Ye olde obsolete weapons tread

There is a nice thread going on about shields and armor. Now its turn to tweak with weapons.

Dual wield with maces wins against almost any other weapon combo. Its cheap, concussion rules are v. strong, everybody knows that.

Now I wonder how to slightly improve other existing weapons in order to make them better ( but not over the top). On the other hand attempts to balance-out weapons that are too good for their price ( like maces mentioned above).

Lets start:
Axes - in addition to their -1 enemy AS bonus, I would add "critical damage", rule from "Dark Elf blade". So when rolling on critical hits, players add +1 to the result. Axe price increased to 7gc. Scoring better criticals on axe would make the weapon slightly better in combat (so no one would regret arming a model with axe instead of sword/hammer), and the price is slightly higher for balance. Besides, British Huscarls were known to easily dismember enemy soldiers (though they used two handed weapons to be exact), still "critical damage" can reflect easiness with which a sharp axe can deal out tremendous damage to the target.

Blunt weapons - I wold like to split blunt weapons into two categories (an idea I saw the other day on this forum): Hammers/Maces and clubs

• Hammers/maces - one handed, concussion, price: 6gc.

• Maces - one handed, no special bonuses, might not be made of Ilthilmar/gromril - its just a piece of wood. Price: 3 gc. (cheap way to arm henchmen without penalties, or bonuses)
  

Being able to cause "stunned" result on a roll of 2-4 is quite strong, too good for being one gc. more expensive than a dagger.

Slings - range and rules of a short bow, price 2 gc. Sling having better range and ability to shoot twice in the shooting price are simply too good for a price of 2 gc. Especially that a short bow pales in comparison and costs 5gc.

Gromril weapons - thats a tough nut to crack. They are expensive (x4 original weapon price), and bonus -1 enemy AS is a joke. Especially when compared to easier obtainable and cheaper Ilthilmar weapons ( +1 to models I, when attacking with Iltil. weapon). I am thinking of something fitting renown (and cost) of a gronmril weapon. Maybe (in addition tho their regular -1 AS bonus) a +1 S bonus for attacks made with gronmril weapon, only during the first round of combat. And "unbreakable" rule to top that - gronmril weapon can't be destroyed with swordbreaker, since dwarwen craftsmanship and natural resillence of gromril make the weapon too hard to break. What would you say?

Morning stars - they should be ok, If we will find some nice rules for shields in "On shields and armour" thread. Without good shield rules, who would like to pick that weapon?

Handguns - crossbow is simply better in so many ways. A lot cheaper, better range, same S, no reload rules or rarity roll. Crossbows are so good, that handguns are nearly useless. I would remove "move or fire" and reduce handgun price to 25 + D6 gc, and rare 7 (we were considering very similar idea with Catahanfrog), leaving rest unchanged. That would turn handguns into more assault type of weapon, making them more tempting for use. I don't want to argue about "whether handguns are easier to reload than crossbows". Only other weapons both with decent range and that could be used "on the move" are bows with their S3. Handguns would fit in nicely for diversification.

pistols - weapon range extended to 8". Their regular range of 6" makes ranged combat with pistols nearly impossible (especially when combined with range/cover/movement penalties). Duelling and crossbow pistols still need to be better, so only a small increase in range should be ok.

two handed weapons - we use an old homerule, that makes 2HW weapons act like a normal weapon during charge (strike last as normal in subsequent rounds of combat). Works just fine, no complaints here.


What do you say? Maybe some changes to other weapons (or other rulling ideas for weapons described above)? Halberds? Spears? 2HW? Give me your best shot -> bonus points for keeping things as balanced as humanly possible!

It's hard to look at weapons alone to fix them, as I think that some tweaks on the armour and combat rules will bleed into changes to weapons as well.

I like the idea of taking away all Strength modifiers to armour saves and instead putting armour modifiers on weapons. Axes cut through armour much better than a really strong punch. I also think shields should be breakable against heavy weapons and great weapons. Throwing around negative armour saves and shield breaking makes the weapons more 'real' and fun and worth choosing, but it depends on shields being viable.

