dual wield and chance

---- The Math ----
Two Equal henchmen suit up
'Bill' with an Axe and Dagger
'Ted' with a Shield and Mace
S: 3 T: 3 WS: 3 A: 1

Bill (effects: -1 AS , DW)

Chance to hit: 3/6 (50%)
Chance to hit with Reroll: 1/6 (16.5%) (Chance to critical with Reroll: 0%)
Total to Hit: 66.5% [**Note**]

Chance to Wound: 3/6 (50%)
Chance to critical: 1/6 (16.5%)

So chance to wound all up is 66.5% * 50% - 33.25%
.... chance to Critical all up is 50% * 16.5% - 8%


Ted (Effects: +1WS [shield], +1AS)
Chance to hit: 3/6 (50%)

Chance to Wound: 3/6 (50%)

Chance to critical: 1/6 (16.5%)


So chance to wound all up is 50% * 50% - 25%
.... chance to Critical all up is 50% * 16.5% - 8%

If Bill used a Mace or Sword, The AS of 6+ would balance his chances near identically to Ted.

The Problem!

The 2nd attack on a 6+ must be made by the secondary weapon.

This is to stop people from just DWing with a dagger to give a reroll to their primary weapon.

This furthermore gives motivation to carry paired weapons as, if you want a guy to REALLY cut through someones armour, you would bring two axes on the off chance the first hit fails.



[**Note**]
I added the chances of a normal hit and to hit on a 6+ as I felt that the probability of the first dice compared to the 2nd dice is irrelevant as the 2nd dice is only rolled if the first dice fails and therefore the result of the first dice should not come into the probability of the result of the 2nd (as the 2nd dice will only occur if the first dice does not make a hit, tell me if I am wrong )

TheFool - I am confused as to which "new rules" you are using here. Could you edit in a summary at the beginning of your post?

Quote :

So chance to wound all up is 50% * 50% - 25%
.... chance to Critical all up is 50% * 16.5% - 8%

i don't seem to understand this math, what would be the percentage?

Alright - our local group has accepted the following changes to core Mordheim:

1. Shield+weapon gives +1 AS in HtH

2. S1-4 gives no mod to AS; S5 gives -1 AS; S6 gives -2 AS, and so on.

3. A weapon in the off-hand (or even a fist) can only be used when a primary attack's hit roll is a miss. (Note the careful wording there - an off-hand attack cannot be used directly off a prmiary attack being parried.) The off-hand attack is taken the first time a primary attack's hit roll is a miss, and is rolled as a separate attack: -1 to hit, no critical wounds possible. If a player is planning to use an off-hand attack with a model, at the beginning of the battle (prior to rolling scenario even), the warband roster must specify which weapon/fist is off-hand.

4. Add a Dual-wield skill to the Combat skills list. With this skill, a model with a weapon in the off-hand makes a normal attack with that weapon. (A miss on a primary attack is not needed to take this additional attack; the attack does not suffer the "-1 to hit" off-hand penalty; the attack may cause a critical wound as normal.)

5. Dramatis Personae and Hired Swords who are designated dual-wield automatically have the Dual-wield skill.

The others in our group really wanted to keep the Dual-wield skill in, as a way for heroes who really want dual-wield w/o penalties to be able to reclaim it.

A battle of Middenheimers vs Kislevites was fought just after this. I didn't play, but watched/refereed. Both players decided to grab shields for all of their models, so we didn't get to see how dual-wield plays against shields now. We did get to see what happened to the S4 Middenheimer heroes and the Bear-Tamer with these changed rules. Also, all Middenheimer heroes who could (excepting the Wolf Priest), and all models in the Kislevite warband, got swords. So this was a pretty defensive setup on both sides, though without body armor/helmets.

