Not clear target and Home Home

Home Forums Historical Pike & Shotte Not clear target and Home Home

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
  • #188854
    Matt P


    We’ve been playing Black Powder for some time and got a reasonable hand on the rules and have now ventured into Pike and Shotte for the ECW. Should be easy as the rules are very close…except they’re not!

    In BP a target is not clear for shooting if its in a building or in cover. But Pike and Shotte its only if in buildings and the cover element is missing. Is this:
    1. A copy and paste mistake!?
    2. Assuming its deliberate does anyone have an explanation as we’re struggling to think of one!

    In the To Kill a King supplement the Home Home special rule states that if a trained band unit is subject to a blunder roll or fails a break test when shaken they retire from the table, and that all other trained band units in the same battalia immediately take the same test.
    The first time we used Trained bands inevitably the roll was a blunder…
    As the command that was blundered was only given to one of the two trained band units in the battalia we agreed that the other was unaffected as it hadn’t been given the order. We assumed that the reference to taking a test only applied if one trained band had failed a break test when shaken and didn’t relate to a blundered command roll as they haven’t taken a test..

    Were we right?

    Thanks, Matt.

    Charge The Guns

    Hi Matt,

    For the cover issue, we play that troops in cover count as not clear. I think it’s an omission. If you don’t use this then troops in cover do still get an improved save. It comes down to how much benefit you think troops in cover should get.

    On ‘Home Home’ I think the whole battalia, as this seems in the spirit of the wording and is simpler.

    Matt P



    Thanks for the reply.  We too thought it was an omission at first, but it seems an odd one, especially as that section looks like a copy and paste take from BP.

    The debate about how much benefit cover should get was long and unresolved, but I think we err on the side of not giving two benefits for this period, although not with any great reasoning behind it!


Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.