dual wield and chance

Hello my dear Mordheimers,

I cannot shake the idea that there must be a solution to the dual wield issue and I am going to try to do a probability crunch on the subject in order to find the very essence of why people take 2 attacks instead of one

taking "normal" stats as my base WS 3 S 3 T 3 Vs same

So that means hit on 4's wound on 4's.

The chance to roll one number on a dice is 16,67 (100(%) / 6)

The chance that you roll a 4+ (a 4, 5 or 6) is then 100/6*3 = 49,99%

So with one attack, you have already a 50% chance to hit and 50% chance to wound.

Warmed up? here goes the insanity or boringness

2 dice,

If you want to score at least one hit (one 4, 5, or 6) that is not as easy as 16,67 *2.

As a matter of fact, there are 36 possibilities on 2 dice,

[ 1-1 ] [ 1-2 ] [1-3 ] [1-4] [1-5] [1-6]
[ 2-1 ] [ 2-2 ] [2-3 ] [2-4] [2-5] [2-6]
[ 3-1 ] [ 3-2 ] [3-3 ] [3-4] [3-5] [3-6]
[ 4-1 ] [ 4-2 ] [4-3 ] [4-4] [4-5] [4-6]
[ 5-1 ] [ 5-2 ] [5-3 ] [5-4] [5-5] [5-6]
[ 6-1 ] [ 6-2 ] [6-3 ] [6-4] [6-5] [6-6]

18/36 means that you score one hit (49,99%) (red)
9/36 you score two hits (24,99%) (orange)
if you take in to account that even two hits should be called into this, that would mean 27/36 = 74.99% chance that you get one through! (red + orange)

[ 1-1 ] [ 1-2 ] [1-3 ] [1-4] [1-5] [1-6]
[ 2-1 ] [ 2-2 ] [2-3 ] [2-4] [2-5] [2-6]
[ 3-1 ] [ 3-2 ] [3-3 ] [3-4] [3-5] [3-6]
[ 4-1 ] [ 4-2 ] [4-3 ][4-4] [4-5] [4-6]
[ 5-1 ] [ 5-2 ] [5-3 ] [5-4] [5-5] [5-6]
[ 6-1 ] [ 6-2 ] [6-3 ] [6-4] [6-5] [6-6]

That is why it is so imba,

75% chance to get any hit through and if you are lucky 2, if you get 2 through you then again have 75% chance to wound, and if one goes through you still have 50% chance to wound.

Those are some very strong odds.

I'm not going to take it even further with a vampire who has already 3 profile attacks, what would happen to him!

so my proposed +1 to hit, for the weapon, let's see how close it approaches to this would mean, hit on a 3+ (but makes it also easier to parry though)

that would be 4/6 = 66,67% chance to hit.

It does nerf it a little bit, but decreasing the to hit chance on the first attempt with 9%. and on the to wound you would just wound on a 49,99% chance.

but i had some criticism that what if the warrior gets a +1 attack on his profile


[ 1-1 ] [ 1-2 ] [1-3 ] [1-4] [1-5] [1-6]
[ 2-1 ] [ 2-2 ] [2-3 ] [2-4] [2-5] [2-6]
[ 3-1 ] [ 3-2 ] [3-3 ] [3-4] [3-5] [3-6]
[ 4-1 ] [ 4-2 ] [4-3 ] [4-4] [4-5] [4-6]
[ 5-1 ] [ 5-2 ] [5-3 ] [5-4] [5-5] [5-6]
[ 6-1 ] [ 6-2 ] [6-3 ] [6-4] [6-5] [6-6]

Look at that! it's getting quite imba... for example the vampire!

32/36 is one hit = 88,88%!
16/32 = 44,44% chance to get 2 hits landed

At least that is not the way to solve it..

back to the drawing board

sorry for my rant, but i just wanted to post this

very good and insightful, keep it up!

----

edit: couldnt you achieve balance by doing this:

1 dual wield = -1 to hit on both weapons

2 shields = 5+ save

3 armour negation:
S1-5 = 0
S6-7 = -1
S8-9 = -2
S10 = -3

4 when a warrior is wounded by an attack that has a Strength double or more his own Toughness any injury rolls proceeding from that attack have a +1 modifier.