Missile fire proved effective at ousting two Middenheimers early, so by the time melee was joined, the numbers advantage was with the Kislevites. In HtH, the swords and shields did their job, and although the Middenheimer's and Bear Tamer's higher Strength did tell in causing Wounds, the Middenheimer player expressed some frustration that his S4 Wounds were still being deflected almost 1/3 of the time (since he was previously used to no deflection, that was a big change). This was even with a healthy level of Critical Wounds happening. Now note that these S4 Middenheimer heroes (along with the Bear Tamer) begin at maximum Strength, so this is as good as they'll get without some other help. I did ask whether the deflections would make him more likely to get axes or heavy weapons for his warband - he is thinking about it, and may well do so for some of his models, dividing them between "catchers" and "can openers."

The Middenheimers did get to rout level a full two turns before the Kislevites. However, it was the Kislevites who failed the rout test first (on the first try), so the Middenheimers won. Both warbands had three models Out of Action at the end of the battle. (There were KDs/stuns all over the place, particularly on the Kislevite side, but the Middenheimers didn't have the numbers to follow-up with auto OOAs except once.)

I have to say, even with the Middenheimer player's expressed frustration at the armor/Strength changes, I was pleased with the balance of play. I am very, very pleased that this is making at least one player re-evaluate options and not always choose one style of equipment.

Next up, I'll be playing an Ostlander warband. Now, because I like helmets on everyone, and like to spread the bows around, I've ended up with all maces and only two shields (Elder and Priest). So most of the warband will be using their eating dagger dual-wield (why not - got nothing else in that hand). It'll be interesting to see how this plays out against a warband that's full-shielded and no DW. Since I've spent nothing for a weakened-on-a-reroll-only attack, I don't expect to get as much value out of it as the shields provide - we'll see.

In fact, the DW should go through to Injury result around 4% of the time (50% opportunity to use against even-WS * 33% to hit when used * 92% to get through parry when available to opponent * 50% wound against even-Str/Tough * 50% chance to get through AS).

That's quite a difference to the old free off-hand dagger, which would go through to Injury more than 18% of the time (50% to hit against even-WS * 83% to get through parry when avaialble to opponent * 50% wound against even-Str/Tough * 87% to get through AS [think I've got this right considering basic crit chart - 1/6 AS on a Wound roll of 4-5; on a Wound roll of 6: 4/6 no AS, 1/6 AS 2/6 of the time]).

Hmm, got some percentages, so time to compare what happened to the S4 Middenheimers due to Shield increase/Strength nerf.

Original strike with a Sword by WS4/S4 vs WS3/T3 with a Sword/Shield: 33% to Injure (67% to hit * 75% to get through parry * 67% to wound * 100% to get through AS)

New strike with a Sword by WS4/S4 vs WS3/T3 with a Sword/Shield: 24% to Injure (67% to hit * 75% to get through parry * 67% to wound * 72% to get through AS [2/6 AS * 3/4 of Wounding; 2/6 AS 2/6 of the time * 1/4 of Wounding])

So models beginning at an S4 ceiling do have a double-nerf: one which brings Mordheim more into line with WHFB, the other to restore the armor balance against models with Strength increases available (which are most). However, the models who begin at an S4 ceiling have plenty of pre-existing options to deal with this, so I don't believe this is an undue hardship for them.

What if the S4 Middenheimers had used an Axe rather than a Sword for the attack?

Original strike with an Axe by WS4/S4 vs WS3/T3 with a Sword/Shield: 33% to Injure (67% to hit * 75% to get through parry * 67% to wound * 100% to get through AS)

New strike with an Axe by WS4/S4 vs WS3/T3 with a Sword/Shield: 29% to Injure (67% to hit * 75% to get through parry * 67% to wound * 86% to get through AS [1/6 AS * 3/4 of Wounding; 1/6 AS 2/6 of the time * 1/4 of Wounding])

Wow! A reason re-emerges to get an Axe! Will this make Sword obsolete? Notice that the lesser-WS model still got a 25% to parry the incoming strike, and even-WS models still get 17% to parry, so I think not. Now it comes down to whether you play offensively or defensively.

(Before we sidetrack to fixing parry, let's not here, please. I don't think we need to fix all the combat stuff in one thread... )

I'm liking what I see so far.

The eating dagger is still too good for free and the problem of mob armies DWing daggers will still remain with only these changes. How about the eating dagger always goes last?

