dual wield and chance

Popmouth wrote:

the problem is that GW has not been bothered to meet the fans (we) wishes, a new revisited Mordheim, though improvements have been made to the major games.

I would like to point out that I'm very pleased that Mordheim will not be re-released in a new and improved version like Necromunda Redux. What happened with that game was infuriating; a few vocal fans voiced that the original 6 gangs were too similar, and thus the house weapon lists were introduced which threw game balance out the window becoming so controversial that nearly every gamer refused to use them!

Not everyone is going to agree on a solution or if a problem exists. We have the gaming experience, as Paluke said, we as gamers are ultimately in control of how we want to play the game and i don't want GW to remake Mordheim and split us down the center like Necromunda gamers.

That is why i like reading these type of threads, they give me more food for thought and shows our collective creativity. The more suggestions i can try, the more likely I'm to find one that suits my tastes.

Yeah that armour system is good

Quote :

I like the Serious Injuries save for Armor

i vaguely remember this, can you refresh my mind?

I think we agree then. I'm going to check the revived Specialist games forum to see if there was a discussion on the rarity of full plate.

I think the move penalty stays for heavy armor. To apply a little reality.
Light armor is reinforced leather armor Heavy Armor is chain with perhaps a breastplate. Full plate is well... full plate. Chainmail is relatively easy to move in but its still darn heavy. SO I thikn we are ok.

If somebody really wants to buy toughened leathers... let em. they stink (literally) But I do agree and think we should not use them for our purposes.

Let's address the concerns.
1 and 2. Yes, I think things have become cheap enough and things have improved enough that the cost and the benefits are more balanced. Armor is still expensive and should be.

3. Maybe, BUT how common is that 2+ going to be? Not very. By then many henchmen will have Str4 and will reduce the armor save somewhat.

4. No, heroes will still probably DW. If we have restricted it to Heroes they will probably do it more. BUT People's concerns aren't really heroes DW its having 10 henchmen all equipped with 2 daggers. More advanced heroes with attack stat increases might wear armor and carry shields. Losing the 1 attack when you already have 2 or 3 means less and they can look to protect themselves.

I don't like adding any more AS for helmet. The mechanic works just fine.

On the Serious Injuries save, we don't apply it to henchmen, only heroes. IT also only applys if you go out from some sort of direct injury. THough for ease of play any sort of attack (ranged, spell or melee) alllows the armor. Special sorts of things from sceanrios... no the armor doesn't help unless that special thing is an attack. Ex. Armor doesn't protect against Nurgle's Rot.

I don't like Fate point mechanics or anything else like that.

So, we need to find the proposed ful plate rarity (or come up with one) and I think we are decided. Then we need to get people to use these ideas in their campaigns... the real work.

Pathfinder Dubstyles wrote:

Popmouth wrote:

the problem is that GW has not been bothered to meet the fans (we) wishes, a new revisited Mordheim, though improvements have been made to the major games.

I would like to point out that I'm very pleased that Mordheim will not be re-released in a new and improved version like Necromunda Redux. What happened with that game was infuriating; a few vocal fans voiced that the original 6 gangs were too similar, and thus the house weapon lists were introduced which threw game balance out the window becoming so controversial that nearly every gamer refused to use them!

Not everyone is going to agree on a solution or if a problem exists. We have the gaming experience, as Paluke said, we as gamers are ultimately in control of how we want to play the game and i don't want GW to remake Mordheim and split us down the center like Necromunda gamers.

That is why i like reading these type of threads, they give me more food for thought and shows our collective creativity. The more suggestions i can try, the more likely I'm to find one that suits my tastes.

Maybe you're right – or maybe GW just screwed up on that one. I mean, some changes improve, some don't. Still it would be fun with a new edition if some new models emerged. Then again, a the boundary of the range today stimulates converting and modeling. Mordheim might be best left untouched.

It's not like releasing a new version would prevent you from using the old rules if you didn't like it...