----

(1) nerfs the fact thar rolling more dice is always better

(2-3) makes shields viable

(4) makes two-handed weapons viable

hmm let's explore the -1 to hit on one weapon and on two weapons.

that means in normal circumstances, a 3ws warrior vs 3ws warrior would have to roll 5's on one roll and 4's on the second roll. for this the first dice will be the mainhand and will require the 4+ and the 2nd will be the offhand at a -1.

[ 1-1 ] [ 1-2 ] [1-3 ] [1-4] [1-5] [1-6]
[ 2-1 ] [ 2-2 ] [2-3 ] [2-4] [2-5] [2-6]
[ 3-1 ] [ 3-2 ] [3-3 ] [3-4] [3-5] [3-6]
[ 4-1 ] [ 4-2 ] [4-3 ] [4-4] [4-5] [4-6]
[ 5-1 ] [ 5-2 ] [5-3 ] [5-4] [5-5] [5-6]
[ 6-1 ] [ 6-2 ] [6-3 ] [6-4] [6-5] [6-6]


Red: mainhand hits 12/36 = 33,33% chance
Blue: offhand hits 6/36 = 16,66% chance
Orange: both land a hit 6/36 =16,66% chance

so the chance that you just hit and opponent would be 24/36 = 66,66%

the chance of landing 2 attacks has been decreased by 3/36 = 8,33%

and the chance of hitting with your offhand has been decreased by 8,33%


and in total you have lost 8,33 % chance to hit at all.

ok with two weapons at a -1 to hit penalty both hitting on 5's or 6's (but this also means it is harder to parry, so parry should be adressed later on)

[ 1-1 ] [ 1-2 ] [1-3 ] [1-4] [1-5] [1-6]
[ 2-1 ] [ 2-2 ] [2-3 ] [2-4] [2-5] [2-6]
[ 3-1 ] [ 3-2 ] [3-3 ] [3-4] [3-5] [3-6]
[ 4-1 ] [ 4-2 ] [4-3 ] [4-4] [4-5] [4-6]
[ 5-1 ] [ 5-2 ] [5-3 ] [5-4] [5-5] [5-6]
[ 6-1 ] [ 6-2 ] [6-3 ] [6-4] [6-5] [6-6]

Main hand hits on 8/36 = 22,22% chance
offhand hits on 8/36 = 22,22% chance
both weapons hit 4/36 = 11,11% chance

to hit at all is now 20/36 = 55,55%

now here we can see, it has a slightly increased chance that you get a hit through 6% aprox,

and you have a 22,22% chance that when you hit, you get two hits and are more likely to wound,

that does sound better. furthermore, there should not be a skill that would negate this penalty imho.

and perhaps add a small cost of gold to buy a "skill" from the shop available to everyone for like 10-15 gold crowns.

ill be back on this, college is calling!

thanks for the support asp

so when dual wielding with -1 to both you have 44,44% chance of 1 hit and 11,11% chance of two hits and 44,44% chance of no hits

when single wielding you have a 50/50 chance of 1 hit and shields now give a pretty hard save (not negated before S6)

when wielding a two-handede weapon you have a 50/50 chance of 1 hit, but bonuses to both wounds and injury rolls

Quote :

that does sound better. furthermore, there should not be a skill that would negate this penalty imho.

agreed

I am quite in favor of the -1 on all attacks for Dual Wielding - it's easier to apply and seems to make more important difference. Though I must say not having a skill to negate this seems like a bad Idea - not necessarily because of balance, though more that there must be some damn good dual wielders out on the Mordheim streets. Remember, a Dual Wielding skill would never apply to Henchmen (unless there a talented lad ofcourse) and would only be a perk for Heroes.

What would be the difference if the -1 was only on the offhand?

that would be the same as applying it to the mainhand svenn

maybe it was indeed to harsh to say that there shouldnt be a skill for dualwielding. but then where should we put it under?

Fury:
The warrior excels in fighting with two singlehanded weapons and may fight without the -1 penalty on the to hit roll.

if we vote for one particular table, let's say Combat. then only those who have access to combat skills would have access to this one.


I'd personally would like to see a "new" table which every hero has access to.

