Here are the stats I am thinking of going with for weapons in my game - let me know what you think of them and if you have any ideas to improve:

Weapon DR CR Qualities
Dagger 4 3 Fast
Sword 5 3 Defensive
Axe 5 3 Vicious
Mace/hammer 5 3 Special
2h Sword 7 2 2handed, defensive
2h Axe 7 2 2handed, vicious
2h Mace/hammer 7 2 2handed, special
Halberd 6 2 Special, 2handed, Vicious
Spear 4 3 Fast, Pierce 1, Special
Morning Star 6 3 Slow, Special
Flail 8 3 Slow, Vicious, 2handed, special
Rapier 5 3 Fast, Defensive
Main Gauche 4 4 Fast, Defensive
Sabre 5 3 Special
Lance 5 2 Pierce 2, Special
Quarterstaff 4 4 Defensive
Improvised 3 3 Special
Unarmed 2 4 Special
Gauntlet 4 4

Mace/hammer
Stun: spend a comet to stun opponent – give them the staggered condition for 3 rounds.
2h Mace/hammer
Stun: spend a comet to stun opponent – give them the staggered condition for 3 rounds.
Halberd
[W] vs mounted opponents, Can shift grip to wield like a 2handed spear
Spear
can wield 1h, if so may only use shield or net in offhand, or can switch to 2h, +1 damage,
Breakable 2: If you roll a chaos star on an attack, roll another <C> if you get another chaos star the spear breaks.
Morning Star
Difficult to block/parry, when someone uses block or parry active def add an additional recharge token
Flail
Difficult to block/parry, when someone uses block or parry active def add an additional recharge token
Sabre
Cavalry: While mounted if wielder has Ride trained gain [W] to attack roll
Lance
Cavalry: While mounted if wielder has Ride trained gain [W] to attack roll
Momentum: If you moved this turn +2 damage.
Breakable 2: If you roll a chaos star on an attack, roll another <C> if you get another chaos star the lance breaks.
If Momentum applies Breakable 1: If you roll a chaos star on an attack the lance breaks,

Formatting is messed up =( but hopefully you get the idea.

Kaptain O said:

I am not certain that all weapons need rebalancing but some of the stuff you have here is really neat. I especially like the stun effect of maces and hammers. Your Breakable is probably the better solution to the whole weapon breaking issue and should rebalance the spear (tho I am not sure I see what everyone is concerned about when it comes to the spear).

I might have stolen it as is if not for the fact that it is a little to crude to add to all weapons, which I want.

Also, by crude I do not mean it to be negative, I just can't come up with a better word right now. More specifically I mean that it is hard to make your Breakable work at different levels. For instance it is way to easy to roll one chaos star, but all but impossible to roll three concecutive stars.

All in all I'd say it's a nice list.

I like this. I was looking at the rules for Mordheim and seeing that they had more differenciation than "hand weapon". I was basically thinking of the same thing, and you codified it for me. Thanks.

Kaptain O said:

Great work. I love the Spear rules and I love the stun rules. I also like how easily you put in the anti-cavalry rules. Only thing I would do differently is instead of making that an anti-cavalry specific rule, I would leave it more up to interpretation. As a general guideline you can assume any polearm should get a white against cavalry, maybe pikes receiving two white dice. Spears should get the benefit as well. Two Handed swords should also since they largely were used to cut down cavalry legs to throw the rider from the horse or to splat the rider from the horse with a hit. The Maces are great.

What we have been doing for weapon breakage is simply a series of boon effects or bane effects. You hit with 2-3 banes for a weapon, the GM can break the weapon instead of other nasty penalties. It has worked very well so far. With boon effects the GM will add "you smash through your opponents weapon, clefting the half in two and tear into his chest." I do like the Spear breakable rule though, but I would simplify it with just one Chaos Star. I would also add this to axes as well since that is why the sword is better is because swords are less likely to break than a wooden axe handle. Just a thought.

The only thing I might amend Flails and Morning Stars cannot be parried.

I'd also be curious to add pierce to more weapons. Many of the larger weapons (like flails) were specifically designed to negate the benefit of wearing heavier armor.

