dual wield and chance

Asp wrote:

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

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

That really isn't much of a benefit. Each attack is still only getting one of the bonuses. You can customize what you do a little bit (if you have more than 1 attack on your profile) to maybe better suit someone with lots of armor or something, but it's really not a huge deal.

Quote :

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

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

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

I don't disagree that dual wielding needs a nerf. I like the -1 to hit, it seems much better that way. The only advantage comes from the +1 attack though. You get an extra attack, which by extension gains the benefits of whatever skills or abilities.

Also, Expert Swordsman stacks so you can reroll all misses TWICE? That seems a bit ridiculous... I would say that you should only get to re-roll attacks made with a sword, and only re-roll them once. It doesn't really make sense for that to stack.

ok, first point i agree, the flexibility of passive abilities on one handed weapons is not that big of a deal. but still you should compile them all and contrast them to another viable alternative

i.e.:

two weapons
-1 to hit on both (not negatable)
+1 attack
= net chance to hit increased by 5,55%
+ chance cause an extra hit = 11,11% (and rises with WS) (that's 11,11% chace of +50% chance to wound)
+ chance to cause extra critical wounds (because of more hits)
+ passive abilities of the weapons
+ flexibility once you gain more A on profile
+ mighty blow will affect all attacks, so the more the better
+ expert swordsman will affect all attacks, so the more the better
+ strike to injure will affect all attacks, so the more the better

vs.

two handed weapon
+2 s on all attacks
-strike last (negatable by strongman)
> no effect on chance to hit
> no extra attacks
> no passive abilities
> no flexibility
+ net chance to wound increased by 33,33%
+ eventually the possiblity of +1 to injury rolls (if S = double or more than T)
+ strike to injury will make it (1-2:stunned 3-6: oaa versus T3)

---

all of this is provided that you implement exactly the things i recommed in my earlier post which i am not even sure that most people want to do. now if you don't leave open the possiblity of auto-wounding (no dice rolls needed if S = double or more than T) and those crazy injury rolls, then dual-wielding will be MUCH better than a two-handed weapon, even with a non-negatable -1 to hit on both attacks

now if you (plural) do exactly what i recommend then statistically, dual-wielding will still be better albert not much (we are talking about something in the region of a 10% advantage over two-handers) but still better. first law of statistics: the more dice you roll, the higher the probability of getting the result you want

In the terms of the vampire I wasn't arguing in terms of gameplay - rather what was to be fair of the character... It's just sad that there would be no dual wield experts in the mordheim world, for me Mordheim is not all about power gaming - always winning and that. It's more about the stories and tales surrounding the game.
If you want to play because of the sport you play WHFB.

well then, the question is: is the accurate representation of specific fighters more important than the game engine itself?

many people think it is, including most designers at GW. this is what causes codex creep and it is here that it is evident, that GW concerns itself with miniatures and fluff first, gameplay second.

i hold the opposite view, hence we will never quite agree on this as we are comming from different premises.

still, nice to hear your PoW

but both premises do not necessary conflict.

if you have a nice fair based rules system, you still can get a lot of fluff.

the only difference is that with the balance, more "fluffy" options will cause no more handicaps.

if you have a soldier who has dual wield. who gets a ws increase, bam the -1 penalty is gone. if he get's another, bam he has excelled in dualwield and actually has a +1 to hit. things take time and in this case a bit of luck. but thats whats mordheim is all about. the randomness of things and stuff always not happening the way you want to and have to deal with it.

you on the otherhand like to set out a plan for every character you create and want to control it's future (by picking skills). but actually that also has a small chance of occuring. ok, i will admit that it could happen more often than a +1 ws. but still

Well I think a part of the game engine is not only to create a good game, but also the essence of a fantasy and a story. A lot of the serious Injuries for example can create a quite sudden unbalance - though it gives so much more character to the game.
I believe that the -1 to both dual wield will (even though pretty nice statistics) generate more people using different setups - and this we agree on - and I believe a skill negating it would give you the nice feeling that your champion or whatever, masters dual wielding. Which for me is important, and I don't think the major impact on game play will be that great.