Yeah, the Necromunda Redux was awful, just awful. Frankly the only changes I think Necromunda needed was to make a more like Mordheim. Choosing your skill up with WS and BS and choosing the skill you get. Oh and combat. continuing to use the 2nd edition way of close-comabt... insane.
Oh the experience points per woudning hit? Are you kidding? I had guys earn 50 or 60 experience in a game because they hit people 8 or 10 times in a close combat...

I also agree that not everybody beleives there is a problem. I am one of those that thinks things ar OK, but they could be better. I'd like to play alot with a set of updated rules and see what that does. Does it still feel like Mordheim or something different? Do Heroes run amok with the improved armor and limited DW?

If we adopt these for a while, and it still looks good then we can make the suggestions to GW and the gaming community.

Nastyogre wrote:

I think the move penalty stays for heavy armor.

Absolutely agreed. What is the move penalty for Full Plate? -1 regardless whether Shield is used?

I finally found the Pavise, in TC7, "Ye Olde Curiosity Shoppe." Cost 5gc, rare 8. It gives a 5+ AS, and 1/2 Movement. Ouch!

Also found Iron-shod boots in the same article - another additional attack! Cost 20+3d6, rare 8. -1 to hit, but seems to be full Strength. It's kinda pricey, but yet another attack that can be bought... ugh. Now whereas the actual weapons presented in Ye Olde Curiosity Shoppe require Weapons Training, Iron-shod boots are Miscellaneous equipment, and can presumably be used by an hero with feet (as opposed to hooves - sorry, Beastmen). So should we expect to see 6 heroes tricked out per Marienburger warband with 2 Swords and Iron-shod boots as soon as their money supports it?

I personally despise iron shod boots. If i were to remake them i'd say they replace a regular attack, but are better at knocking models down... still prone to abuse though when teaming up.

Or the could always strike last, be limited to charging only, there are many options...

New poster here. Been on Warseer for a bit though. Just wanted to add my input.

I think the best solution I've seen for dual-wield is:

- No extra attack.
- +1 to hit rolls (to a maximum effect of 2+.)
- Can choose passive effects after you roll to hit (assuming one of the two weapons you wield have that passive effect.)

Also, maybe someone can answer a question slightly related...

I cannot find anything in the rulebook that disallows you to use a sword, dagger, AND shield in hand-to-hand. Can someone correct me on this? I know it specifies that you cannot use a buckler and dual wield, or use a two-hander and shield (in hand-to-hand), but nothing about shields.

Welcome Ferrous82!

That sounds like it would create far more variety in weapon setup and ironically, the only flaw I can find in it (which is why I would be so resistant to taking it on board as an option) is that it just doesn't feel quite right. (2 weapons somehow feel like there should be two attacks)

where did you get the idea from?

looks a lot like my first solution in this thread

TheFool wrote:

Welcome Ferrous82!

That sounds like it would create far more variety in weapon setup and ironically, the only flaw I can find in it (which is why I would be so resistant to taking it on board as an option) is that it just doesn't feel quite right. (2 weapons somehow feel like there should be two attacks)

where did you get the idea from?

This is how Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition is handling dual wield. In 3rd and 3.5, they gave extra attacks, but decided to change it, and it really makes sense when you think about it.

In a real melee, having an extra weapon doesn't mean you have an extra chance to strike a blow, because in reality, combatants aren't just flailing their weapons about.

In a real melee, having an extra weapon is more realistically (and ironically, more balanced in mordheim) giving you an ability to counter your opponent's defenses, like using your sword to brush his weapon to the side while making a killing blow with your axe. This is represented by being more likely to land a blow with two weapons, than one. Honestly, it makes things alot simpler. Giving the dual wielder the ability to choose which weapon lands after you roll dice is to not totally gimp dual wield and also represents the wielder choosing which weapon he used to strike and which to defeat his opponents defenses on the fly. Seems right to me.

First off, until I looked into the magic of dice rolls, I would have NEVER thought it the answer.

However, since an increase in WS/S/T/AR all end up giving a MAXIMUM 1/6th increase in a roll result (as they effect the roll needed ON the ammount of dice) compared to Attacks which increase the TOTAL amount of dice.

Limiting the ability to increase attacks artificially (aka, not rolling a stats increase but via equipment) is the best option to balance melee.

as it means most models would only have one attack and therefore Halberds / DW / 2 Handed weapons / spears / shields all suddenly become closely balanced and down to personal taste and tactics.

