dual wield and chance

I see what you mean concerning the "feel" of a game. An overall feel emerges from the mere rules framework.

I read the last two pages and it is obvious that you put a lot of thought into this project.

"Does Andy Hall even concede that the newer Warhammer rule of "+1 AS for weapon+shield" should be included in Mordheim?"

I have no idea. But I do know that Mark Havener feels that way too, which means a lot.

About your questions:

1. Yes, we mostly use two weapons. At first. In my group people always go for most-effective/efficient equipment combinations, which in general is free dagger + mace/club. Usually a shield is bought after that (dagger, mace, shield), which allows a model to have more options depending on the current enemy. I should add that we allow changing weapons even when in combat so you can often see a mighty leader switch his second weapon with a shield and back, depending on whether he is fighting a horde of enemy henchmen or just one or two enemy Heroes.

2. As described we are not really playing "either-or". Models simply wield a shield in addition to their two weapons and the combination is chose depending on the enemy. Against a warband with early Strength increases you won't see many shields of course but if the majority has S3 there will be shield as well. Especially if a henchman group increases its Attacks to two you will often see them use a shield and attack twice with their one weapon.

3. We're not so much about in-character. Armour becomes better with time. In the beginning of a campaign shields at 5+ are nice (like a cheap Dodge skill). Later they become more interesting for Heroes as they can be combined with mounts (+barding!) and heavy/Gromril armour and saving money to give your leader or best warrior a 2+ armour save in close combat is like a mini objective.

What I meant about the community is that very few people are willing to work together to achieve somethings.


Alright, now you got me posting so here's a question of my own:

What do you want to achieve? I mean, what kind of armour/weapon combination do wish to see? I think the intuitive approach is to make Hand-weapon + Shield equally strong as two hand weapons. Now what I wonder is: If this balanced initially at the beginning of a campaign, wouldn't it get out of hand very quickly? The weapon+shield combo can be increased in its efficientcy immensely by purchasing additonal armour while the 2weapons-combo cannot be increased. Models get advances but that affects both fighting styles equally. The +1 Strength for enemy models doesn't balance the +2 that heavy let alone the +3 that gromril armour grants. Not to mention mounts and the race specific skills that give addtional armour save (orcs and beastmen).

What I wonder is if you have roughly equal chances for shield+weapon and 2 weapons in the beginning, wouldn't the course of a campaign lead to all models using shield+weapon because that has the biggest potential to be increased? We're talking of access to money here since this is soley dependent on the warband's funds to buy better armour and it would always be cheaper than a counter-strategy of buying drugs and poisons to add Strength and negate the armour save.

In my campaigns there were already situations where players were struggling to fight mounted warriors with 1+ or 0+ armour save, as they were nearly immune to wound for most henchmen (remember that against high Toughness models lose the opportunity to make critical hits and thus they have no chance of hurting the enemy at all).

It's the campaign curve I am worried about. I think DW and shield style need not only be equally worthy in the beginning but both must have the same potential for development throughout a campaign. If one of them is dependent on money, I think this lead to the same old imbalance - albeit with the roles reversed.


EDIT: Oh, by the way, did you guys have a look at the three officially suggested experimental rules for armour? They were on the old SG forum and I can't remember them now.

that's some good thinking there Wyld & cianty.

We indeed need so see the bigger picture. i am working on a minigame with 2hander vs armoured vs archer and even that is a tough cookie to get balanced. let alone having a huge number of warbands, with each different units with all different stats and with all kinds of equipment choices and what not.

it is a HUGE pile of variables.

If we tweak armour, it will have is effects on some warbands, some positive some negative. it is indeed the curve we should be paying attention at!

The bigger picture, is just such a tangled web.

Fact is, i'm not a WHFB player, so i'm not a pr0 in those rules.

I am really for restricting the DW to a fixed number per warband (only heroes / large target henchman / special chars like dramatis and hired swords) for the rest no penalties. this rule would force people to make other choices. without nerfing any feel or ripple through to other systems. it won't even nerf low number warbands (pitfighters / witch hunters)

coz it has the following criteria:

1. Simple.
2. No ripple to other systems like armour, balanced for all existing warbands.
3. other weapons will be used because you only have a maximum dual wield choice.
4. it makes heroes more visible because they are the only one who can dual wield (large targets are pretty easy to recognize like wise to hiredswords and dramatis )

so why not?