It all depends on the group you're with and what everybody agrees on. One of the things I really like about this game is the different rules tweaks out there to make it more interesting.

I also like the idea of splitting clubs/staffs from hammers and maces. A simple thick stick or table leg is not going to be nearly as effective as a tempered-steel hammer. A Club or Staff is treated as a Hand Weapon, and hits at the strength of the wielder, but gives no further abilities.

As far as Morning Stars go, it's simple: They CANNOT be parried. Makes them real effective in the hands of a competent warrior.

As I have been shredded more than once by Sling-bearing rats, I think a way to balance them out is to give them a positive armor save modifier. Also I think their range should be reduced to 8-10 inches.

Not sure about the handguns, but our rule on the Blunderbuss is to use the conical "flame" template from WFB or 40k rather than the straight line rule from the book... I've seen one fired, and they spread shot over a lot of area. Still only fire once though, and friendly models can still also get hit by it.

The 2-handed weapons are easily made better with the Strongman skill, so I don't see much need to change it

What do you think of upping the price for Halberds (say to 15gc), but treating them like spears on any turn the model is charged? The reach as well as the strength bonus would make them a lot more appealing.

Aureus wrote:

Lets start:
Axes - in addition to their -1 enemy AS bonus, I would add "critical damage", rule from "Dark Elf blade"...

I think the -1 is fine for axes, and appropriate, but because armour is poo the -1 isn't very good. In my group we have found that with armour cheaper and shields/bucklers giving +1 there is a lot more armour around and therefore more axes. Perhaps also add +1 injury if your target has no armour save. Maybe increase price to 6 gold.

Aureus wrote:

Blunt weapons - I wold like to split blunt weapons into two categories (an idea I saw the other day on this forum): Hammers/Maces and clubs

• Hammers/maces - one handed, concussion, price: 6gc.
  

• Maces - one handed, no special bonuses, might not be made of Ilthilmar/gromril - its just a piece of wood. Price: 3 gc. (cheap way to arm henchmen without penalties, or bonuses)
  

You have two maces there, so I am going to assume you meant Hammers/Maces and Clubs.

Hammers/Maces
Hammers and maces were invented to punch through armour, or rather, to small all their force through the armour into the soft gooey centre inside without bothering with actually breaking through the armour. Making them 6 would be fine, but I would give them -1 armour save and Concussion.

Club
Wood is easy to come by and can be shaped with a knife or an axe. Any blacksmith at all will have a few spikes or nails that could be attached to it for a few coppers. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that level of effort for a club. That would give us a 3 gold weapon that was -1 AS and nothing else. Quite plausable for a bit of heavy wood with some studs/nails/spikes in it. If it is truely just a stick then make it an improvised club and give it no bonuses or penalties and make the improvised club the free weapon.

I would also make Staff seperate and change it to
Staff:
Two Handed, Parry, Concussion

Aureus wrote:

Slings - range and rules of a short bow, price 2 gc. Sling having better range and ability to shoot twice in the shooting price are simply too good for a price of 2 gc. Especially that a short bow pales in comparison and costs 5gc.

I have been fighting against warbands armed with slings for *does some math* holy shit, more than 10 years? Was it really that long ago? *feels super old*. Anyway, slings are fine how they are. They are deadly because they *should* be deadly. They had better range and better armour penetration than the bows of the time (effectively short bows). Hell, slings were so deadly they built whole forts around sling usage. The only reason bows replaced slings on the battlefield is because a) formations of archers take up less room, and b) slingers take more time to train.

You will notice too, that slings are *only* taken by people that have access to nothing else. In all the many years I have been playing I have *never once* seen anyone take Weapons Training and then said "Oh boy, now I can use slings! You're gonna geddit now!" and that is because slings aren't that great. They don't have range, they can't be used with Quick Shot, they can't use Hunting Arrows, they just aren't that good.