Quote :

The eating dagger is still too good for free and
the problem of mob armies DWing daggers will still remain with only
these changes. How about the eating dagger always goes last?

Strategy should weed out a power game from a tactician.

If you made an eating dagger hit last, players would buy two normal daggers... or a mace and dagger, or just slightly step up in such a way that continues the cheap massing of attack dice.

it's such a marginal cost different that, in the end, if someone is going to mob with dual weapons, use their common weakness against them.

By the way, I missed out on about 2 posts and I think I got the general idea of the new rules a bit switched around.

Is this what we all are talking about;

Shields: +1 AS in HtH, +1 WS when held with a single handed weapon

DW: 1 attack dice with a reroll (The first attack is made with the primary, the 2nd attack is made by the 2ndry) with the 2ndry only being able to hit on a 6+ with no criticals.

Duel Wield Skill: Filed under "combat" and allows users to pretty much use the traditional DWing rules

Strength: AS penalties are moved back one (aka S5 = -1AS, S6 = -2AS)

Is this right...? thanks!

Not quite - here's the proposal our group has adopted for our current campaign:

1. Shield weapon gives +1 AS in HtH

2. S1-4 gives no mod to AS; S5 gives -1 AS; S6 gives -2 AS, and so on.

3. A weapon in the off-hand (or even a fist) can only be used when a primary attack's hit roll is a miss. (Note the careful wording there - an off-hand attack cannot be used directly off a prmiary attack being parried.) The off-hand attack is taken the first time a primary attack's hit roll is a miss, and is rolled as a separate attack: -1 to hit, no critical wounds possible. If a player is planning to use an off-hand attack with a model, at the beginning of the battle (prior to rolling scenario even), the warband roster must specify which weapon/fist is off-hand.

4. Add a Dual-wield skill to the Combat skills list. With this skill, a model with a weapon/fist in the off-hand makes a normal attack with that weapon/fist. (A miss on a primary attack is not needed to take this additional attack; the attack does not suffer the "-1 to hit" off-hand penalty; the attack may cause a critical wound as normal.)

5. Dramatis Personae and Hired Swords who are designated dual-wield automatically have the Dual-wield skill.

On whether the eating dagger is still too good for free. It may well be. In my Ostlander examples above, it can Injure around 4% of the time.

What would happen if I spent the minimum 3gc to get a better off-hand weapon? 5% to Injure (50% opportunity to use against even-WS * 33% to hit when used * 92% to get through parry when available to opponent * 50% wound against even-Str/Tough * 67% chance to get through AS). The +1% Injury chance is not worth buying a weapon for, though the secondary effects of the weapon might be worth it.

However, we do tend to buy weapons for our primary hand, even though we have the free eating dagger to use here as well. You know, in the official rules, why in the world would a starting Middenheimer band ever buy any weapons for their S4 heroes, except to dual-wield? They get no penalty from using the free dagger at all (since their S4 cancels the +1 to opponent's AS)!

Given that a shield is now a decent investment for 5gc, I see that models who can will get a shield, unless they are heroes destined for full dual-wield, or models destined for 2h weapons. There is definitely still a way to get full dual-wield for the heroes, with almost all of its old benefits (almost because now the model has to give up some meaningful defense, and deal with many enemies also having meaningful defense). There is also now a reason to get 2h weapons, since shields at least will be prevalent.

This means we'll see a decrease in the use of the free eating dagger - in my Ostlander's case, I'm upgrading out of it as soon as I have the gc. I see no benefit in remaining with the free eating dagger when I have better options now.

I don't think the free eating dagger needs a fix at this point. I think we just have to accept "that's GW" and go on.

Following up with some more math:

Alright, so my shieldless mace/dagger-wielding WS3 Ostlander Jaeger gets attacked by one of the S4 Middenheimer heroes. What's his chance to Injure my Ostlander? 44% (67% to hit * 67% to wound)

Give my Jaeger a shield, don't use the dagger; what's the chance to Injure now? 32% (67% to hit * 67% to wound * 72% to get through AS [2/6 AS * 3/4 of Wounding; 2/6 AS 2/6 of the time * 1/4 of Wounding])

So for 5gc, I will have given up a 4% chance to Injure him in order to get a 12% increase in the chance to avoid Injury. This is an option I didn't have before, and this is enough for me to do it.