Is every model late game running around with barding and Gromoril? How easy would it be to add a skill or two to address late game armor whoring? "Safe Cracker: Opponents armor saves are halved."

DW - your group DW's w/ shields as backup choice. That might make sense if you are outnumbered (~4-5 hits incoming by core rules, that would make sense statistically.) Ok, but what does that do for halberds, spears and flails?

ts061282 wrote:

Is every model late game running around with barding and Gromoril?

Of course not. But they can. And if they do it means serious trouble. Aside from that heavy armour + shield is still pretty good at 3+. I do find the late game to tend towards armour and protection while the early games are about grabbing cheap weapons.

ts061282 wrote:

DW - your group DW's w/ shields as backup choice.

I wouldn't call it that. In fact, it does offer a useful tactical option. Imagine a warrior switching to a shield and accepting a weak aggresiveness in order to survive a turn or two until his comrades arrive and then they strike at full force. I find switching between fighting styles a very good tactical factor. I have fond memories of battles where especially for Heros the question between shield and weapon was very relevant a players were just sitting there, pondering.

Pushing this question to the early game and to henchmen will probably result in making the shield choice a no brainer in the late game. That's my worry...

ts061282 wrote:

Ok, but what does that do for halberds, spears and flails?

Halberds and Flails = useless. They've always been. I didn't know this was part of the discussion?

I don't see what spears have to do with this.

*jumps up*
What about the solution i posted above?

Ah, good - expanded participation! The purpose as I see it: restore the viability of equipment options other than dual-wield.

The constraints as I see it: keep the feel of Mordheim, keep the changes to an absolute minimum, make the changes in a fashion that can be accepted by the greatest number of Mordheim (not Warhammer) players. Warhammer rules are only to be considered to the extent that Mordheim players feel they should be.

Paluke\'s outright restriction proposal is the easiest to implement. It has run into some Warhammer-style opposition in that it\'s another departure from those rules. Others are correct in that purely restricting DW to certain models only does that. It does not make other options viable for those who can still use DW.

In the last proposal I did, the \"balancing line\" was to make armor as effective as it is in Warhammer currently, as a way to increase the attractiveness of shields vs DW\'s use. Increasing AS in this way would have the side benefit of increasing the attractiveness of the heavier weapons.

Warhammer now has the +1 AS w/ weap/shield, but does not have the ability to increase Str (as Mordheim does). The latter is where my proposal to up the Str required for -1 AS to S5 came in. There definitely is a concern whether S4 henchmen would still be effective in the latter game, and I made sure to point this out when discussing this option with my local group. The consensus was that this would not be a big deal, especially since there are double-handed weapons, fire arms, and critical wounds which could still be used to negate the bonuses. If we are still comparing weapon vs armor balance in Mordheim to Warhammer, we must look to see whether WH line troops can be effective against heavily-armored WH heroes. I immediately see that cavalry in Warhammer can achieve a 2+ AS with barded mount, hvy armor and shield - this translates to a 1+ in HtH combat. So Warhammer troops are in a worse state against heroes than Mordheim henchmen.

The next question is whether the rarity of a 1+ HtH AS in WH translates to the same rarity in Mordheim. Well, with the restriction of only 2 mounts per warband, I\'d say so. Some might bring up the skill Resilient, to which I\'ll respond with Mighty Blow (of course henchmen can\'t get either, so there\'s a slight preference to Resilient for defense and Mighty Blow for offense - and henchmen have to worry about both from heroes).

Since almost all the line troops in Warhammer which are restricted to S3 can get to S4 in Mordheim, it is appropriate to delay Str\'s -1 AS until S5 in Mordheim. Mordheim henchmen still get the increased wounding chance (balanced against T4 increases), however, the armor-piercing advantage is taken away - this balances henchmen back to their Warhammer state.

Before we go further into the effectiveness of mounts, I\'d say that reviewing this post would be good: https://boringmordheimforum.forumieren.com/rules-and-gameplay-f1/whoa-boy-why-mounts-in-mordheim-are-overrated-t1633.htm

One thing which should be restated here, since I hadn\'t stated it with each iteration of the proposal, is that an AS roll of 1 should always fail. In fact, I believe in the rule of \"worst roll always fails\" for every roll in Mordheim (when failure is possible by roll).

Alright - with these rules, armor is again as effective in Mordheim as in Warhammer. However, it still costs twice as much. I\'m OK with that - it was a purposeful design variance which I can live with.

