ameliorate the missile scourge


Not unrealistically, missile weapons are too powerful. In the campaign mission, the 300 rated Marienberg Master Reeves are one of the toughest campaign scenarios to get past. Clearly, missile weapons should have more of an impact on warband rating than they do. Some suggestions to tame this savage beast:
1. Increase warband rating for equipped missile weapons
2. Give shields a bonus towards stopping missiles, like the Elven Cloak or Dodge skill
3. Add an option to take cover when hidden that does not allow the character to be targeted with missiles. It is so common for me to think a character is out of sight and have that character peppered with missile fire. Just like in tabletop, we can't posistion our figures to reflect them ducking behind a crate or half wall.

I know it is almost certainly selection bias, but it feels like AI warbands shoot farther, more accurately, and do more damage with their missiles than my own do. I have seen AI controlled warband shoot through large trees that blocked my own line of sight.
Last edited:


Agree with you. Good post.
1. Yes, if it could scale with the units BS skill. A warrior with a low BS skill should be able to take a ranged weapon without a great increase to the warband rating.
2. Yes, for a fairer game dependent on faction. example not for Sisters or Skaven shields.
3. Yes negating all missle attacks as a turn option sounds good, possibly add a equipment item like a Camo blanket or such, and on the next turn that unit must take his turn last.


When I first started playing this game, I did think shooting was very OP, but I no longer think so. I can understand the frustration though.

But here is why I think shooting is fine as is because:

1) The obvious, use terrain to hide (sneak there and move into Hide).
2) You can't get shot if you're in close combat, so use opponents as shields (especially those who are stunnable).
3) At mid - high level warband ratings, you'll find that it takes multiple shooters to take down one warrior, whereas one warrior in close combat can take kill someone himself in one round. A frenzied, crimson shade warrior with a comet maul with max WS, Str and Attacks is more dangerous than someone with a sniper rifle.
4) You can wear multiple elf cloaks (I've been told that this stacks)
5) If you nerf shooting, you will make warbands such as Skaven and Sisters OP. My Sisters right now, with their skill that gives -20 on top of Dodge and the cloak (I only wear one cloak), let's them run easily into warbands of 4 elves taking no casualties. So balance would be an issue if we were to add additional items that reduce shooting.

Against the AI, it's actually easy to win. Just hide or go behind a building and they will run towards you (even if equipped with a gun). So should be easy to position your warriors to get into close combat to prevent them from attacking.


You often can't hide, or there is some tiny crevice the other side can see through that you are not aware of. The bug when if you had a figure standing next to a wall, come parts would show through the wall being of note. Often times, the AI warband is already within range and has higher initiative, so your figures that start out of cover get shot down before getting a chance to move into hiding. Worse yet, unless your model is 100% completely obscured behind cover, even if you are hidden, they can still be targeted, hit, and killed. I have had half,ings hidden, with Dodge and the Elven Cloak sniped by AI warbands. It is often hard to tell if you are behind something slid, and if the point of a weapon or a bit of fluff is not completely concealed, your figure can still be shot.

My main point is that missile weapons barley effect warband rating. The Marienburg Master Reeves are ay harder to beat than a 300 Rating would indicate. I end up having to get to about 500 Rating before I can beat them toe to toe, or I have to take advantage of a scenario like get to the other edge of the map if I have something speedy like a vampire on Crimson Shade. I would rather face a warband of two handed weapon wielding roid monsters than an all (or mostly) missile weapon equipped warband. My other suggestions (give shields a bonus vs missile weapons or adding an affirmative " take cover" action if in solid cover) would not weaken range based warbands much if at all, sine the RNG appears to favor the AI warbands anyway (my point about the halfling,hidden in cover, with Dodge and Elven Cloak still getting hit as often as the big folk in the open).

Mostly, I want ranged weapons to raise warband rating.


Agree there is always room for improvement in the rating calibrations for weapons. But certain missile weapons do increase rating significantly. For example, when I switch from a pistol to a sniper rifle on my captain, the rating goes up 500. When I do so for my elf it goes up 700. I don't know what set-up this one warband is at 300. But also we need to be careful not to disrupt balance elsewhere while adjusting for this.

Perl Fisher

I agree that ranged weapons are fairly balanced, ratingwise. Pistols (especially dual) are just a bit tiny OP ratingwise, considering the extra no. of fairly highpowered attacks they give, which isn’t quite reflected in the ratings.
The skaven warplocks with their -50 armour bonus are through the roof, however. Skaven warbands equipped exclusively with duals of those (and perhaps 2 x blunderbuss / head) are nearly unbeatable by anyone at the same rating (esp. below 1000).


Absolutelly agree with the shield thing. Simply give shields as much ranged protection as the D rating they have.


In the real world, most medieval shields are useless against black powder wpns, as they barely slow down the bullet as it penetrates the shield. Shields are not very effective vs. long bows either as the arrows can penetrate 4” of oak:
They can indeed, but the overpenetration power of arrows is so low it harldy pierces anything afterwards. And dont forget, if you want this to game to be historically 100% accurate, there would be a debate on a whole another level