I'm sorry, but the only time I have ever seen warbands have trouble with slingers is when the player does something retarded like rushed their warband into a withering hail of fire, and, really, if you do something that stupid you *deserve* to lose the fight. If there is enough terrain then they won't be able to bring all of their slingers to bear, and if there is too little terrain, then what the hell are you doing advancing? Shoot them with your bows and cross bows. Honestly, who throws a shoe? /rant.

Drop the price of short bows to 4 gold or 3 gold if it makes you feel better. But if you drop the bows to 3 gold then slings should drop to 1 gold. Bows (and more importantly, arrows) are simply more expensive that slings and bullets.

Aureus wrote:

Gromril weapons - thats a tough nut to crack...Maybe (in addition tho their regular -1 AS bonus) a +1 S bonus for attacks made with gronmril weapon, only during the first round of combat ... What would you say?

I would say that if armour was more used then the -1 becomes more valuable. In my group where it *is* more valuable we buy these weapons just for the -1. Particularly axes and daggers. I think we will steal the 'unbreakable' though .

Aureus wrote:

Morning stars - they should be ok, If we will find some nice rules for shields in "On shields and armour" thread. Without good shield rules, who would like to pick that weapon?

We have buffed parry and given the flexible weapons Ignore Parry. Seems to be working so far.

Aureus wrote:

Handguns - crossbow is simply better in so many ways...

Again, armour is more useful for us so the extra -1 is good. We have also given handguns and hunting rifles an ability 'Deadly' that means you roll injury twice and pick the highest.

Aureus wrote:

pistols - weapon range extended to 8"...

We have found that anyone specialising in pistols gets Eagle Eye in fairly short order and uses that until they have enough money to upgrade to dueling pistols. Everyone else only uses them in melee anyway .

Aureus wrote:

two handed weapons - ... 2HW weapons act like a normal weapon during charge (strike last as normal in subsequent rounds of combat)...

If you are going for realism over faithfulness, then really DHW should give you an I bonus rather than strikes last. Extra reach is *very* handy and the weapons are less heavy than people think. We add the price of a DHW to its one-handed varient and use the sum of the rules.

Aureus wrote:

What do you say? Maybe some changes to other weapons (or other rulling ideas for weapons described above)? Halberds? Spears? 2HW? Give me your best shot -> bonus points for keeping things as balanced as humanly possible!

Spears: 5 gold, Two Handed, Parry, +1I, Strikes First.
Halberd: 8 gold, Two Handed, +1S, +1I.
Knife: 2 gold, +1 AS.
Dagger: 3 gold, Parry.
Poinard: 4 gold, Parry, -1 AS.

Yup. just trying to amass ideas in order to make game choices less predictable

Spectre76 wrote:

As far as Morning Stars go, it's simple: They CANNOT be parried. Makes them real effective in the hands of a competent warrior.

Damn it! Why haven't I though of that? Could apply to flails too.

Spectre76 wrote:

As I have been shredded more than once by Sling-bearing rats, I think a way to balance them out is to give them a positive armor save modifier. Also I think their range should be reduced to 8-10 inches.

We were thinking about that in our group too. Change slings into "daggers" of ranged combat . The problem is, that we have a skaven player in our group, and he is not too pleased when we tinker with his warband most popular ranged choice (so we cannot make them too weak). We have tried to talk it out, but guy is just passive about "rules stuff" in general, drag.

Spectre76 wrote:

Not sure about the handguns, but our rule on the Blunderbuss is to use the conical "flame" template from WFB or 40k rather than the straight line rule from the book... I've seen one fired, and they spread shot over a lot of area. Still only fire once though, and friendly models can still also get hit by it.

Well, blunderbusses are fine just as they are now. I mean handguns -> S4, range 24", -2 enemy AS, move or fire -> a different kind of weapon

Spectre76 wrote:

What do you think of upping the price for Halberds (say to 15gc), but treating them like spears on any turn the model is charged? The reach as well as the strength bonus would make them a lot more appealing.