Even after all of the armor buffs, a statistical analysis still shows armor/shield lags behind DW in effectiveness, and is not really an effective option. Yes, AS can be increased as the campaign progresses, through getting better armor - but so can DW\'s effectiveness, through getting Str, skill, and weapon improvements.

Let\'s compare the beginning and ending model states in the original rules with our latest proposal:

Two beginning human Warriors with basic stuff:
-Meatshield has shield, sword, WS3, T3. (15gc)
-Meatclubber has club and dagger, WS3, S3 (3gc)

With official Dw/armor: Meatclubber has a 35% chance of injuring Meatshield each turn (50% chance to hit with club * 83% chance to get through parry * 50% to wound, combined with 50% chance to wound with dagger * 83% chance to get through parry * 50% chance to wound with dagger * 87% to get through AS [including basic crit chances]). Note that I\'m granting parry the full percentage against each attack - I\'m not up to calculating the exact % of parrying one attack but not the other tonight.

With latest proposed DW/armor: Meatclubber has 18% chance (primary 50% hit * 83% through parry * 50% wound * 74% through AS, combined with offhand 50% not to use due to primary hitting * 33% hit * 83% through parry * 50% wound * 50% through AS).

Two tricked out human captains:
-Lookatme has Gromril+shield+mount+barding, sword, Resilient, WS6, T4. (315gc)
-Lookatyoudie has two Gromril Axes, Mighty Blow, WS6, S4. Let\'s gimp him at A1 still (bad advance rolls). (40gc)

Official DW/armor: Lookatyoudie has a 33% chance of injuring Lookatme each turn (for each Axe: 50% hit * 83% through parry * 50% wound * 74% through AS). Reviewing the AS: Gromril 4+, shield +1, horse +1, barding +1, Str -1 (S4 - Resilient + Mighty Blow), Gromril Axe -2 = 4+.

Latest proposed DW/armor: Meatcleaver has 8% chance (primary 50% hit * 83% through parry * 50% wound * 35% through AS of 2+, combined with off-hand 50% unused * 33% hit * 83% through parry * 50% wound * 17% through AS).

Yes - the armor bump, combined with the DW nerf, does greatly increase end-game armor viability. The official rules only increase injury avoidance to DW by 2% in the examples I use, where the proposed rules increase injury avoidance to DW by 10%. Lookatme can get further help from Step Aside (if allowed on a mount); Lookatyoudie can get help from Dual Wield skill and increased attacks. The cost differences between weapons and armor is still fairly large. It is very, very interesting to note (and I did not plan this) that the new proposal increases the avoidance of injury by 25% in the end game compared to the official rules, which is exactly the increased chance to hit by using official DW.

What about a maxed Meatclubber henchmen vs Lookatme? We\'ll give him two Axes (10gc) to go along with WS4 and S4.

Original DW/armor: Meatclubber has a 19% chance to injure Lookatme (for each Axe: 50% hit * 83% through parry * 33% wound * 44% through AS).

Proposed DW/armor: Meatclubber has a 7% chance (primary 50% hit * 83% through parry * 33% wound * 44% through AS [due to AS floor of 2+], combined with off-hand 50% unused * 33% hit * 83% through parry * 33% wound * 17% through AS).

So the proposed changes hurt Meatclubber by 12% - but compare his 7% to Lookatyoudie\'s 8%. Yes, failure on an AS roll of 1 is an essential rule to keep end-game excesses in check.

One last comparison: beginning Meatclubber with just his club at S3 against ending Lookatme:
-Official rules: 1% to injure (50% hit * 83% through parry * 17% wound * 17% through AS 2+)
-Proposed rules: 1% to injure (50% hit * 83% through parry * 17% wound * 17% through AS 2+)
Look ma! No difference! This comparison points out that not even \"+1 HtH w/ armor+shield\" should be used without \"AS roll of 1 fails.\"

If my calculations are - finally - correct (PLEASE someone else run/check them!), then end-game henchmen really don\'t have to worry about being gimped by these proposed changes.

Whew - time to go play a game!

EDIT: Ouch! Proposal percentages are off! That\'ll teach me to do this when tired... Can\'t leave it this way, will be back in a bit...

EDIT2: Alright, proposal percentages hopefully corrected, and conclusions updated (along with an additional example). I\'m going to sleep...

Someone should create a separate topic on the forum for this particular solution.

I wanna play wysiwyg w/o disadvantage.