Works for me!

Now that we have this, we need a way to make more people understand it. (and thus adopt it) and likewise, to refine it.

How about we call it;

Alternative / Substitute Combat System v1.0

Developers (in order of appearance): Paluke, Asp, Popmouth, Svenn, bc99, canonpenitentiary, ts061282, hero, Nastyogre, wyldhunt, TheFool, cianty, Pathfinder Dubstyles, Ferrous82, Matumaros, dragonmw7.

sound good?

If you're going to allow for the DWing of eating daggers and fists you should verify this was an intention of the original designers and that it is reflected in the cost of models like verminkin and goblins.

With these rules, mob skaven would still be the defacto strategy. Max out numbers w/ minimum equipment to minimize leadership disadvantage. Example starting warband: 12 verminkin w/ dagger + fist (240 gc), full heroes w/ dagger + axe or shield (255 gc).

TheFool wrote:

Developers (in order of appearance): Paluke, Asp, Popmouth, Svenn, bc99, canonpenitentiary, ts061282, hero, Nastyogre, wyldhunt, TheFool, cianty, Pathfinder Dubstyles, Ferrous82, Matumaros, dragonmw7.

How did I manage to sneak my name into that list??? I'm pretty sure I didn't make any (at least worthy) contribution to it.

Quote :

Cianty wrote:

ts061282 wrote:

"Keep it as simple as possible, but no simpler."

lol
never heard that before. I love it! It's not just funny but has an
important meaning to boot, which can be perfectly applied to rules
design.

You didn't But I wasn't going to point that out. (Your blog makes me tingle in awe)

Everyone who posted deserves a mention! Plus more names make it sound like a whole team were dedicated to balancing the system

Awesome Mathematics wyldhunt, although i cannot read those math lines, i trust in your calculations


cool sounds great TheFool

TheFool wrote:

Your blog makes me tingle in awe

Oh, thank you!

TheFool wrote:

Everyone who posted deserves a mention! Plus more names make it sound like a whole team were dedicated to balancing the system

Yeah. But I don't particularly approve of lying.

That is true

What do you think of the changes?

TheFool wrote:

What do you think of the changes?

Honestly, not much. That's why I haven't posted in here or in related threads, abiding the motto: if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.

I think that all efforts to solve the two weapons issue are futile, because they ignore an important, probably the most important, characteristic of the game: Mordheim is a derivative of Warhammer (5th edition). You can't introduce new game mechanics or change the core mechanics in a way that feel "unWarhammer" as that will result in feeling "unMordheim" - at to those who know what Mordheim really is and how it came to be.

It is super convenient that the +1 armour save rule for shield was introduced in Warhammer. This rule, adopted to Mordheim, means not only an update and one step in bringing the game up to date, but it also has a huge impact on balance. In my group we've been using that rule ever since we heard about it and it has made far more people use shields and armour. A cheap leather vest with a shield is an enormously strong 4+ save in combat. Light armour is still crap but it makes heavy armour worth it, not to mention Gromril or Chaos armour. Mordheim characters aren't supposed to walk around like Tin Man so it's fine with me if the really well armoured warrior appear later in a campaign - this nicely balances of with the experience curve, allowing the enemies to increase Strength or learn Strongman and wield two-hand weapons in the meantime. Because of the very good experience we've made with this rule and because of it's origin in Warhammer, I included it in the back of the Border Town Burning supplement.

I'm all for being creative and coming up with rules that improve your gaming experience and the fun you have. It's totally cool if you do if for your gaming group. But you need to understand that other people will not adopt the rules. People come and go, forum members leave, new ones join. Most Mordheim groups consist of people who played the game years ago and they dig out their old rulebook and they play a couple of games without knowing what has happened since. You will never gain official support for a change to the core mechanics and ultimately it will be forgotten. This thread isn't the first discussion of this topic. It will not be the last.