Perhaps one could have a skill negating if you only use certain weapons? Say if you use a sword and a dagger, or two swords. Perhaps if you dual wield the same of two weapons.

Mind you -1 to dual wield would also affect some "NPC" and hired swords, such as the Pit Fighter for example.
But I mean, all this is House ruling so... one does what one likes I guess

Honestly, I couldn't care less about the "story". I'm all about gameplay and mechanics... a little about making things just look cool. I don't know very much about the story behind Warhammer or Mordheim, just bits and pieces.

I'm having a lot of thoughts of how to dwell deeper in to the story of mordheim within the actual gameplay - taking Mordheim closer to RPG's such as Mutant chronicles and DoD and stuff. I will probably come around to that later sometime - I find it sometimes quite tedious and pointless to just expand, expand, expand. Kind of when you level up in a mmorpg just for the high level. I think experiencing stories would give at least me more somehow. Though, I'm perfectly find with people just wanting to hack each other to bits... or there minis rather.
- popmouth

Popmouth wrote:

I'm having a lot of thoughts of how to dwell deeper in to the story of mordheim within the actual gameplay - taking Mordheim closer to RPG's such as Mutant chronicles and DoD and stuff. I will probably come around to that later sometime - I find it sometimes quite tedious and pointless to just expand, expand, expand. Kind of when you level up in a mmorpg just for the high level. I think experiencing stories would give at least me more somehow. Though, I'm perfectly find with people just wanting to hack each other to bits... or there minis rather.
- popmouth

I agree with you 100%, it's the progression and stories about the warriors that make this game so much fun for our group!

I've always had an issue with dual wielding, as it was so much better than any combination. I like the -1 to hit, and think that I may just add that to the house rules next time we have a campaign.

Do that - I know I will ^_^

I have been away from Mordheim for a while, but have recently spent a little time looking at other solutions for this problem. Most people seem to agree on the -1 to hit. Keep in mind that the "to hit" table only lets you get so good a chance anyway, no matter how high your ws is. Perhaps each time you take the skill it only applies to one hand. You would have to take "dual-wield" twice in order to negate the penalty completely.

How about importing the current whfb rule of a +1 armor save in close combat when armed with hand weapon and shield?

How about only allowing passive benefits for weapons in the primary hand? A warrior could decide what weapon is primary before starting each combat.

Allow great weapons to benefit from the special abilities of their type. For example, 2-h swords would allow you to parry but still strike last.

I found that sg.tacticalwargames.net is trying to resurrect the specialist games forums and the old rules review. I seem to remember a few years ago that they were tackling this very issue. Does anyone remember what some of those suggestions from the fanatic crew were?

Well the -1 to hit has the advantage of being simple – the shield + h.w have been up, though I don't know. I mean, all off-hands rule are IMHO to be avoid. Such a kerfuffle keeping track of what is what.

You already have lots to keep track of in the off-hand if using two different weapons. For example,

"Ok, I have two attacks with my sword, plus one in the off hand with my axe. The red dice are for the sword and the black one is for the axe."

"what's your weapon skill?"

Check relevant chart. Flip Flip

Roll...

"Ok. now what color did I say was the axe?"

This way you only have one type of attack to remember.

Shield rule makes that combo more effective without having to change any game charts.

Exactly, and also, you have to make sure to nominate the Off hand before games - and keeping track of this with 12 or so figures can be quite a stress.

Hey all,

New to the forum, but thinking about this issue for a couple years...

+1 A is awesome and all, but fundamental to the OPness of off-hand weapons. Additionally, shields just aren't good enough with axes, crits and +st all too common. The solution? Tone down off-hand weapons and make shields inverse analogues.

My solution:

Off-hand bonus: +1 WS when attacking, off-hand weapon ability applies to attack
Shield bonus: +1 WS when defending, +1 Armor

Edit: Paluke, I see this is similar to the "New Solution to Balance" post you made. This takes your idea one step further I think.

Greetings to Ts061282 !

That is a sweet solution you got there! I'm certainly going to give it thought.