I like it. Those rules seem balanced and realistic . Along with modifying halberds I would decrease price of a spear to 8gc. to make it a more cost efficient choice ( and that would go well with "spirit"of the weapon, since soldiers of ages past were equipped with spears due to cheapness and easiness of producing/handling of that weapon)

Even after all this time with the internet our group still takes a fairly wide variety of weapons. I will share one comment I heard a few months ago.

"Why take anything but a sword? Its just so much better than any other weapon!"

Quote :

We were thinking about that in our group too. Change slings into "daggers" of ranged combat Laughing . The problem is, that we have a skaven player in our group, and he is not too pleased when we tinker with his warband most popular ranged choice (so we cannot make them too weak). We have tried to talk it out, but guy is just passive about "rules stuff" in general, drag.

In fact, I don't give a feth about how he feels about it. I know that sling is 2,5 times cheaper than shortbow has better range and doubleshot. He has fastest/quickest warband, heroes better than ours (not mentioning he has 6 of them).

Quote :

They had better range and better armour penetration than the bows of the time (effectively short bows). Hell, slings were so deadly they built whole forts around sling usage.

In the ancient times of Sigmar mayby...

Quote :

The only reason bows replaced slings on the battlefield is because a) formations of archers take up less room, and b) slingers take more time to train.

You're joking, right?

Mordheim is not perfect but changing every weapon, armor, equipment ruleset is unnecessary and really weird. I'm sure none plays on WYSIWYG so giving some model axes with mace rules shouldn't make a difference.
Aureus - check your PM if you please.

Von Kurst wrote:

Even after all this time with the internet our group still takes a fairly wide variety of weapons. I will share one comment I heard a few months ago.

"Why take anything but a sword? Its just so much better than any other weapon!"

I think it was Sun Tzu that said that a sword that costs 50 gold pieces to make will always lose to 50 spears that cost 1 gold piece to make (or something along those lines).
Granted, I think swords are great, and since they are associated with more skills than any other weapon, they have their place, but when you're thinking of cost management for your warband, there are other, cheaper options that work fine as well.
Also, "better" is all in your point of view.

catachanfrog wrote:

Quote :

They had better range and better armour penetration than the bows of the time (effectively short bows). Hell, slings were so deadly they built whole forts around sling usage.

In the ancient times of Sigmar mayby...

Quote :

The only reason bows replaced slings on the battlefield is because a) formations of archers take up less room, and b) slingers take more time to train.

You're joking, right?

No man, its this cool thing called military history of the world. Check it out.

I do remain confused by people that wish to change the sling rules. I second Lord 0's observation. In 12 years of playing I have never seen anyone take Weapons Expert to gain access to slings, but I have seen nearly every Skaven player take Weapons Expert to gain access to anything but a sling.

Do you play by the '05 Rules Review? -1 to hit for double shooting plus the target using cover and terrain means Skaven should lose most shooting duels before they get in range. Not many shooting warbands rely on short bows. As for non-shooting warbands, they usually have speed and toughness on their side.

Quote :

No man, its this cool thing called military history of the world. Check it out.

Yeah, military history of the world... Ancient military history you mean? I really can't recall medieval or renaissance (period Empire represnts) units made of slingers so this argument about sling superiority is rather weak...
I'm saying that when compared to shortbow sling is better in every way: price and range. You can equip 5 warriors for 10 gc - it is almost nothing. With shortbows you can buy 2 at the same price. And it's not a hero but henchmen weapon. Skaven got bonuses to movement and initiative so getting good vatage point or maneuvring to get better position is not a problem. And warrior behind cover is harder to hit by any weapon not only sling.

How about Cortez? Which weapon in the Aztec arsenal do the Conquistadors fear? The sling. Look it up. History. Sling bullets negated their advantage in armor, crippled horses. Did it win the Aztecs the fight, no. But it wasn't ever a straight up fight. The sling is not the weapon of choice for the worlds armies, but it is better than a short bow.