"Generic skills" or something. what do you think?

on a side note, i will post some numbers on armor and will try to shine some light on that subject as well

Doh, I didn't realize you did both in that post. Sorry. >_<

What do people feel is the better option? -1 to both weapons gives you a 5% more chance to hit and -1 to just one weapon gives you a 16% more chance to hit over a single weapon, correct?

I don't know - seems quite reasonable to put it into combat skills - I mean, Why should a wizard be good at dual wielding?

yeah that is correct sven! although in real life its far more unpredictable

i'd say 5% bonus to get through + the fact that there is a 22% chance to get 2 attacks through is quite awesome for a mere 3 gold coins!

ok, it is still a gamble, but nothing is certain in mordheim

then the option of getting a two hander, like a halberd would be a slightly better investment. because you know for certain (well as far a certain goes) that if you get through you can wound on a 3+ (16% more chance to inflict a wound than on a 4+)

but i still believe twohanders are still underdogs in this.. maybe make them "can openers" give polearms a -1 to opponents armoursave bonus.
and 2 handed weapons which strike last, -2 to enemies armoursave.

and then we would have a problem with the singlehanded axe... its just such a tangled web...

@popmouth yeah that is true, i missed that out thanks!

Yeah, it is a web, innit... Some people proposed that only Heroes should be allowed Dual Wield - sounds quite interesting. Also, the fumble rule that someone recently seemed like an Idea (though that means, even more rules)

Quote :

Though I must say not having a skill to negate this seems like a bad Idea - not necessarily because of balance, though more that there must be some damn good dual wielders out on the Mordheim streets.

that would be reflected in higer WS.

NO skill that negates the dual-wielding penalty! - if you introduce one, dual-wielding will simply end up being the natural stop for melee heroes again

Quote :

then the option of getting a two hander, like a halberd

two-handers don't need armour piercing when you introduce this:

Quote :

4 when a warrior is wounded by an attack that has a Strength double or more his own Toughness any injury rolls proceeding from that attack have a +1 modifier.

halberds... those are tricky. let's see:

the halberd is two-handed so you're missing out on dual-wielding and/or shield. you are also missing out on +2 S.

it should be about equally good as eigther. well, give it:

+1 S
armour piercing
strike first like spear

I like the Idea of a Halberd having the parry skill... it seems logical to be able to block with the shaft, also, a halberd has the essence of being a defensive weapon...

Asp wrote:

Quote :

Though I must say not having a skill to negate this seems like a bad Idea - not necessarily because of balance, though more that there must be some damn good dual wielders out on the Mordheim streets.

that would be reflected in higer WS.

NO skill that negates the dual-wielding penalty! - if you introduce one, dual-wielding will simply end up being the natural stop for melee heroes again

But taking this skill would take away from another skill they could have. So, it's a choice on whether you want that extra +1 to hit versus other skills you could have...

I agree with Svenn on this...

Svenn wrote:

But taking this skill would take away from another skill they could have. So, it's a choice on whether you want that extra +1 to hit versus other skills you could have...

none the less, in the larger scheme of things, this will still make dual-wielding more attractive than say, great weapon + strongman and so you are creating a situation where melee heroes would always want to dual-wield rather than sword/shield wield or great weapon wield

Asp wrote:

Svenn wrote:

But taking this skill would take away from another skill they could have. So, it's a choice on whether you want that extra +1 to hit versus other skills you could have...

none the less, in the larger scheme of things, this will still make dual-wielding more attractive than say, great weapon + strongman and so you are creating a situation where melee heroes would always want to dual-wield rather than sword/shield wield or great weapon wield

I don't think it's THAT big of a deal, honestly. If someone wants to waste a skill gain just to get a +1 bonus to hit then so be it. It doesn't increase chance to wound or decrease chance to save. It doesn't give them extra attacks or anything... just a +1 chance to hit.