I do want to present a new solution:

Warrior Equipment:

Dualwield:
Sometimes, a warrior going to Mordheim chooses to use an additional hand weapon to fight the evil that resides there.

Price: 30 gold crowns (may be modeled as anything the wearer chooses)
//* on aside note: in the rulebook it is said for one off games that an extra attack costs 25 gc and after that it costs 35gc, so thats where i based my 30 gold upon *//
Abilities: None
Bonus: +1 Attack


Shields:
The tougher you are, the more likely you'll get home with stories to tell and riches to enjoy.

Wooden Shield:
Price: 5 Gold crowns.
Abilities: 6+ armour save, or +1 to armour save if the warrior already has one.

Additions:
The can be stacked.

Metal strip: A sturdy metal strip has been placed around the wooden shield.
Price: 5 Gold Crowns
Abilities: the shield has improved to provide a 5+ armour save, or +2 armour save if the model already has one.

Metal spike: A sturdy spike has been placed in the center of the shield
Price: 5 Gold Crowns
Abilities: Whenever an Armour save succeeds, the attacker receives a strength 2 automatic hit.
------------------------------------

more to come, but what do you think about this?

Seems interesting. I would change the text for the dualwield though, maybe in this way, to give the players more understanding of the actuall cost:

Dualwield:
Foes comes in numbers in the city of Mordheim and some warriors fight therefore with an additional hand weapon. This requires great skill and a trained fighter must be paid for.

Price: 30 gold crowns (may be modeled as anything the wearer chooses)
Abilities: None
Bonus: +1 Attack



Still I find the Idea interesting - this somewhat evens things up slightly. To 25 gold might be a more reasonable price (?)

would one the attacks be with the off-hand weapon or could you put them all on the primary weapon or switch around?

I haven't read every single post here, sorry in advance if I repeat something, but I want to bring up two things:

1) Shields help against ranged attacks, while a second weapon does not.

2) -1 to hit on all attacks has a greater negative effect on characters with more attacks. At some higher number of attacks a warrior without a second weapon will actually wind up with a better chance to hit; at around five or six attacks (which doesn't happen much, I know, and I totally didn't do the math so I might be completely wrong here) but the point remains that the more attacks you have the more you are penalized for dual wielding. Seems odd to me.

P.S. I'd like to see a shield related skill.

P.S.S. What's the argument against -1 to hit on only off hand attacks? I saw the math on the other post (+15% to hit or something) and it seemed very reasonable against a shield's 33% chance to block the average attack and 16% chance to block a ranged attack.

I'm not sure I follow Paluke's math in the first post, but I know what he's trying to say. The confusion is about what percent is what, there are two kinds. There's the percent chance to hit, then there is the percent improved percent chance to hit the second, off-hand weapon attack provides.

Simple examples:

4+ to hit is obviously 50% chance to hit.
2 4+ chances to hit is 50% + 50% = 100% chance to hit, which is 100% improved chance to hit as well (50% x 2 = 100%).

5+ to hit is 33% chance to hit.
2 5+ chances to hit are 33% + 33% = 66% chance to hit, which is still 100% improved chance to hit, which a second attack always is (unmodified)

Without a modifier a second attack is at least 33% (5+, 2/6) to hit bonus for using the off-hand weapon.

Add a modifier:
4+ and 5+ to hit would be 50% + 33% = 83% chance to hit, or 66% improved chance to hit

3+ and 4+ to hit would be 66% + 50% = 116% chance to hit, or 83% improved chance to hit.

With a -1 to hit modifier the second attack is at least 16% (6+, 1/6) to hit bonus for using the off-hand weapon. And the actual bonus varries significantly depending on the WS of attacker and defender.

