Other Pike and Shot Formations

[IanP]

A question came up in a game today.

Page 33, later battle groups.
A unit of five shot one pike is reduced to three shot and one pike.
The pike is in its starting position in the center rear rank.
The player wishes to contract to a two two formation.
The rule says that the pike should be in the center rear "if possible".
Interpretation could be that a two two formation is illegal as that no longer makes it "possible" for the pike to be in the center.
The alternative is that as it is no longer "possible" for the pike to be in the center it simply means that the pike can be anywhere!
I feel it is an illegal formation but am ready to be proven wrong.

Ian.

[ravenflight]

A question came up in a game today.

Page 33, later battle groups.
A unit of five shot one pike is reduced to three shot and one pike.
The pike is in its starting position in the center rear rank.
The player wishes to contract to a two two formation.
The rule says that the pike should be in the center rear "if possible".
Interpretation could be that a two two formation is illegal as that no longer makes it "possible" for the pike to be in the center.
The alternative is that as it is no longer "possible" for the pike to be in the center it simply means that the pike can be anywhere!
I feel it is an illegal formation but am ready to be proven wrong.

Ian.

I think it is definitely 'possible' for the pike to be in the centre. So contracting to 2x2 is not a legal formation.

By way of rationale, it's perfectly possible for any 6 base pike and shot unit to form a 2 base wide 3 base deep formation, but it's illegal.

Just because a formation can be done (with the figures) doesn't make it legal.

[list_lurker]

The 'if possible' does add a level of ambiguity for sure. I can't quite recall why/when that was put it. I can only think it was because of some funnies with commanding out shot from 5&1s ..

IMHO I would say that the fact that it started in a legal formation , then a contraction to make it illegal would rule it out .

[ravenflight]

The 'if possible' does add a level of ambiguity for sure. I can't quite recall why/when that was put it. I can only think it was because of some funnies with commanding out shot from 5&1s ..

IMHO I would say that the fact that it started in a legal formation , then a contraction to make it illegal would rule it out .

Well, there are circumstances where Superior and/or Elite troops (not that I am aware of any 5:1 Elite troops) can be in a situation where they MUST have the pike in an other than central position.

If a BG is shot down or in melee until it gets to 2 bases, yes it is autobroken, but it also must maintain the pike base and the remaining base will be shot. If in line, they would not be able to have the pike in the centre. I can imagine situations where (if the rules were written that the Pike MUST be in the centre) where a pursuing enemy would demand strange formations to ensure that the pike is 'in the centre'.

[benjones1211]

It is also legal for a superior pike and shot unit that is down to 2 shot and 1 pike to have both shot in a column on one side of the pike. Special case in the Pike and Shot formation rules at the beginning of the book, don't have mine with me so cannot name the page etc.

But going back to the original posting, a 6 man pike and shot even with 1 pike has two legal formations, 3 wide and two deep with the pike in the middle or a 1 wide column, can only be two wide under certain circumstances such as expanding from 1 wide in combat, contracting 1 column to charge or rout pass something.

Now you have a 5+1 in a one wide column, where does the pike have to be in order to be able to be moved to the front on contact, if the player wishes it to be. Behind the initial shot, or at the back of the column as the rules seem to suggest. Moved from the rear of the column to the front, or wording to that effect.

Ben