@cianty:

not to troll or anything or get you upset but:

why not use vanilla mordheim? that was at least way cooler, left room for wild interpretations and was up to the group to allow or disallow stuff?

Way to rain on their parade Cianty!

You do have to admit that this is the first post of its kind, aside from the specialist games forum and their three versions, that has ever reached such a consensus among the most active participants of the discussion (note the italics).

After looking at the math i believe that this is a great alternative for those who would like to adopt it, and applaud the creators... myself not included, i just threw in a few comments.

True it will not be universally adopted, but that's just the way house rules are, i'm sure the participants get that! It isn't true to the 5th edition WHFB, but not everyone has been playing since then, thus some might have different perspectives on how the game "should" be: Different stroke for different folks if you will.

My only gripe is being able to off-hand attack with fists. As the rules for fist attacks go you can only do so if you are armed with no other weapons. Trust me, i've been Boffer fighting for a while now and it is nearly impossible to get close enough to use a standard punch when swords are in use!

By the way Cianty, i am not in any way challenging your approach to
game design! Not to sound like a suck up or anything, but I love Border Town Burning and all you've offered to the Mordheim community.

I am only trying to encourage this kind of creativity and discussion, even if the result is ultimately futile if the eyes of some, it may be just what others were looking for.

PS, I am not a Troll either!

Don't worry so much about trolling. Please! I am very well aware you don't!

Pathfinder Dubstyles wrote:

You do have to admit that this is the first post of its kind, aside from the specialist games forum and their three versions, that has ever reached such a consensus among the most active participants of the discussion (note the italics).

Yeah, it's the italics part... With each new incanation of the discussion you have another chance of finding a consensus among the participants. This doesn't necessarily make any solution better than another. But I really, really really don't want to question everyone's efforts here! Having a solution that you feel is better than others cannot be a waste of time, of course. I do respect and appreciate that.

So how about writing the agreed rules changes down clearly (I probably missed the post that summarized them) and then re-post them in the initial post? Or at least put a big fat link to the post that lists them? This way people can clearly see what you have achieved.

Pathfinder Dubstyles wrote:

Way to rain on their parade Cianty! tongue

*stops being Rain Man*

Pathfinder Dubstyles wrote:

My only gripe is being able to off-hand attack with fists. As the rules for fist attacks go you can only do so if you are armed with no other weapons.

That is a very good and valid gripe. Sometimes my brain can't hold all the rules in memory, and the unusability of an off-hand fist is one that slipped. We should remove any possibility of using an off-hand fist (well, except for those models with Art of Silent Death and the like, who would get their regular off-hand attack like the skills detail without alteration).

cianty wrote:

I think that all efforts to solve the two weapons issue are futile, because they ignore an important, probably the most important, characteristic of the game: Mordheim is a derivative of Warhammer (5th edition). You can't introduce new game mechanics or change the core mechanics in a way that feel "unWarhammer" as that will result in feeling "unMordheim" - at to those who know what Mordheim really is and how it came to be.

Actually, I think we quite want your participation in this discussion, as the attitude you express is indeed the greatest roadblock to acceptance of changes designed to restore a core Warhammer feeling to Mordheim.

To restate, we have four official mechanic/fluff deviations in Mordheim from which are very unWarhammer:
- Body armor costs twice as much
- Almost all models can get at least one Strength increase
- Critical Wounds

Then one later change to Warhammer, which hasn't been officially accepted into Mordheim.
- No +1AS from weapon+shield

This results in the very unWarhammer feeling of absolutely no armor usage, and everyone running around with two weapons. Our efforts aim to rectify this situation, and restore Mordheim to a more Warhammer-like feeling, without sacrificing Mordheim's special flavor.

As you've already done and my latest proposal adopted, we can rectify the last point of variance by including the WHFB rule of +1AS from weapon+shield.

The latest forum proposal also accepts that body armor cost is a purposeful design variance from WHFB, and has left armor costs alone.

The other suggestions and subsequent refinements in this proposal seek to resolve the middle two points of variance between Warhammer and Mordheim, without actually removing either mechanic. When a ship tips to one side, and you don't want to toss the weight on that side, the way to right the ship is to add weight to the other side (but not enough to sink the ship, of course!).

