I see validity in both viewpoints (the +1 attack crowd, and the +something other than attack crowd.)
I don't understand or have sympathy for anyone who doesn't like a suggestion just because it doesn't fit in line with WHFB or because they don't want to lose attacks.
WHFB is an entirely different creature. The only true similarity is the fluff, and even then, Mordheim takes place in a substantially different era of that fluff's history.
Warbands are retired and reborn often enough that losing attacks from one incarnation to another shouldn't be that frightening. Yes, it changes the entire metagame. Thats the point. You lose attacks, sure, but so does the oponnent, so now the fun part is experimenting (rather than playing the same "dual wield > all" game) and finding out the new metagame.
To the Kendo dude:
-Wouldn't you agree that wielding two weapons does NOT increase your odds of hitting your oponnent with both weapons? The more likely scenario is that wielding two weapons only increases your odds of hitting your oponnent with only one of those weapons, and thats assuming you are skilled enough to even wield two weapons. Far more advanced technique and martial skill is required to do this effectively. In fact, many two weapon forms were developed as a defensive way to fight (without the encumberance of a shield.) European sword and dagger techniques were just as effective on the defense, if not moreso, than on the attack. The dagger wasn't a primary method of striking a blow (that task was left to the sword arm), because it was primarily used to parry with. This isn't true for all forms by any means, but it is worth noting.