I'd give the flail and twohanded mace pierce 1, the spear the defensive quality while twohanded and pierce 1 only when use mounted and give it anti cavalry ability. any slow weapon should also be easier to dodge while retaining any difficulty to block/parry. fast weapons could be harder to dodge.

but then again, all these extra rules will take from the game what is its force in my opinion. the simplicity.

Some additional weapon requests here:

Warplock Pistol

Skaven Jezzail (spelling) [warpstone firing rifle]

Chaos Axe

Chaos Pick

Haven't touched ranged weapons yet ><

And I don't know much about a chaos axe/pick - would they be like magic weapons?

I don't really like pierce 1, I don't see it as too much different than +1 damage. I think pierce should start a 2.

zelbone said:

I tend to agree - but what to do? so the purpose of pierce is that an item with pierce 2 will hurt people with 2 soak the same as someone with 0 soak. Pierce 1 ignores what? cloth, leather, brigadine? TBH I dont see why cloth has a soak value, and why atatckign metal plates to it (brigadine) doesnt increase the soak but increases your defence.

What would you do with say a longbow, dr5 and pierce 1 I think, just up the pierce to 2? or make it dr4, pierce 2 so the same damage against armoured targets but less vs unarmoured.?

Im working on range weapons now and having similar dilemma.

Kaptain O said:

IMHO pierce should simply ignore armor, get rid of pierce X all together.

Long Bow: DR:2, CR:2, Pierce, Two-Handed

Interesting - does that make sense vs an unarmoured target though?

AGI+2-TOU?

Im going to play around with it, maybe DR3 with pierce 4...

I have a table setup for ranged weapons but I'm really not happy with it, I also added shortsword and handaxe to my melee table and am thinking about adding a 2 handed Pick kind of weapon.

For my ranged table I upped the effectiveness of blackpowder weapons and re-worked the unreliable trait to work similarly to my breakable rules for melee weapons.

I also am looking at armour and will probably remove the 1 soak that cloth gives since that seems kind of pointless.

It makes sense to me.

I like the idea that a weapon could potentially do little non-lethal damage, but is very good at negating armor and scoring critical wounds. With a "archer" character with 5 agility, even against a toughness 5 monster, he will do 2 points of damage, with a high likely-hood that one of them is a critical. It keeps in mind my personal feeling of how bows should work in these game. Impaling weapons will either have very little or very detrimental effect.

You may even lower it to CR: 1

Kaptain O said:

If you're wondering if it makes sense as a game, that's pretty much up to you. If you're wondering if it makes sense in that it is realistic... then no, definetly not realistic. Plate armor f.ex. DOES give protection against arrows.

They way that weapons and armor evolved over time to counter eachother out is quite drastic. Most fantasy games totally ignore the natural evolution of weapons/armor and just put all weapons/armor together at the same time (although some would be totally useless since others have been invented). Just a simplified example for those who like realism:

The invention of Plate: Heavier and heavier armors where invented and over time, PLATE armor was invented. That in combination with cavalry resulted in what most people today would define as a "knight". The plate armor was very good at protecting against cutting weapons (like swords), so the weapon side of it all evolved towards more blunt weapons (like maces). These blunt weapons worked very well against plate armor. A "knight" would for example be equipped with both sword and mace. Against a light armored opponent he would use the sword, while he against other plate armored opponents he'd use the mace. The mace wasn't the perfect counter to plate armors though, just a better one then swords where (swords where pretty useless against plate). Blunt weapons used against a plate armor wearing opponent where still less effective than a sword used against an "unarmored/lightly armored opponent" though, otherwise there wouldn't have been any point in wearing the plate armor.

Plate protected pretty well against arrows. At least plate protected alot better than not wearing it, otherwise people wouldn't have used plate anymore. This is what happens with the next evolution/invention: Black Powder weapons!