I emphatically reject the statement that introducing something unWarhammer is also unMordheim, because the very creation of Mordheim introduced many, many items that were very, very unWarhammer. However, I do believe it is correct to state that any attempts to gain wide acceptance of proposed changes are doomed to failure, but it is the unwillingness to accept other rules deviations from Warhammer/Mordheim that dooms them (which to my point of view is missing the larger picture that we're actually trying to restore the feel of the Warhammer playstyle here), not anything else. Would removing Critical Wounds and increased Strength altogether be a more acceptable alternative to what we've proposed, since crits and advances are not in WFHB either, and removing these would bring the rules more in line with WHFB? I don't think so, since it removes a core unWarhammer addition which makes Mordheim. However, adjusting DW's chances and Strength's Armor-Piercing levels to balance in Mordheim are not unMordheim, because they actually can help restore a balance in the use of weapons and shields, and open up valid possibilities of play not effectively available before.

cianty wrote:

I'm all for being creative and coming up with rules that improve your gaming experience and the fun you have. It's totally cool if you do if for your gaming group. But you need to understand that other people will not adopt the rules. People come and go, forum members leave, new ones join. Most Mordheim groups consist of people who played the game years ago and they dig out their old rulebook and they play a couple of games without knowing what has happened since. You will never gain official support for a change to the core mechanics and ultimately it will be forgotten. This thread isn't the first discussion of this topic. It will not be the last.

Of course I don't feel that these rules will ever be adopted as "official," especially since "official" support for this game is pretty much dead - even newer WHFB changes haven't been incorporated into Mordheim. However, it's of interest to me to participate in this forum game, as a way to vet and refine others' and my ideas with a wider variety of participants. You know, your ending statement points up exactly why there should be a valid, officially-accepted change to the rules which led to the current overuse of DW and non-use of armor in Mordheim. The issue with DW and armor were identified even back in the early days of Mordheim, and were never resolved - even the sage editor of TC22 admits the armor issue. Almost every single website I go to mentions issues with DW and local resolutions for it. Of course, many other items get house-ruled, but I'm fairly certain that DW is only second to armor in the number of people who feel that official DW is unMordheim. And yes, even if the proposed changes are officially adopted, many (most?) people won't use them, for the very reason you mention - they don't care to look for updates. Yet if there were officially-accepted changes to DW/armor, when people had questions and began to look for official changes (as I did), they would find them (as I did).

I took as my cue for this latest attempt at a widely-acceptable resolution for DW and armor from the statements made by editor of TC22, trying to fit within his guidelines for any solution. I wish he were still with us to review what we've proposed now. My local group has adopted this latest proposal as a playtest for an entire campaign. I do hope that others will as well, and continue to refine this - or throw it out if it proves unbalanced. In all cases, I hope the view that changing any rules is "unMordheim by definition" goes away, as changing rules is very Mordheim (they've been in a constant state of flux even before they were first published). I know that cianty didn't quite say that any rules changes are "unMordheim by definition," but the changes we've proposed have been explicitly designed to feel both Warhammer and Mordheim, and yet cianty still feels we've ignored this most important point.

Repectfully,
wyldhunt

cianty wrote:

to those who know what Mordheim really is and how it came to be.

Please elaborate and enlighten so that we may all follow the one, true Mordheim.



There is one main thing that makes Mordheim fundamentally unWarhammery: no units, only warriors; in Warhammer, a wound negates an attack for one turn and the next turn the front rank is regenerated along with all your attacks (generally). Furthermore, the goal of combat was totally different: to cause a rout this turn (rather than accumulation of OOA). Since you purport to be enlightened, how did the designers account for this significant difference throughout the game system?

I think next game I'll rank up my zombies and declare a wheel.

I think it must be poetic justice that I finally opened of the PDF of Letters of the Damned issue 1, where I found Cianty's article which mentioned the DW/armor issue itself, and the fan-based rules extensions.