This means that, a character with base 2 attacks or with increased attacks from rolling skills will still be a relative daemon in battle compared to someone with 1 attack, it at least means that a unit that gains an attack will not be forced to DW purely to have a higher A value than all the standard henchmen also DWing. (as previously was the case)

I plan to try this answer out first in the next game I play.

And for the record, it was Paluke's idea first and Ferrous82's second(It's the rule of the forum )

If you disagree, you two must duel!

is dual-wielding allowed in the duel?
and if so what rules will be used?

Technically, it was Wizard of the Coast's idea first

I do like your idea TheFool, for limiting the max characteristic attack stat to 1, but it could nerf some heroes hardcore. One added benefit tho, is it makes Frenzy manageable. Frenzy on a base 2 or 3 attacks, plus dual wield, is just stupid amounts of OP.

I'm slightly swinging in favor for the +1 to hit – I'm not utterly convinced though...

I think removing the attack from the extra weapon is too large a departure from WFB tradition. Why do we care? Because other players are less likely to adopt those sorts of things. GW is also not likely to be interested in a radical change like that should the time ever come that they are willing to look at Mordheim again. Were we making our own game I think there are lots of things we should do. Since we aren't making our own game but trying to patch up an existing one we need to try and stay closer to home.

Looking at Iron shod boots. This is a "weapon" that would require a skill for anybody to use it. If people want to pay that cost well, ok they can use that attack I guess. No different than paying for a mutation and getting a 3rd arm, it costs you something beyond gc so I'm generally ok with it.

As far as what an extra weapon means in Mordheim. It depends on how you look at it. The extra attack is indeed making you more likely to hit and doesn't necessarily mean what you are doing is all out attacking. Sure that's how we roll the dice, but its all an extrapolation. Their are parries, dodges and such going on in the course of coombat. Its just not that simple.

I agree that increasing any other stat provides a max of 1/6 increase in effectiveness. The point isn't to make using 1 attack with 1 weapon equally as effective as using two weapons. I think that's a mistake made when looking at the numbers alone. The point is to make 1 attack with a weapon and something else (shield or buckler) to be viable. We want it to be fair but equal and fair are not necessarily the same thing. Its a misconception. Depowering DW to where it was no better than 1h and shield is probably UNfair. Though it would be equal.

So something like improving shields (I think there should be some improvement in bucklers too, but one thing at a time) and limit DW to heroes starts to bring things under control. +1 WS is forcing the two different setups to be statistically equal, and they shouldn't be. Two weapons IS more offensive. 1H and a shield IS more defensive. One gives you a better chance to take your opponent out, the other a better chance to tke the hit. With Amror more reasonably priced, (light especially) you start to get it to a reasonable difference. Though not a statistical equivalence. Adding in a few things like off-hands cannot critical or strike at -1 to hit bring it even closer.
I don't think DW and 1h+shield or Halberd or flail should be statisically equal.

This is my 2 cents of course. I'm neither entirely correct nor incorrect.

Ferrous82 wrote:

- No extra attack.
- +1 to hit rolls (to a maximum effect of 2+.)
- Can choose passive effects after you roll to hit (assuming one of the two weapons you wield have that passive effect.)

- How will Tail-wielding and Mutants' extra appendages be handled when dual-wielding? +2 to Attack (to maximum effect of 2+)?
- Any special allowances for Brass Knuckles, Fighting Claws, or Weeping Blades?


+1 to hit rolls still gives a massive benefit:
Att WS > Def WS: from 67% to 83% hit (compared to 89% with original dual-wield)
Att WS <= and >=1/2 Def WS: from 50% to 67% hit (75% originally)
Att WS <1/2 Def WS: from 33% to 50% (56% originally)
It does have the benefit of being simpler to resolve, however, it conflicts with the feel of Mordheim so far in that each attack gets its own roll.