Don't agree - I like us discussing all the DW options in one thread, and armor has come into this from the feeling some have had that balancing DW depends upon balancing armor.

At this point, I think we do need further discussion of Paluke's proposal combnied with "+1 HtH AS from weap/shield" and "AS roll of 1 always fails."

That does restrict DW to only heroes and select others, and heroes are exactly the models which will more likely get armor (more from bragging rights than actual effectiveness, it seems). However, it will likely make the henchmen left out get shields (as opposed to 2h weapons), which may be too restrictive for some - because it removes options. But is it better than introducing the complexity of the latest proposal?

This thread is hardcore.

I think, for the benefit of all future readers who might try to get involved, we should use a standard post format.

Such as:

Code:

Rule Variations Applied:
- Only Heroes can Dual Wield
- Etc
- Etc
Post:
Blah blah blah

Something like this because right now, having read this post at least twice a day for the last week or more, I find it hard to remember which ideas have been thrown out and which are being brought into question.

As for a new thread, we might as well keep this one going till we can all agree (kind of like reaching a decision as a Jury) and once we have the final 1, 2 or 3 options we all can support, we put it out to the wider community.

If no one is interested, at least we have balanced the game for ourselves.

Rule Variations Applied:
- Only Heroes and Hired Swords can Dual Wield
- Shields give +1 AS to HtH
- Strength AP values are lessened (S4 = NO AP, S5 = - 1, etc)
- Dual Wielding = reroll on a failed "to hit" dice. (No critical on 2nd roll, -1 to hit)
- Rolling a 1 always fails for any test (House Rule more than official Rule)

Post:

Is this what we are talking about? (Right now, Wyldhunt continues to win me over with his massively indepth posts, I just want to know exactly what he was supporting in the last big post )

Reroll/Dw nerf: Perhaps we should change the wording from "reroll" to "attack". So: "When dual wielding, a warrior may make a second attack with their off-hand weapon if their first attack fails to hit." This makes it seem like less of a change, no? Perhaps this "reroll" attack nerf is enough and strength/armor negation should remain as is?

Paluke's No DW henchman: I do like it. But morningstar is now the end tier henchman weapon? Would definately encourage different weapon/shield usage. Hmmm... Also, I feel many warbands have been balanced assuming DWing henchman, Ghouls and the Border Town Burning Monks come to mind.

Balancing the core system is one thing, balancing the whole game is quite another (and I think COMPLETELY unMordheim)

If you know what warband an opponent is using, it's almost impossible not to see a warband choice for yourself that will severely disadvantage your opponent and end your ultimate success.

Mordheim is not balanced and in the city of the damned, no one can hear you lose.

With this in mind, let the Monks and Ghouls have their added attacks, the undead certainly need it considering Zombies are a walking joke and Ghouls cant get equipment.

What I am trying to say is: Mordheim is hardly balanced, if fixing a broken system results in more variety and balance, while creating a few small problems of it's own along the way, it should still end up being less out of control than it currently is. (The lesser of two evils)

Hi again,

you guys progress at crazy speed. Here are a few thoughts:

- Mounts: Forget them. I just realized that the shield's +1 AS in combat does not apply to mounted models so effectively a mount alone doesn't provide an AS bonus. (Actually that was a reason we initially liked the rule because we felt mounted models were too strong.) So only warriors with shield, mount AND barding get an additional AS. That is expensive enough to allow it and let those who invest the money benefit from it.

- Personally I'm all for introducing the 1=fail rule. So many people already believe it exists in Mordheim (which it doesn't) that it's just one more step to bringing the game in line with Warhammer. It's good to always have at least a minumum chance at failing. Life's like that.

- DW for Heroes only: I find that a strange, unintuitive rule. Also it causes problems.. what about Flagellants? They don't have access to shields and they are ferocious warriors that NEED to dual-wield. How about the mercenary Swordsmen? Some people like to give them two swords (ouch, expensive) to let them fully benefit from their re-roll ability. Depriving them of that would make them weaker and humans sure don't need any more disadvantages.
Monks on the other hand: Yes, they start with two (unarmed) attacks and always have +1 attack because of their ability. However, this is a special rule which would then override the here developed House Rules, so that should be fine.

- What happened to the -1 on the to hit roll for the second attack? Was that deemed not strong enough to push shields? Alone it is not but maybe in combination with some other rules? Or what about -1 on all to hit rolls while dual-wielding with a skill to remove this modifier?