In the spirit of Cianty's last sentence in that article, "I await your comments and ideas in the Mordheim forum and hope for a lively discussion" do we pursue Mordheim rules-balancing. Not for hope of GW-official rules changes, but for the spirit of presenting these ideas to each other as fans.

Cianty in that LOD article recognises a desire for a more-united voice. Time has proved that almost impossible to achieve, since there still doesn't seem to be central place for information-sharing and discussion. The Mordheim Yahoo group might be a place, and ts061282's cross-posting there of the thread here is what brought me to this thread to join the discussion. Maybe when the group here is ready, we can post this proposal back to the Mordheim Yahoo group, and then get an even more thorough grilling.

The Yahoo group has rejected my invitation twice

If that was due to someone in charge denying me, then I think the Yahoo group has too much power.

Wow, lots of posting has been going here...

First off, TheFool: Please sign up again! You need to write something in the text box so that the Moderators (DaBank and myself) know that you are not a spam bot. Applications without a minimum of text explaining that you are a "mordheim player, love the game, blah blah" is enough. There is nothing special required to sign up on there. Did you use the group's interface? If you still encounter any problems feel free to PM me and send me your email address. I will then send you an invitation for the group. That should work.

Back on topic.. But *phew*.. where to start..

I am afraid you misinterpreted the point I meant to bring across with all that "unWarhammer" and "unMordheim" (it was very weird for me to see these exact terms in the Yahoo group's latest post).

Mordheim is the little baby of Warhammer. The rules are the same and were mostly not altered but extended. The KD/Stunned system is an addition to the normal immediate OOA, which makes models last longer. Without them the game would be significantly shorter. Critical Hits are another extension to the normal rules - something that wouldn't be possible in Warhammer with 5 models attacking at the same time, half of them causing criticals...

Mordheim, as the little baby of Warhammer, is actually an extension of Warhammer. Most of the differences are additions. KD/Stunned, Criticals and the entire experience & income system are put on top of it. In my group we've always been joking that in Mordheim an experienced Hero could probably take out a Warhammer general easily, because he gets to make critical hits, can have powerful skills...

What I meant by "unWarhammer" changes that lead to an "unMordheim" feel is something like rewriting how a second weapon works (e.g. +1 to hit instead of +1 Attack) or changing the armour modifiers (S4 = -1, 5 = -2, etc). That's because these rules already exist in Warhammer and changing them would confuse most players. So when tweaking the rules, I think this should be kept in mind. So if you change any of the exclusive Mordheim mechanics (Criticals, KD/Stunned, Experience, Parry, etc) you will, of course, not end up with "unMordheim" rules. It's the subset of Warhammer and Mordheim that you cannot touch without hurting the bonds between the two.

Again, this is all my personal opinion, and if you enjoy changing these rules, then go for it! Tuomas had always been encouraging players to change the game to their liking. But GW is pretty strict about keeping similarities the same and I am sure they wouldn't do what I call "unWarhammer" or "unMordheim". So these terms are more like references to GW's policy than talking about any golden mystery contained in the rules.

Yes, it is true that the dual wield issue is a "problem". It has been for many years and most people who have been playing the game are aware of it. Still, there is no official fix for it. Probably because there is no solution that is not "unWH". The +1 AS for shield is a great Warhammeresque solution. Maybe not a full fledged solution but it is a huge step in that direction. But it doesn't change the fact that Andy Hall, chief of SG, deems the Mordheim system to be good and balanced and doesn't want to see any changes to the core rules.

@LOD: Oh, ye olde dreams... The LOD has been stopped since then, the official Mordheim forum taken down and the old posts deleted and I don't see anyone pushing DaBank for the FAQ, which he is allowed to do. The community isn't as alive as you may think and it sure doesn't care about uniting its strengths to push the game. Most groups are doing "their own thing". It would be good to have LOD back and make people contribute to it. It could be used to put some pressure on GW to allow at least a few minor fixes. Again, I am dreaming...