The invention of Blackpowder weapons: With blackpowder weapons it all changed and plate wearers where suddenly very easy to kill... plate gave virtually no protection at all against a bullet. Blackpowder was even more detrimental to plate wearing cavarly "knights". Being both easy to spot AND easy to kill was not a good combination! The black powder weapons spelled the END of THE KNIGHT and the end of PLATE armors in general. The best protection against black powder weapons was instead to be as manoeuverable as possible, making it more difficult for the shooter to hit you (meaning NO armor, or at least only wear a very light armor).

It is during this era of non-armor that the Rapier and the current art of Fencing evolved. The rapier would have been an utterly useless weapon against a plate armor (it would simply break too easily when thrust against a plate armor), but it was VERY DEADLY against an unarmored opponent. It was quick and had an awesome reach (as can easily seen by watching some fencing on a sports channel near you ;D ). It easily pierced through an unarmored body with a high chance of leathally wounding the target in just a single hit. Older weapons, like a standard sword where inferior now that people didn't use armor anymore. They had shorter reach and where swung instead of thrusted making them slower weapons. Since people wheren't wearing armor anymore, the Rapier user had a huge advantage compared to someone using a normal sword, mace or similar weapon.

The above is just a simplification of it all (much more is involved... f.ex the evolution of smithing and metals are involved too), but I hope people who read it get the overall gist of it. Realism based on history of the medieval times means:

• No plate invented/Swords - Swords are the most popular weapons (for those who can afford them).

• Plate is invented/The mace gets more use - Maces are used as a compliment to swords. Maces are used against plate wearing opponents, Swords against light armored ones. Plate still protects against arrows (otherwise plate wouldn't have be used anymore, which is what happens during the next step when blackpowder weapons are invented).

• Blackpowder weapons invented/Rapiers and Fencing evolves/The "Armorless" Era begins - Plate doesn't exist anymore and soon practically all use of armor disappears (almost like it is today). Rapier is the new melee weapon to use. "Old" school swords and maces "disappear"... at least for those who can afford it.

Fantasy games usually just put all weapons together... Rapiers are used at the same time as heavy armors exist, and in warhammer, blackpowder weapons exist side by side with plate armored knights. I'm OK with this though, since for me it's a game in a fantasy setting and as such its main priority isn't realism... it is to have FUN.

Hi! Great table. I also don't like when it has been just a Hand Weapon. I also made my own weapon list. I used Stun as a weapon quality and it takes effect, when the Melee Attack result ist more then 1 Boons. That is, if someone with an warhammer has 3 boons in his result is "stunned" 2 rounds but is allowed to spend fortune to shrug it off.

But I'm thinking to take your suggestion with the comet... hmm I have to make up my mind before the next session starts.

Freiduin said:

To be fair, Plate was only penetrated by early black-powder weapons at close range. At longer range it was still very effective.

After manufacture, Plate armour was often "proofed" by firing a shot at it and engraving a circle around the resulting dent to prove to the customer that they had purchased a quality product.

I think that the major impact of the arquebus was that you could have massed units comprising relatively untrained levy deliver deadly volley fire. Previously, it took many years of training and practice to get an archer to the same level of effectiveness. Ultimately, it was a question of economy.

There are a number of ways to improve the utility of piercing weapons, rather than the very simple method I first proposed.

Pierce: Ignore 1 point of armor soak for each boon rolled.

My distaste for pierce 1 is that I see very little value between that and +1 damage.

Kaptain O said:

Excellent set. The thing that concerns me most (beside the spear, which is a tad unbalanced), is the "unarmed vs <****>itty weapon" problem. The old WHFRPG had you, barehanded, on par with the dagger. Now, not only this seems overly optimistic regarding your chances unarmed vs someone armed even with a knife, I feel it is a storytelling device as well to have a big difference between having no weapon at all and even the worst weapon of the set.

So, in my book, Unarmed should be DR 2 and CR 6. It is certainly possible to beat your foe to death, but it requires quite some time.

The "improvised" weapon is too good compared to a quarterstaff as well - I would make it DR 2-3 and CR 4 or 5, depending.

Plus, anything but a dodge maneuver should be penalized as well - no block and parry makes sense if you aren't armed yourself.

Any ideas on that ?