I could live with this (could live with, not necessary be fully for):
- a model using extra weapons without taking Skills or under a model's Special Rule (e.g., Mutations) gets +1 WS to all attacks due to the extra weapon. (There are break points when the above %hit increases will apply, but they won't across the board.)
- a model who gets extra attacks through Skills or under a model's Special Rule (e.g., Mutations) gets the extra attack as detailed in the Skill or Special Rule.
- a Dual-Wield skill added to the Combat Skill list which allows one extra attack (closing the off-hand weapon plus Iron-shod boots hole) for an off-hand weapon (maybe also the Strength list since this is GW, however non-GW fiction seems to place dual-wield for finesse, not brute force).

A thought came up from the two-sword Parry rules of allowing the extra weapons to re-roll a failed attack, but that yields the same %hit bonuses as original dual wield, just without the %bonus of additional hits.

My favorite so far is still restricting dual-wield to Heros, Hired Swords and Large Henchmen, and still only allowing a 6+ hit for the extra attack (if untrained). Exempt from this extra attacks from Skills and models' Special Rules (but not equipment, so Fighting Claws, etc. would be impacted), and add a Dual-wield skill to the Combat List.

wyldhunt wrote:

A thought came up from the two-sword Parry rules of allowing the extra weapons to re-roll a failed attack, but that yields the same %hit bonuses as original dual wield, just without the %bonus of additional hits.

I logged in to express this very same idea, but it looks like i was beaten to the punch! And to think i though i had an original idea in this day and age!

The idea has merit and deserves more attention.

Ferrous82 wrote:

- No extra attack.
- +1 to hit rolls (to a maximum effect of 2+.)
- Can choose passive effects after you roll to hit (assuming one of the two weapons you wield have that passive effect.)

+1 to hit too frequently results in 2+ to hit (it would also make parry too good)
Not stacking weapon special abilities will result in no one taking two axes or two clubs, etc., models are modeled like this and there should be no disadvantage to having two of the same weapon (even swords, IMHO, but I digress). Furthermore, "only" +1 to hit still makes off-hand weapons significantly better than shields.
My solution, inspired in part by Paluke, can be found here and is really the logical conclusion to the line of thinking in the above posts.

If I (admittedly playing to win) were playing with your rules, I would dual wield with everything I always do and upgrade to a sword asap; still haveing the young blood type with dhw for cleanup. If anything, these rules actually narrow viable equipment choice and unnecessarily lengthen the game because of fewer attacks.

Pathfinder Dubstyles wrote:

wyldhunt wrote:

A thought came up from the two-sword Parry rules of allowing the extra weapons to re-roll a failed attack, but that yields the same %hit bonuses as original dual wield, just without the %bonus of additional hits.

I logged in to express this very same idea, but it looks like i was beaten to the punch! And to think i though i had an original idea in this day and age!

The idea has merit and deserves more attention.

I'll be very surprised if no-one thought of it before today, actually. The question comes down to - what do we mind?

1. The fact that dual-wield appears to be such a win-tactic that shields and 2h weapons are scarcer than Wyrdstone?
2. Unskilled models with dual-wield having such a better chance to make one hit?
3. Unskilled models with dual-wield having a chance for making extra hits?

The sentiment expressed here is definite for #1, with a solid group of us for #2 as well. #3 may also be an issue, but hasn't been expressed as much.

The re-roll solution only really resolves #3.

Let's refine (that is, water it down) the re-roll solution some more, then: if a model misses with all of its primary attacks (including extra attacks from Skills and models' Special Rules), then a model may attack with a single equipment-based off-hand attack at normal value.

This does preserve the individual weapon's uses in dual-wield, and also a reason for paired weapons. It is as effective as landing 1 hit as the original dual-wield when the model has 1 attack (though no possibility of 2 hits), but becomes progessively less valuable when the model has other additional attacks. (Original dual-wield suffers the same downward progression, but this makes it much more pronounced.)

Unfortunately, I think this "refinement" actually produces the opposite effect of what we want. Advanced heroes will likely drop dual-wield, but base henchmen will be more likely to keep it. I think this dual-wield option would only be appropriate when restricting dual-wield to Heroes, Hired Swords and Large Henchmen.

