what does "up to two different missile weapons" mean

Just trying to figure this out. I am sure it must be answered somewhere.

From the errata

Quote :

Page 65, 1
st
column, 1
st
paragraph of Weapons and Armour
Replace the first sentence with:
“Each warrior you recruit can be armed with up to two close combat weapons (in
addition to his free dagger), up to two different missile weapons and any armour chosen
from the appropriate list. For these purposes, a brace of pistols counts as a single missile
weapon.”

So what does "up to two different missile weapons" mean here? Does it mean I can't have two blunderbusses? Does it mean I can have two different types but as many of either type as I want? For close combat weapons it just says "up to two" so I can only guess that the statement for missile weapons must mean something else. The fact that they specify a brace of pistols counts as one weapon suggest to me that it might mean the former as if the latter was the case the extra words would not be needed.

This has been a cause for debate quite a bit. I think that the 'official' clarification provided by rules mod Da Bank is that it means that a warrior cannot have two blunderbusses. Like you mentioned, a brace of pistols counts as one missile weapon so that it is possible for a warrior to have a brace of pistols (even though they are two of the same) and a blunderbuss (for example) but a warrior cannot have two braces of pistols nor two blunderbusses.

Yeah, absolutel right.

By the way we would invalidate the word different in our home rule environment.

It just don't make any sense. "Oh captain those two blundebusses are to heavy for me, please give me the swivel gun instead" Hähh?

And the best thing is you can combine a brace of pistols with a brace of duel pistols but can not combine two braces of pistols. There is no sense in the word different in this rule.

I do agree that it doesn't make sense in some scenarios. On the other hands it does make sense fire bows (there is no benefit having two long bows). Also are scenarios like two blunderbusses per model too powerful?

In my circle we ignore the 'different' part. If you want two blunderbusses or two handguns or two braces of dueling pistols or two longbows or two crossbows, then take them. It has never been unbalancing at all.

We have always taken it to mean a warrior can only carry two missile weapons, and they must be of different types. A warrior can carry two of the same close combat weapons though (e.g. two swords).

Carrying two of most types of missile weapon is pointless... two handguns (so one can be fired every turn) is unrealistic - armies would have been armed with two muskets each if it was!

And two blunderbusses is just mean - imagine a whole warband so armed? No fun to play against at all.

WarbossKurgan wrote:

two handguns (so one can be fired every turn) is unrealistic - armies would have been armed with two muskets each if it was!

One of the main reasons a musket takes so long to load is that after firing they are very hot. Although you *can* start loading them almost imediately after firing you have to be pretty careful that you don't burn yourself. It is entirely plausable that you could move and fire one while waiting for the other to cool a bit allowing you to load it faster. The reason this wasn't done in historical armies is because dollar for dollar, you would get a lot more out of just getting everyone a single musket. Heck, for most people just getting the one musket would be enough.[/quote]

WarbossKurgan wrote:

And two blunderbusses is just mean - imagine a whole warband so armed? No fun to play against at all.

I don't have to imagine it - I have played with it and played against it more than once. Heck, from time to time some newbie thinks it will be the business and tries it out *again* after being advised not to. It doesn't work.

Henchmen with dual blunderbusses are a target and when they die they take two blunderbusses with them. And even if your plan works, well, according to plan your henchmen are wasting all the xp. That is not a sustainable way to play a campaign.

If you want to get all 6 heroes using the blunderbusses, well, not many warbands can even *have* all 6 heroes with shooting skills (needed for the necessary shooting skill). Marienburgers can do it pretty much out of the gate as soon as they get a TLGT hero but everyone else gets four at the most. So sure, you can *have* your 6 heroes all with Weapons Expert and blunderbusses and I will have my heroes some with crossbows with quickshot, some with strike to injure, and some with sprint I can pretty much be certain that I will come out on top over the course of a campaign.

If your warband is a one-trick pony then it doesn't really matter what that one trick is - sooner or later your opponents will figure out the weaknesses of it and exploit the hell out of them.

You are right about the cost of muskets being the main reason historical soldiers only got one each. But I'm not sure about the idea that over-heating slows down musket loading all that much.

