I was looking through the weapon list and came to the conclusion that it needed to change.
The first thing came to my mind was the problem of fast weapons like the spear. I really don't like the fast quality specially the fast spear so i came up with reach. I thought that quality reach would let its user to engage and maybe disengage a enemy for free.
does anyone see any problems this might add or is it too weak? I would keep the 2-handed option.

The other thing i really don't like is grouping the best medieval weapon (sword/Broadsword) to the same group as axes and hammers. At least it should be more expensive than the other hand weapons and i was thinking of changing its CR to 2.

The list is so bad because they thought "Let's make it simple. It is a hand weapon or a great weapon." then threw it all overboard and did something else. I use the weapons in the basic categories: hand weapon (1h), great weapon (2h), ranged, gunpowder, improvised. If a player wants a dagger that is fast and unreliable then she has exactly that. Why have a book with all these attributes and modular systems if they just get ignored?

Technically, the "best" medieval weapon is too broad a term. In my opinion for instance, that would be the spear. The combination of spear + shield in group combat was amazingly efficient. Faster to manufacture, easier to learn how to wield correctly. That you could also have a sword at your side for when the spear became useless, meant even more efficiency, but I wouldn't call the sword the "best" medieval weapon.

The weapon list is quite true to Warhammer Fantasy Battles (WFB). The weapons in the battles game is quite similar as the list in WFRP.

In WFP all "basic" one-handed weapons (swords, axes, clubs, etc) are called Hand Weapons and all the weapons in this group have the same damage and rules.

Then there's the Great Weapons which are all "basic" two handed weapons (great swords, great axes etc) and all the weapons in this category share damage and rules.

Then there's a bunch of other weapons; like spear, halberds, flails, lance, net, bow, longbow, pistol, handgun, throwing axe/hammer, for example. And all these weapons have individual rules and damage ratings.

Notice any similarities between WFB and WFRPs weapon lists? Rather than creating a bad list to keep it simple I believe that it was a design choice, they wanted to create a list was similar to the list in WFB.

Agree with k7e9.

Jay Little and the FFG crew didn't invent the current WFRP weapon classification system. FFG inherited that system from WFRP _2_ which in turn inherited that from Warhammer Fantasy Battles.

I realized it results in a greater variety among my players. In other systems they tried to get the "best" weapon – now fluff has a bigger impact.

Therefore I like it.

There is still some overemphasis on great weapons imo, and that actually has more to do with cards that require a 2-handed weapon.

I used 2nd edition as template to expand the Weapon list a little without doing to many changes.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16860068/Weapons.pdf

I like the impact type, but I'd probably swap out the critical for the special condition, rather than a single eagle. If you were going to pursue that line, probably just get a condition for stab wounds, slash wounds and impact wounds on a single eagle.

Good ideas!