dual wield and chance

ts061282 has a point.

Making armour stronger also allows the Duel Wielder themselves to take the advantage.


I have an idea!

>> What about Duel wielding resulting in the model having -1S to both attacks?<<<

It's simple to remember, doesn't effect hitting with the weapons and sounds possibly logical. (as two weapons would require more skill and tact)

This is not an answer within itself, but coupled with shields having their +1 AS...)

At -1S, DWing would stop having the advantage of the -1AP from a S4 model. (as Skavens, Ghouls, Beastmen, Halflings, Dwarves, Elves and Humans all have the Racial max at S4)

And by looking at the Wound Chart;


At -1S, the ability to wound would almost always go down by 1/6th compared to if the model didn't DW...

So lets have a look at a normal model who decided on different setups;

Gimply:
WS - 3
S - 3
T - 3
A - 1
AS - 7+

Gimpy the henchmen goes shopping and buys...

Two single handed weapons;
WS - 3
S - 2
T - 3
A - 2
AS - 7+


A single handed weapon and shield;
WS - 3
S - 3
T - 3
A - 1
AS - 6+

A Halberd (+1 S)
WS - 3
S - 4
T - 3
A - 1
AS - 7+

a Flail;
WS - 3
S - 5 (only for the first round of HtH)
T - 3
A - 1
AS - 7+

a Morning Star + Shield; [Read "Difficult to Use" it allows a shield ]
WS - 3
S - 4 (only for the first round of HtH)
T - 3
A - 1
AS - 6+

a Double handed weapon; (Strikes last)
WS - 3
S - 5
T - 3
A - 1
AS - 7+

The reason I think this balances out HtH is...

At -1S to a DWing unit, young henchmen and heroes will need to decide what is more important, breaching armour and slight increase in wounding or another option.

With the -1S it then creates a NEED for DHW, Flails, Halberds and Morning Stars [If you read the morning star special rules compared to a flail, it becomes interesting as one has more hitting power yet allows no shield, the other has less hitting power but allows one! how cool?)

It will still keep mordheim feeling "Mordheimy" as armour could continue to be a less an common occurance, yet allows models who buy shields to get that nice 1/6 chance of a save as natural S would only come into AP effect if the attacker is not DWing.

What do you all think?

P.s. this came to me while incapacitated from a migraine that has left me subject to both Frenzy and Stupidity (My first mordheim joke, yay) ... and as such I hope it made well enough sense, I'm going to go to bed for a few hours.

Back to totally weird penalties again? Please... This is not only a totally random disadvantage (ie no connection with Warhammer) but also horribly tough and reads in dual-wielding = non-existent. Normal warriors wounding enemies on 5+ or 6+?

cianty wrote:

no connection with Warhammer ... dual-wielding = non-existent. Normal warriors wounding enemies on 5+ or 6+?

Fool - Off-hand penalties should not apply to the main hand attacks. However, what about an additional -1 St for offhand attacks. So -1 to hit, -1 St for offhand attacks. WFRP offers the -1 to hit penalty, this would take that one step further.

I wasn't thinking straight, thanks for pulling me in line guys. (I will stick by the excuse of my migraine)

At least we can strike it off as an all encompassing option yet it seems to hold some credibility as the effect of -1S compared to -1 to hit are very close together with the -1S being... more appropriate?

-1 Hit lowers the offhand attack to a 1/6th less chance to hit where as -1S effects the AP of the attack (as if the character has S4+ the AP will be 1 value less) as well as effectively reduce the wounding chance by 1/6th (Depending on the attackers Strength)

The way I see this as a better option compared to -1 to hit is that -1 to hit feels arbitrary and inappropriate over the course of a campaign (many examples come to mind such as an extraordinarily skilled undead master vampire swinging his sword at a near paralyzed goblin.... hitting on a 4+) [Even if the Vampire had max WS of 8 against a goblin of WS 1... it can only ever be a 4+]

The reason it further feels balanced is Strong creatures won't be that badly impaired where as normal creates (with S4 Racial caps) will feels the difference.

Doesn't it feel appropriate that a Vampire of max stats (WS 8 S 7) might have their secondary attack nearly as powerful as their first attack (S6 with the -1S of attacking with the off hand)

Compared to a human at max stats who, when hitting with his off hand, doesn't have his AP of -1 at max 4 strength?