But I'm convinced: There really is no reason to disallow two of the same missile weapon for each warrior, as no one will bother for the most part!

Anyway the blunderbuss was clearly made a one-shot weapon for game balance reasons as there is no reason why it should take any longer to load than a musket. I just watched an episode of Lock 'n' Load about the shotgun, the first section was about the difference between the uses of a musket and a blunderbus. Both could be fired at a rate of about 3 shots per minute (even after extended periods of firing).

I would point out that this thread is authored by the same poster who's group discovered a problem with blunderbusses...

Experiences vary from group to group and opinions do as well.

WarbossKurgan wrote:

Anyway the blunderbuss was clearly made a one-shot weapon for game balance reasons as there is no reason why it should take any longer to load than a musket. I just watched an episode of Lock 'n' Load about the shotgun, the first section was about the difference between the uses of a musket and a blunderbus. Both could be fired at a rate of about 3 shots per minute (even after extended periods of firing).

You hit the nail on the head. This concept of 2 handguns to allow a shot per turn is the type of "get over" beloved by far to many gamers these days.

Generally I don't think blunderbusses are too powerful, and I wouldn't think there would be a real problem normally with someone having two... although I agree with Lord O that it would not be a particularly efficient use of gold crowns.

Before I became aware of this rule I did have one hero with a pair of blunderbusses - Albrecht, a promoted ogre crewman in my Free Brotherhood warband. I did it mainly because the model was that nice pirate ogre maneater model who has two large pistols, which I figured could double as blunderbusses. They proved pretty good for him since his 6' movement often meant he could line up a shot hitting lots of the opponents before they expected it. When I discovered this rule I switched one of the BB to a handgun.

Interesting discussion. Everybody here seem to be focused on blunderbusses, but what about good old pistols? Having two braces of pistols and pistolier skill can give you 2 ranged attacks each turn. If it would be forbidden to have two ranged weapons of the same type, pistolier would be less useful.

Pistols have been mentioned before

Aureus wrote:

If it would be forbidden to have two ranged weapons of the same type, pistolier would be less useful.

This sounds like it was totally common for your group to have models with two pairs of pistols?

Grimscull wrote:

This sounds like it was totally common for your group to have models with two pairs of pistols?

Naaw, only just as common as having two blunderbusses or handguns

If your far enough in your campaign to where a guy can have 2 blunderbusses, then other Warbands should be far enough along to have a way of handling it. Resilience and Mandrake Root make strength three not very scary and they will have to keep a budget for superior black powder to get to strength 4.

Resilient has an effect in close combar only
Other than that, I totally agree with what you said!

SaltyWendigo wrote:

If your far enough in your campaign to where a guy can have 2 blunderbusses, then other Warbands should be far enough along to have a way of handling it. Resilience and Mandrake Root make strength three not very scary and they will have to keep a budget for superior black powder to get to strength 4.

This may be, but thats not the point. The question is if you can have that combination at all. Thus far it appears, you cannot.

About T boosters:
Resilent works only in close combat and not every hero has access to strength skills.
Mandrake root is risky and you would have to buy one for each of your heroes before each battle. Blunderbuss can still decimate henchmen (no roots for them). Besides, that would require spending 25 + d6 gc. on each root before battle, quite a lot.

Grimscull wrote:

Resilient has an effect in close combar only
Other than that, I totally agree with what you said!

"in close combat" seems to be a preposition that I seem to always forget about thanks for pointing that out.

Aureus wrote:

This may be, but thats not the point. The question is if you can have that combination at all. Thus far it appears, you cannot.

Agree, since its stated on the book, I was going off not thinking it would have too drastic of a effect.

Aureus wrote:

Mandrake root is risky and you would have to buy one for each of your heroes before each battle. Blunderbuss can still decimate henchmen (no roots for them). Besides, that would require spending 25 + d6 gc. on each root before battle, quite a lot.

I don't feel that getting Mandrake root is anymore risky that someone dropping 85gc minimum to have a guy with two blunderbusses since he is outraged by quite a few guns. The other thing is a player who knows who has a blunderbuss(or two) should be having his henchmen space away from each other. I feel that if a henchmen group gets decimated my a blunderbuss shot there was an error on the henchmen groups leader.