Svenn wrote:

I don't think it's THAT big of a deal, honestly. If someone wants to waste a skill gain just to get a +1 bonus to hit then so be it. It doesn't increase chance to wound or decrease chance to save. It doesn't give them extra attacks or anything... just a +1 chance to hit.

again you're missing the big picture.

its the synergy of +1 to hit *and* +1 attack *and* bonuses from the weapons club/axe/sword/sigmarite hammer/weeping blade

stacking effets is hardly a 'waste' of a skill

it increases chance to wound by giving you the possibility of two hits which, when it goes in, means double chance to wound

it negates save if one of your weapons is an axe

so no, its not just a +1 chace to hit

Asp wrote:

4 when a warrior is wounded by an attack that has a Strength double or more his own Toughness any injury rolls proceeding from that attack have a +1 modifier.

true but then you need to have in normal cases a strength of 6!.. so only an orc with a 2hander would qualify for this..

perhaps just give 2 handers + 1 to injury ?

@ asp, indeed, i think i'm going to use that in pocket mordheim rules set

Asp wrote:

Svenn wrote:

I don't think it's THAT big of a deal, honestly. If someone wants to waste a skill gain just to get a +1 bonus to hit then so be it. It doesn't increase chance to wound or decrease chance to save. It doesn't give them extra attacks or anything... just a +1 chance to hit.

again you're missing the big picture.

its the synergy of +1 to hit *and* +1 attack *and* bonuses from the weapons club/axe/sword/sigmarite hammer/weeping blade

stacking effets is hardly a 'waste' of a skill

it increases chance to wound by giving you the possibility of two hits which, when it goes in, means double chance to wound

it negates save if one of your weapons is an axe

so no, its not just a +1 chace to hit

Actually, I think you are missing the bigger picture. :p The only thing the skill is giving is a +1 chance to hit. You already get the +1 attack AND the bonuses without having the skill. Sure, the combination is pretty powerful, but is it much worse than Combat Master or Expert Swordsman combined with +1 attack AND the the weapon bonuses?

negate-dual-wield skill is not much better than combat master or expert swordsman but it is still better which is already saying enough AND again, what you are missing is that if you introduce such a skill it can be combined with both combat master and expert swordsman which again means even more stack-a-ble-ness

the argument is pretty clear

Well we are talking experienced fighters here - I find it quite obvious that these should be able to wield two weapons effectively. Mind you that not all players power play - but giving a -1 to hit on both attacks, doesn't force us who wants a more dynamic warband to use two weapons on all our warriors. If there's no way to negate the -1 penalty, I think people might not bother to use two weapons in to far extent - we don't want people to stop using two hand weapons, we simply want them to be less over powered so to say.
I would feel quite frustrated if my W6 Vampire would Dual wield with a -1 to hit... As I get frustrated when a pesky Verminkin with club and dagger slaughters my Captain armed with sword and shield.
I hope you under stand my aspect of it - you need to balance what should be logical in the Mordheim world, and what is best for gameplay. And imbalance is also quite the charm of Mordheim.
- Popmouth

Popmouth wrote:

we don't want people to stop using two hand weapons, we simply want them to be less over powered so to say.

if you do what i recommed, the hard math on two hand weapons is still viable due to flexibility (weapons secondary properties: armour piercing and concussion) and no. of attacks

with the vampire, his high WS will compensate for the fluff aspects you mention. also, with 5+ shields whoose save is only negated by S6 attacks, the shield is more worthwhile for him than two weapons. even a great weapon would be good for him as he has A2 and would still get his nice 5+ save vs. shooting

Asp wrote:

Popmouth wrote:

we don't want people to stop using two hand weapons, we simply want them to be less over powered so to say.

if you do what i recommed, the hard math on two hand weapons is still viable due to flexibility (weapons secondary properties: armour piercing and concussion) and no. of attacks

The problem with the secondary properties thing is that they don't stack. If you are using an axe and a mace then one attack gets armor piercing and one attack gets concussion. Both attacks don't get armor piercing AND concussion. It's not that big of an advantage, really.

yes it is. let's say you have A2 on profile and dual-wield axe and club.

you can customize your special abilities 1 ap attack 2 concussion attacks or the other way around, heck, under vanilla rules you can even have two weapons and a shield for even more flexibility regarding the situation.

in vanilla there are also lots of skills that boost all attacks, again favouring dual-wielding. mighty blow, strike to injure etc.

also, if you have two swords they stack with expert swordsman

even with -1 on both attacks, dualing wielding will be very attractive