Each time I look at all the angles, a basic restriction on who can use dual-wield (Heros, Henchmen and Large Heroes) seems to be the simplest partial solution for concern #2 above, and at least the starting point for other solutions.

Increasing Armor Saves as we've discussed is a basic solution for #1, but I don't believe it'll be enough to keep basic Henchmen from using dual-wield, so again I believe it best to restrict dual-wield from them. Can we find any fluff justification, GW or otherwise, for run-of-the-mill, cannon fodder Henchmen to use even a sword and dagger together?

Perhaps Nastyogre is correct then. Nerfing dual wield doesn't need to be the solution. Simply buffing armor saves and their sources would suffice. Simply might be an understatement however...

As a player of 40k primarily, I have always disliked the fact that the Strength characteristic both increased the chance to wound AND weakens the defender's armor save (potentially.)

My proposal, then, assuming we were to buff armor, since I think we can all agree, that armor is far too expensive for what it currently does in vanilla rules, would be to remove the ability for Strengths of 4+ to weaken armor saves. Without it, Strength is still extremely valuable in wounding, but it makes the value of a shield go way up.

If that isn't enough, you could replace bucklers with how shields work now, and make it so shields are a 5+ (+2 to AS).

Encouraging more players to kit out their warbands in armor and actually making that armor do something significant to counter a dual wielder's ability to throw out attacks.

If you really want a solution, it will truly require us to change the metagame of Mordheim, even if such a change is drastic.

Ideally, you would want to modify the rules so that in a scenario with an equal number of equally matched models, one side with dual wielders, and one side decked out in armor and shields, to not always have a clear winner. As it stands now, the armored warband always loses.

wyldhunt wrote:

A thought came up from the two-sword Parry rules of allowing the extra weapons to re-roll a failed attack, but that yields the same %hit bonuses as original dual wield, just without the %bonus of additional hits.

...

Unfortunately, I think this "refinement" actually produces the opposite effect of what we want. Advanced heroes will likely drop dual-wield, but base henchmen will be more likely to keep it. I think this dual-wield option would only be appropriate when restricting dual-wield to Heroes, Hired Swords and Large Henchmen.

Each time I look at all the angles, a basic restriction on who can use dual-wield (Heros, Henchmen and Large Heroes) seems to be the simplest partial solution

Increasing Armor Saves as we've discussed is a basic solution for #1, but I don't believe it'll be enough to keep basic Henchmen from using dual-wield, so again I believe it best to restrict dual-wield from them.

A reroll is interesting, but not effective at making dual-wield NOT the only real option for equipment. To fix the game you must: make dual-wield bonus statistically equal to single hand weapon and shield bonus. This should probably be some combination of making dual wield worse and shields better. Remember that due to axes, crits, st4+, expense of other armor, a shield is only useful half the time; i.e. +1 AS =/= +1 to hit.

Here's a new suggestion similar to one someone made in my posted solution to the problem:

Shields:
6+ or +1 AS
If your opponent is dual wielding, you may cancel one attack from the weapon of your choice

To fix the game you must: make dual-wield bonus statistically equal to single hand weapon and shield bonus.


I can't say this is really the case. By forcing statistical equivalence we remove any reason to DW. WHy bother? Its merely just a modeling decision then. Perhaps a choice of special rules (stun, armor pen, parry) There should be some distinction between DW and 1H and shield.

Adding a -1 to hit to the offhand. Removing it's ability to crit. Improving armor by reducing cost and improving shields to +2 in HtH (perhaps giving buckler +1 AS in Hth none vs shooting and still granting the parry) and limiting DW to heroes brings a more normal distribution of the ability and brings the two to a reasonable difference.

Plus the above changes are MUCH more simple and effective than +1 WS or to hit with DW and choosing effects. The effects naturally attach tot he attack dice its merely a matter of rolling an odd die, which is done already. Its also a much less radical departure from the existing rules.

Anybody care to run the numbers on -1 to off-hand DW with no crits on off hand vs 1h weapon with shield and a 5+ AS? I'm just not that inclined to such calculations. Not that anybody understands once I'm done explaining.
I could agree to bumping all the Strength reductions up one too... improve armor substantially and improves blackpowder and axes.