. Normally we only remember the +1 morale save (or the person being shot at does!). We have played that bow can shoot overhead for a -1 to hit, in a loosey-goosey, make it up as you go along, sort of way.

Tudor English is a great army and I’m very tempted by 16th century in Ireland. What campaigns are you planning?

[Sadurian Mike]

Thanks CtG,

I suspect that I’ll be keeping the points cost but allowing Closing Fire, the extra range and adding the +1 Morale Save for the Longbow targets. All subject to convincing my opponents, of course. I like your idea of overhead fire, but will probably just assume that the figure scale represents a few ranks of archers lobbing arrows over the front ranks.

As for campaigns; it is likely that I’ll end up collecting and painting both Henry’s army and their opponents, then searching for suitable victims opponents and presenting them with a fait accompli. The advantage is twofold: I get to buy and paint more toys, and I get to dictate the match-up. With this in mind, I’ll probably go for Scottish, French, and/or Italian. Whether or not I actually finish anything is another matter. I have far too many rulesets for which I am trying to recruit and paint armies. For me, most of the joy is in the modelling and painting, the actual gaming is simply added polish.

[Charge The Guns]

That is an excellent plan, Sadurian Mike. It does of course take longer to build two forces, but it allows you build the two armies for a particular battle or campaign and have everything for a fun game to put on. My regular gaming group tend to take this approach, often because we are not interested in collecting the same periods at the same time!

I hope you’ll share some shots of your armies as they progress.

[Author]

Posts