- Strength Modifiers: In my opinion changing this is a no go. The rule is a core part of Warhammer and changing that for Mordheim is very confusing. There MUST be another way to solve this.

- Helmets are one of those things introduced in Mordheim. You could rewrite them aall day without ever harming the Mordheim-Warhammer bonds. Conveniently they are part of armour and thus could be abused for our goal...

Like, instead of changing the Strength modifiers you could have helmets grant an additional +1 AS. For all enemies of Strength 4+ this would be the same effect as changing the Str modifiers. For weaker models (<4) this would however be extremely tough to crack. But didn't someone already propose yet another +1 AS for shields anyways? How about this rule for helmets:

"Protection: A warrior wearing a helmet ignores the first armour save modifer."

Or something like that. This is exactly the same effect as moving the Strength modifers but doesn't hurt any WH conventions. It makes helmets a very useful addition to shields as it kind of "protects the armour save".

Your thoughts?

Would it not be simple to say if you duelweild you drop the WS of the model by 1 to compensate his usual skills are slightly put off from usnig two weapons. surely this would even it out alot?

WS4 becomes WS3 if you have two clubs.

Duce wrote:

Would it not be simple to say if you duelweild you drop the WS of the model by 1 to compensate his usual skills are slightly put off from usnig two weapons. surely this would even it out alot?

WS4 becomes WS3 if you have two clubs.

That's a nice alternative to the -1 to hit modifer, which I personally find very annoying, which is why I never really bothered to use it. I think I could live with -1 WS on all attacks when dual-wielding. I think it's also nice to have such a minor weakening when trying to convince others of trying these rules. I can imagine many players, who have warbands with henchmen wielding axes and maces (like Orcs), who would HATE to use such a rule as it would destroy their beloved models and the way they like to play. I think everyone could live with -1 WS (plus other modifications to push shields). Still, it's not how dual-wielding works in Warhmmer, but at least it's as far off as some other suggestions.

I will do a recalc of your math as requested

Could you please next time be a little more specific on what it was that you used? Give me and others a little more insight in what you do, would make it easier to follow:oops:

I read that you used "latest proposal" and i think you mean this one:

Quote :

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.

so i have used that for the recalcs. [edit: i didn't come to this part yet]

Hope its good!

wyldhunt wrote:

Let\'s compare the beginning and ending model states in the original rules with our latest proposal:

Two beginning human Warriors with basic stuff:
-Meatshield has shield, sword, WS3, T3. (15gc)
-Meatclubber has club and dagger, WS3, S3 (3gc)

With official Dw/armor: Meatclubber has a 35% chance of injuring Meatshield each turn (50% chance to hit with club * 83% chance to get through parry * 50% to wound, combined with 50% chance to wound with dagger * 83% chance to get through parry * 50% chance to wound with dagger * 87% to get through AS [including basic crit chances]). Note that I\'m granting parry the full percentage against each attack - I\'m not up to calculating the exact % of parrying one attack but not the other tonight.

Legenda:
MS = Meatshield
MC = Meatclubber
Table reading: example: 1 - 3 = a throw of 2 die, with one resulting in a 1 and one resulting in a 3



WS3 vs WS 3 = 4+ to hit

So attacks made by MC vs MS has:

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

ok going to split this up into two categories:


chance that one attack from MC lands on MS

all cells with a 4+ and one with 3+ or lower = 18 of 36 = 50% (correct wyld)

from those 18 are:

6x a 6
6x a 5
6x a 4

MS has parry:
to parry a 4, you need to throw a 5 or 6 that means he has 33.33% chance to parry the 4
to parry a 5, you need to throw a 6 that means he has 16.33% chance to parry the 5

the 6 is unparryable.

so MS has 16.66% chance to throw at least one six (with 2 attacks) and therefor negating the parry (percentage is taken out of full possibilities ie 36 possible dice rolls as shown in table)

16.66% chance he throws a 4, which means that it can be parried in 33.33% of the time

and he has 16.66% chance to roll a 5 which can be parried 16.66% of the time (this is balanced Vs Parry! Very interesting)

i'm stopping here for now, my mind is getting friend at moment. your maths are good.

It's a lovely discovery i think that we might be able to use. i'm not certain how though

I believe this is what a reroll does vs someone who has parry which looks balanced eough

You have the benefit of the guy who has parry 33.33% chance to negate the 4

equal chance vs both to hit or parry at 5's.

and the unparryable 6 which is in advantage of the attacker. (might be a bit off, but it can't be fixed without breaking the others. so its balanced enough)

Something you all should know.