I have to say that only the Irish as far as I know may have used the short bow in the Renaissance period. And maybe peasant revolts. What of it? My assertion is merely that the sling IS better than a short bow historically. Better weapons don't always mean battlefield domination. The handgun is not as good as the bow or the crossbow, but its much easier to use and becomes much easier to make.

In a skirmish a good bowman will have a significant advantage over a blackpowder weapon until the invention of repeating rifles, but the bowmen lost every time as far as history is concerned. (Comanches versus the Spanish and Red Cloud's War notwithstanding.)

Von Kurst wrote:

How about Cortez? Which weapon in the Aztec arsenal do the Conquistadors fear? The sling. Look it up. History.

History is not my strongest asset, but where are the aztec now? Slings weren't good enough, apparently. Besides, story of Cortez exploits is not easy as that.

You're forgetting that one of the most efficient and feared armies in world history used short bows (not better slings) as a main weapon - the Golden Horde. And compound reflex shortbows were also still in use till 18 century Europe by for example some light cavalry units in Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Aureus PM.

It seems to me there are two different reasons present here for wanting to change certain weapons.

Quote :

Yup. just trying to amass ideas in order to make game choices less predictable

and

Quote :

My assertion is merely that the sling IS better than a short bow historically.

Balancing weapon rules so that everyone is a "good choice" gamewise and also to represent the effectiveness-per-coin a weapon did have historically woun't work, so having these two arguments mingle in the same thread is kind of fruitless.

Well the question was where slings used effectively against a renaissance army. The answer is yes. The Aztecs used them to great effect against a High Renaissance force. Cannon, disease, superstition and tens of thousands of native allies (armed with their own slings and short bows) pretty much swamped the Aztecs anyway. Cortez's men also took along bows and crossbows because their harquebuses (handguns) were un-reliable. Which tank is better? King Tiger or a M4 Sherman? Didn't matter there were thousands of Shermans, thousands of T-34s.

I'm pretty satisfied with my point which still is that slings were better than short bows. Thus I think this is one GW got right. Short bows despite their inferiority still cost more to produce than slings. The why did our fool anscestors use them question is one of culture, environment and prejudices lost to antiquity. The sling is a shepard's weapon, the bow is a warrior's weapon.

For some reason GW went with an more historical accuracy for handguns as well, handguns were easier to learn to use but slow to fire until realatively modern times (1840's-50s), but every culture that encoutered them wanted them.

Golden Horde's bows and Polish cavalry bows from the 1600s--Then we get into the interesting category of what is a short bow in GW terms. When treating the Golden Horde or later Asian influenced cavalry in Warhammer Ancients GW classed their weapons as bows. See Warhammer Ancients, Armies of Antiquity.

Grimscull wrote:

Balancing weapon rules so that everyone is a "good choice" gamewise and also to represent the effectiveness-per-coin a weapon did have historically woun't work, so having these two arguments mingle in the same thread is kind of fruitless.

True, unfortunately. The same goes for relying too much on fluff or realism. But I must admit, that supporting my ideas with some appropriate fluff/historic/realism-related arguments is sometimes too tempting

edit:
Fine aztec warrior doing what he does best
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiIqB3Lk02s

Von Kurst wrote:

Well the question was where slings used effectively against a renaissance army.

Actually I believe the question was:

Quote :

Now I wonder how to slightly improve other existing weapons in order to make them better ( but not over the top). On the other hand attempts to balance-out weapons that are too good for their price ( like maces mentioned above).

People who want to make every weapon choice viable will have to tweak the points-cost for slings, historiophiles wount.

Perhaps one could approach it from a learning perspective rather than an either or divisive perspective. Historical arguments are not invalid if they shed light on game design and game balance issues.

The OP's assertion is that slings are overpowered and undercosted in game terms. Lord 0 chose to argue that they were not from both an ingame perspective and a historical perspective. Folks have chosen to argue the historical path, ignoring the ingame assertions as obviously false without refuting them.