Did I forgot to address anything? If so, let me know.

cianty wrote:

Mordheim, as the little baby of Warhammer, is actually an extension of Warhammer. Most of the differences are additions. KD/Stunned, Criticals and the entire experience & income system are put on top of it.

cianty wrote:

What I meant by "unWarhammer" changes that lead to an "unMordheim" feel is something like rewriting how a second weapon works.

Cianty, thank you for continuing in this discussion. You bring up points of view we should analyze and address to have any chance at a wider acceptance of any DW/armor fix.

Yes, most of Mordheim rules are extensions of written Warhammer rules. However, a feel of a game is more than just its written rules - as a game designer myself, I know that rules are purely a framework which exists to engender a feeling and an experience. The Critical Hits extension, the availability of increased Strength to most models (which is both an extension and a very core change), and the change of armor costs, produce an unWarhammer feel in Mordheim. That is my continuing criticism, and I've found no evidence to the contrary. Unless we are willing to revert these extensions/changes, we must be willing to introduce some other extensions/changes.

If Andy Hall is uninterested in being open to updates to Mordheim rules to reflect what I perceive the community overwhelmingly feels need to be fixed - armor and DW use - then I say we do not need to consider Andy Hall's opinion, for the simple reason that nothing we suggest will make it by him as gatekeeper of "officiality." Even so, it's still very worthwhile for those of us who perceive an issue to pursue a widely-acceptable resolution, which we can at least share with each other. Does Andy Hall even concede that the newer Warhammer rule of "+1 AS for weapon+shield" should be included in Mordheim?

Since we have already have changes (not just extensions) to the feel of Warhammer in producing Mordheim, I do consider the outright rejection of other balancing changes the equivalent of digging in one's heels. Yes, we should keep any changes to the absolute minimum required to reach the desired result, but changes must be made, or the desired result will never be reached.

So I've gone back to my ancient Warhammer books, and re-realized another very core change to Warhammer in making Mordheim - the differentiation of the effects of 1h weapons and their costs, including the addition of the free dagger. This can be considered an extension of the rules, yes, but it is definitely a change in the feel of the game. It appears that ts061282 is absolutely right (and I was wrong) about the free dagger - I cannot actually find any reference in my Warhammer books of that existing. Removing the free dagger would help resolve an issue - that of almost-free DW, while not changing a core Warhammer rule. I can see where a free basic weapon came from, as Warhammer models are bought with their standard equipment included. However, since Warhammer rules were changed - not extended - to remove standard equipment from models, I don't think a free dagger needs to be there. After this re-read, I completely agree with ts061282 about removing the free dagger from all models. If they can't afford the 2gc to buy a single dagger for primary weapon use, let them use their fists.

If we use the iron-law of Warhammer rules as our balancing point, then I feel we must give up two core Mordheim changes from Warhammer and:
1. Get rid of free daggers.
2. Restore the cost of Light Armor and Heavy Armor to their Warhammer equivalents: 10gc and 15gc, respectively.
That, combined with "+1 AS from weapon+shield" might be enough to draw some people to using shield/armor again, even though it does nothing to reduce the effectiveness of DW. Statistically, it won't balance DW against armor, but I see no way to do that without overcoming resistance to further rules changes.

Cianty, I do want to go back to another item you mentioned: your group is using the "+1 AS from weapon+shield," and that this alone has helped the re-appearance of armor in your campaigns. I'd like to ask some more questions around your playtesting of this:

1. What is the perception of DW in your group? Is it like in mine, where most people won't use it just because they don't like it, or do you have people who will use it because it's effective regardless of other considerations?

2. If people use DW for its effectiveness, what are these DW-ers' opinions of using shields/armor? Do they see a effective value in shields/armor in your campaign?

3. Do the people who use shields/armor consider it effective, or use them purely because they're "in-character" for their models?

One more thing:

cianty wrote:

The community isn't as alive as you may think and it sure doesn't care about uniting its strengths to push the game. Most groups are doing "their own thing".

Honestly, I'm surprised the community is alive as it is, and pushing as strong as it is. I'm also glad that most groups are doing their own thing, as that is likely why the community is still alive. I think pretty much everyone knows GW is done with Mordheim, so there's no reason to push the game with them. However, we can still share it with each other.