The increase of chance when adding a new dice becomes less with each additional dice.

So.. hitting on a;
4+ and rolling 1 dice is 50%.
4+ and rolling 2 dice is 75% (25% increase)
4+ and rolling 3 dice is 87.5% (12.5% increase)
4+ and rolling 4 dice is 93.75% (6.25% increase)



(Keep in mind this is to roll AT LEAST one dice having a 4+, not all)


With this in mind, attacks become less of an advantage the more you get, with the FIRST additional attack being exponentially more powerful then each subsequent attack.


Why does this matter?

These are the same stats directly applied to an Armour save, yet you only get a roll when facing a wound, not regardless of wounds that have hit.

So.. saving on a;
4+ and rolling AGAINST 1 wounds is 50%.
4+ and rolling AGAINST 2 wounds is 25% (25% DECREASE)
4+ and rolling AGAINST 3 wounds is 12.5% (12.5% DECREASE)
4+ and rolling AGAINST 4 wounds is 6.25% (6.25% DECREASE)

The problem is THE WHOLE GAME of Mordheim is geared AGAINST armour and the more attacks a warrior gets, the EXPONENTIAL increase of damage is catastrophic.


THIS IS WITHOUT EVEN BRINGING STRENGTH AND AP WEAPONS INTO THE FRAY.

The extra attack from Dual Wielding is the problem, but a problem made by a failed system.

The way I see that could balance the system (without being unWarhammer in fashion) is;

Remove the +1 DICE to a Dual Wielding model.
Increase Armour either by Price or by Value. (and increase it substantially)


Having a 2nd attack dice in ANY form outside of a characters stats is madness (as racial maximums are around 5 to 6 anyway) and I think the worst decision made for the Mordheim engine.

*cries*

Thank you for running the numbers, Paluke! I'm going to refrain from posting such calcs in the forums again. I'm about the get my own gaming website/blog started, and will link out to that for calcs in the future.

Regarding straight up modifications to an off-hand strike: we have four options:
1. -1 WS penalty
2. -1 to hit
3. 6+ roll regardless of WS
4. cannot crit

Analysis showed #1, even combined with #4, left DW as the best option still. It only really affects heroes with slightly better WS than the people they're fighting against. It almost never affects models with an equal/lower WS than the people they're fighting against.

#3 combined with #4 does effectively nerf DW to statistically-acceptable levels, however it seems way too harsh to some people.

That leaves us with the #2/#4 combo as the middle ground. Higher WS models don't get penalized any more than lower WS with this option. My own DW Orcs heroes feel that if they should get penalized, all should.

Altering helmets has before been proposed, especially for "armor set bonuses" and I felt they already give a very good bonus (Avoid Stun). If altering Strength's armor-piercing is a non-starter, then I'm fine with falling back to helmets. I'll accept what Cianty proposes for a helmet Protection rule, but would like to restrict it to HtH (let's get S4 missile weapons back to where they were).

Updating entire proposal:

Armor section:

1. Any model using a weapon and shield receives +1 Armor Save in HtH combat.

2. An Armor Save roll of 1 always fails.

3. Helmets grant protection against the first negative Armor Save modifier in HtH combat. (I think we're gonna have to work on the wording of that so that new players aren't .)

Dual-wield section:

A. A weapon in the off-hand 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 primary 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 is off-hand.

B. 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.)

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

So, as has already been asked, if only the DW section is implemented, is it enough? What about the DW section with only #1 and #2 from the Armor section?

It looks like time to get my site going and run some more calcs for a statiscal analysis (though stat analysis isn't the whole picture).

TheFool wrote:

Having a 2nd attack dice in ANY form outside of a characters stats is madness (as racial maximums are around 5 to 6 anyway) and I think the worst decision made for the Mordheim engine.

I hear you and understand. However, DW is a holdover from the Warhammer engine, and is a core mechanic in the game. Without changing that core aspect, our only options seem to be minimizing DW's effectiveness, and/or increasing the effectiveness of other options to decrease the occurence of DW.

I'll go ahead and share my honest opinion - the Warhammer engine is a barebones, random, sometimes fun, sometimes maddening, engine which has run amuk from too many ideas and too little analysis and balancing. However, the backstory and atmosphere which Warhammer (especially Mordheim) provides is so far above the other similar games that it keeps bringing me back, even years after saying "never again." I've come to 'mostly' peace with the system, and will not be one whit upset if our conversation here doesn't leave the group involved. At least our local games will have improved, and be much more fun for us!

thanks wyld!