I have played a lot of Mordheim games in 12 years with lots of opponents. Sling spam is not one of the things I get upset about. I don't play with your friends or in your situation. I suggest adding Darkness rules and giving the Skaven an advantage to seeing in the dark, it might change your prospective about what is powerful about a skaven. Just think if your warband couldn't even see the skaven when they started shooting.

Skaven only have slings for their henchmen. They have a low leadership and are relatively easy to kill. The slings are a balance for the warband. Take that -1 for double shot (which was the 'best' suggestion for balancing skaven before the rules review) and the sling spam is pretty easy to mitigate. Our skaven players are pretty much around 50% wins and most of us can play skaven becasue we have multiple warbands. The guy who hardly ever loses, always hardly ever loses no matter what he plays.

Every warband must be broken,

I wasn't calling one type of argument or another invalid nor do I actually have an opinion on slings (never played against vanilla-skaven, with 5 or so years of mordheim under my belt). I never gave my own opinion on slings. I was just trying to help wit arguments here, because people were arguing with different aims in mind and not realising it (imo).
Personally as a history teacher, I believe there are good places for historical arguments (suprise ). I doubt a fantasy wargame is the right place for it though IF it actually justifies an unfair game balance; "Look Timmy, your warband woun't stand a chance against mine because I have access to slings and not just short bows. But no need to feel bad, because, you see, back in the day a short-bow archer wouldn't have stood a chance against two slingers either."
Slings-Shortbows is just an example, would work with Axes-Maces, Spears-Swords etc.

Von Kurst wrote:

Skaven only have slings for their henchmen.

OH REALLY? Gonna have to talk to my Skaven-playing friend to remind him about that rule (Sneaky git!). I still haven't gotten my rulebook back yet, so I had forgotten that bit of info...

Actually, once you have been sling-spammed, you learn quick how to deal with them, and the more I think about it, the more I see the original rules aren't so broken. My Reiklanders have better range, and the multiple shots is at close range. Close combat warbands will have a harder time, but a good board will have plenty of cover to help.

Which vanilla warbands have slings? Sisters and Skaven.
The thread on Sister sling spam is waiting to be written? Are there horror stories of slinging Sisters? I think that is pretty rare. Both warbands only have access to slings for their henchmen. Should only skaven slings be increased in cost? In the unofficial realm I am aware of Slaver slings, Araby townsmen slings, Hochland Bandit slings and there are probably others. I am currently playing an Araby warband with access to slings. No one has complained, and I play with some complainers let me tell you. All slings must be increased in price because of Skaven? I am misinterpreting your argument?

Short bow only warbands. Having a hard time remembering any,maybe Night Goblins? I've heard they are a killy, shooty warband in the right hands. Poor Timmy. Now if Timmy plays Lizardmen or Forest Goblins, well I've played both a lot against Skaven. In general if the skaven player wants to get into a missile duel with either one of them, I'm all for it. My goblins ae cheap and they are going to kill each other, why worry about the skaven doing it? Close on my goblins with sling spam and I will show you knife spam with some nice S4 throwing knives (if I'm lucky.) My skinks are going to manuever, use cover and set the saurus on those furry bums. What the skinks do not want is the skaven charging.

Really, what warband are we balancing short bows and slings for?
Undead? Why are they shooting? They suck at shooting. Changing the cost is going to change this?
Possessed? Same questions. Why don't they count on the possessed, mutants and the beasts overwhelming the firing line with charges?
Witch Hunters? Zealots are BS 2. How does the balance of the game change by changing the cost of short bows.

I understand some groups may have a limited number of warbands and may have players that only play certain warbands and play them well. Those players may feel the need to house rule, but I am failing to see any reason besides nerfing one warband without a discussion of other warbands affected by the same nerf in this particular instance.

How do the skaven become more multi-demensional from this change?