Now compare to shield, best case +16% (6+, 1/6) to save. Even with the house rule -1 to hit on off-hand, the worst case for off-hands is still equal to the best case for shields and in the vast majority of cases will be at least somewhat better. 5+ save with shield house rule is getting closer, but again the majority of cases makes an off-hand better.

ts061282:
Your math is off. If 2 4+ rolls was 100% chance to hit that means that you ALWAYS hit with 2 weapons. That's simply not true. Look at Paluke's original post. When rolling 2 dice there are 36 possible combinations. Of those combinations, 27 include at least one hit (18 combinations are a single hit and 9 combinations are a double hit) and 9 of them don't hit at all. This is ~75% chance (27 out of 36) to hit with 2 dice, NOT 100%. The same goes for a 5+ roll, it's not simply double the percentage, statistics doesn't quite work like that.

Svenn wrote:

ts061282:
Your math is off. If 2 4+ rolls was 100% chance to hit that means that you ALWAYS hit with 2 weapons. That's simply not true. Look at Paluke's original post. When rolling 2 dice there are 36 possible combinations. Of those combinations, 27 include at least one hit (18 combinations are a single hit and 9 combinations are a double hit) and 9 of them don't hit at all. This is ~75% chance (27 out of 36) to hit with 2 dice, NOT 100%. The same goes for a 5+ roll, it's not simply double the percentage, statistics doesn't quite work like that.

It is the average percent chance of a single success (incorporating both no hits and two hits). Expressing it in this way is the best way to compare the additional benefit over a single attack.

The other option I haven't seen mentioned yet is 4+ save for shields. This is much closer to the value of an extra attack.

Cheers Svenn,

As i posted here i have come up with a new suggestion.

We accept the fact that this has the chance increase that it has BUT:

No more than 25% of the models in a warband, (0.4 or less will be rounded down 0.5 or more will be rounded up) may dualwield.

A warband with 12 models can only have 3 warriors with 2 single handed weapons.
A warband with 13 can only have 3 warriors (13 / 4 = 3.25 .25 is less than .4 so rounded down)

So a fully maxed out warband, with halfling cook has 16 models and can have 4 dualwielding maniacs.

O & G can have 21 models with the halfling, and they can have 5 dualwielding maniacs.

Very simple rule, no need to check dicerolls or do anything overlycomplicated. just a simple restriction

Paluke,

An undisputed solution, but it's an arbitrary restriction and unrealistic.

How about:
-1 to hit off-hand, shield 5+ w/ hand weapon (6+ v shooting) all equipment lists w/ shield now include a "Large Shield" w/ 4+ save w/ hand weapon (5+ v shooting) @ 15 GC

Out solution has been to apply the -1 to hit to the offhand. It just deosn't seem fitting to penalize both. The offhand is there just for that extra poke. The main hand is what the warrior is going to focus getting his hits in with.
We bumped up the shield to +2 AV in HtH. We reduced the cost of armor by 40% to make armor more relevant. (light and heavy armor only, gromil and ithilmar remain the same) Additionally they only way to remove the penalty is to take a Combat or Strength skill. Not a specific skill, but any combat or Strength. We rationalized that you overcome the penalty through skill (combat skill) or brute force (strength skill)

We really wanted to keep the changes within the general mechanics. We also didn't want to make a skill that would be obligatory for heroes. It made sense to use that heroes should readily overcome the penalty whereas henchmen can't. Interestingly it means that henchmen that already have a combat skill (like swordsmen) overcome the penalty if the lad. We did not automatically eliminate the penalty for them (they'd be better than heroes then) Melee based hired swords and dramatis also had no penalty (they are professional warriors after all)

All of this seems to work out pretty well. Armor and shields show up more. But 2 weapons are still common. We've toyed with adding a +1 armor mod to offhand weapons if have the penalty. That would keep shields reasonable against main hand and 2h attacks but off hands would struggle more.

We also added in the ability to save against serious injury with armor. your save is equal to the Armor save on the model when you went out. (mitigation not withstanding) so you had a 4+ save, you have a 4+ save vs your serious injury.
It doesn't work with henchmen and if the save is made the armor protects you but the armor is destroyed in the saving of your hide. You are still considered taken out, you just get an automatic "full recovery."

All of these changes made dual wielding less common with us. We have shieldmen who screen for heroes (and high ability henchmen) Shields are good enough to take with spears and light armor (at only 12 gc now) is fairly common on heroes. (though not to start of course)