If i can help with the site, just pm me

if we restrict it, we must see how many models should have DW for fluffy reasons, like big henchmen, flagellents etc. i will delve into this soon

Good point about helmet's protection h2h combat only.

Quote :

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 is
off-hand.

I agree with everything you said, but I can't help but feel nominating your primary weapon before each HtH phase is an idea.

I think the answer is part "Alternative Combat System Rules v1.0" and part "complimenting House Rules for ACSR v1.0"

P.s. I am scratching my head about the helmet rule. xD what do you mean?

-1 WS DW penalty: any modifier for DW that effects ALL attacks will disproportionately penalize models with multiple profile attacks. I think -1 to hit with no crits for only the off-hand is the best solution and believably reflects that this is your "off"-hand.

Helmet buff vs St Negation: I appreciate adding a simple +1 AS is too good, everyone would have a helmet after a few games. But what is the "first negative armor save modifier"? What about a St 5 Axe hit, is -1 or -2 first? Seems like this gets complicated fast. What about adding helmet styles to add opportunity cost? Combat helmet - +1 AS in HtH, Trencher Helmet - +1 AS vs Shooting, Padded Helmet - avoid stun.

TheFool wrote:

...I can't help but feel nominating your primary weapon before each HtH phase is an idea.

It is, and may be the better one. Writing down which weapon is off-hand before the battle, and not having an opportunity to change it will make things simpler, and avoid possible arguments. Being able to switch each turn gives more options. I'm slightly for the former, but it's not a sticking point for me either way. Any other people have opinions on this?

ts061282 wrote:

What about adding helmet styles to add opportunity cost? Combat helmet - +1 AS in HtH, Trencher Helmet - +1 AS vs Shooting, Padded Helmet - avoid stun.

Intriguing! So we're not "changing rules" for this, we're just "adding equipment!"

Seriously, I like it.

The basic line troops will probably get Padded Helmets, especially if they still DW, however, once you add a shield, then you have some decisions to make.

The trencher-style helmet style is already seen in some WH models, so it's even true to modelling differences. This might make those Middenheimers rethink their "no helmets" preference...

However, let's still water it down just a bit so it's not straight up +1 AS. Can we try "+1 AS when combined with any other armor (including shield)" instead? (Thus bringing back the notion of helmet "set" bonuses.)

Wow, this may actually give us a simple option for armor...

On DW, changing the rules for the off-hand may still encounter some WH rules resistance. We can statistically say that penalizing DW less than "only when primary misses, -1 hit, no crit" still gives the advantage to DW over shields for single-attack models.

But Cianty's posts about armor being more effective against more incoming attacks, and TheFool's posts about additional attacks' decreasing added benefit made me do some more analysis (I'm not posting the backing calcs, but know that I did consider the basic crit chart's bypassing of AS):

S3 henchman with single 3gc weapon against non-armored T3 henchman: 25% to injure
Same against T3 hench with weapon+shield+cbt helm (AS 4+): 15% to injure

S3 hench with DW 3gc weapons against non-armored T3 hench: 44% to injure
Same against T3 hench with weapon+shield+cbt helm: 28% to injure

DW grants a 19% bonus aganst unarmored; 13% against armored
This basic armor set grants 10% against single weap; 16% against DW

The trend for increased effectives of additional attacks is downward per attack in causing at least one injury roll. That first +1A does give a +13% to injure armored models, but A3 over A2 only gives +9%. However, at A3 and above, AS 4+ gets a pretty static 20% bonus when compared to unarmored at avoiding all injury rolls.

So what's the conclusion? When ignoring cost, weapon+shield+cbt helm is more effective than DW on an A2 model. Which translates to: yeah, start with DW, but once you have the attack profile and the funding, get armor! Not that DW will be gimp (especially against unarmored/multi-wound opponents), but armor will actually be useful.

After a math check by someone else, if this holds up, we may be able to leave DW well enough alone after the armor buffs. Other items to consider are multiple-wound models (DW may have better effectiveness against these models, in having an increased chance to cause multiple wounds), and how well Strength can negate the AS bonuses we've included.

I would consider it a great win if we can get away with just the expanded helmet list, the newer WH weap+shield bonus, and AS roll of 1 always fails!