I think most people associate slings with Skaven just on principle, and Skaven henchmen are fairly cheap. I don't really think slings are that overpowered, though they can certainly be taken advantage of, as can players who have opponents that "conveniently" forget to mention the -1 to hit for multiple shots for them at close range, which has happened to me.
Ironically, Sisters can spam novices with slings for a mere 17gc each, though their BS of 2 would limit their effectiveness. I also agree that this discussion of Short Bows and Slings has a limited scope. Any band with bows/longbows/crossbows has the clear advantage.

As a quick tangent, I do find it interesting how some weapons like the sling are incredibly cost-effective, but other weapons that should be are not, such as the Spear. The cost is the same for a spear as a sword, but IRL spears are MUCH easier to produce and maintain than a sword would be. Thoughts on this? Aureus mentioned lowering the price to 8gc each. Should it be less? Should swords cost more?

Von Kurst wrote:

All slings must be increased in price because of Skaven? I am misinterpreting your argument?

Yes, as I'm not arguing for or against slings. I was arguing against legitimising points costs by historical accuracy. I prefer game mechanics, as you seem to do as well because if I read your last post right stable game mechanics is your reason to keep weapons cost.
BTW I didn't even bring up skaven, you did. I was just correcting that I never played Eshin because you were giving me tipps on how to deal with them in my gaming group. Timmy's opponent didn't play skaven and I was clear about slings only being an example.

@spectre76: as stated I'm not into tweaking point costs to reflect "real life" or "accuracy". I'd reason to make spears cheaper or swords more expensive is if swords would always be a better choice over spears gamewise.

Grimscull wrote:

@spectre76: as stated I'm not into tweaking point costs to reflect "real life" or "accuracy". I'd reason to make spears cheaper or swords more expensive is if swords would always be a better choice over spears gamewise.

That was pretty much the point of this thread. Though its true, not all proposed changes might be absolutely necessary (well, never got decimated by skaven slings while playing against them). But still, It pains me to see sling cost/quality ratio, just because skaven don't have access to other ranged weapons (they do, but only other reasonable option for skaven are throwing knives). I digress, this trend was supposed to bring up some creativity in order to find a good mix of homerules that would tweak both weapons and armor (on shields and armor thread), so everything would be relatively balanced. With current state of armor axes and gromril weapons are nearly useless (not to mention that armored foes are a rare sight) , clubs "concussion is simply to good for their pricing, and handgun is just worse in almost every way than crossbow. Such tweaking may affect some warbands in unpredicted manner, but in our group we dont play "homemades" (due to doubtful balance issues), and I dont think that either sisters or skaven would suffer much due to sling "nerf". Besides, If I were to rebalance warbands like skaven then I would start off with things like "art of silent death" or their 6 initial heroes - though I intend to let them be. Such changes would be too much, in my opinion.

Aureus wrote:

Though its true, not all proposed changes might be absolutely necessary (well, never got decimated by skaven slings while playing against them). But still, It pains me to see sling cost/quality ratio, just because skaven don't have access to other ranged weapons (they do, but only other reasonable option for skaven are throwing knives). .

As stated above Sister and Skaven henchmen only have access to slings. (I recommend checking your rulebooks if this doesn't seem true.) I do not even begin to understand your pain. Where does it hurt? Why call it a sling if it becomes the equal of a short bow? Why is one short bow 2 gc and the other 5 gc? Why can bows, crossbows and elven bows, pistols and dueling pistols be allowed? They are all way better than a short bow.

If we are only dealing with 'official' warbands, why care? No official warband shares slings and any type of bow. Slings are limited to 2 warbands. Short bows to 3 or 4. No warband that can have short bows can have ONLY short bows and none can have slings. So they are different. The character and choices of the warbands are not the same

So you increase diversity and reduce predictability by making things the same? I can't follow that. I bow to your Orwellianness.

I like the splitting clubs from hammers and maces. And the morningstar no parry idea.

Fixing armor fixes axes and gromril.