Why could it not effect both hands? It's simpler to remember, makes a larger impact on the unbalance, and is perfectly logical. Have you ever tried wielding to weapons at the same time? Even if your really good with your best hand, the wielding of an extra weapon increases the difficulty to both hands – Believe me I train kendo, and the guys that do Nito (one ordinary sword and one short) have quite a struggle at first.

I believe thought that the -1 strength penalty seems quite interesting.

Popmouth wrote:

Believe me I train kendo, and the guys that do Nito (one ordinary sword and one short) have quite a struggle at first.

We don't want the off-hand penalty on the main hand because then the real penalty for wielding a second weapon is defined by the number of profile attacks you have. But, could you say more about your experience with DWing? They struggle at first due to balance and coordination?

Perhaps off-hand penalty of -1 St, no crits is a good solution?

Well, coordination definitely, I think having the mind focusing on another element makes it suddenly quite difficult – now as people have said before, wielding two weapons (in kendo at the least) is seemed more as a defensive technique than an offensive. Though really i must say that the fluff of all weapons haven't to feel completely accurate. Now Kendo is quit different from a street brawl, mind you.
Well perhaps... Still the Off-hand is quite a problem, you must be really clear which hand is the off-hand and remember this. Therefore the simplicity of giving the -1S or -1 to hit to both attacks makes sense... I guess play testing would solve this question though.

How about, -1S on the off hand and to make it easy you use colored dice.

In our games we always use Red for swords, White for Axes and Black for Maces.

To make it simpler, right before rolling just nominate the color of the offhand

"Red is primary sword, white is the offhand axe" *Roll*

I am interested to hear what Wyldhunt's opinion is on this

That might make it kind of pernickity where you have to check two different to hit modifiers if its minus str on off hand, might drag out the flow of the game to keep having to check what str each has.

Wow guys! that was some big read!

Great stuff has been thrown on the table which led me to another suggestion:

"If you dual wield you may NOT use any form of armour?"

@Paluke...what? Did a goblin fanatic run into you?

What ever happened to a -1 WS for the off hand weapon? Was that too simple? Then create a skill for Heroes to learn that could under combat that they could take away the -1WS for off hand weapon.

I am not trying to be critical as this is one of the more interesting threads I have seen in a bit and people are really trying to put a finger on this topic but a -1WS is the simplistic and least problematic way to go.

Da Bank wrote:

@Paluke...what? Did a goblin fanatic run into you?

What ever happened to a -1 WS for the off hand weapon? Was that too simple? Then create a skill for Heroes to learn that could under combat that they could take away the -1WS for off hand weapon.

I am not trying to be critical as this is one of the more interesting threads I have seen in a bit and people are really trying to put a finger on this topic but a -1WS is the simplistic and least problematic way to go.

We implemented the -1 to offhand weapon, +2AS in close combat for shields, and half price for light/heavy armor in our campaign. I'm already seeing a lot of different combinations on people now. It's all pretty simple and it promotes the use of different stuff.

Perfect? Not quite, but it does it's job. A lot of these ideas are pretty cool, but a bunch of them add unnecessary extra rules or go away from core Warhammer/Mordheim rules a little bit too much I think.

Yes, despite all the statistical mumba jumbo I think it takes a lot less to motivate people to use shields than you might think when looking at the numbers. Playtesting is what it takes, more than brianstorming.

In our Mordheim group, we play the -1WS and it worked fine. Cianty has a point as this is getting more and more theoritical.

Another option we are currently using is all heroes can dual wield but henchmen can not unless they gain +1 to their Attack and it is working fine.

If there was ever to be an update it will be a simple one. At this point the rules still function properly for this concern.

Da Bank wrote:

In our Mordheim group, we play the -1WS and it worked fine. Cianty has a point as this is getting more and more theoritical.

Another option we are currently using is all heroes can dual wield but henchmen can not unless they gain +1 to their Attack and it is working fine.

If there was ever to be an update it will be a simple one. At this point the rules still function properly for this concern.

I've been considering the henchman can't dual wield thing... It would make heroes more.... heroic.

@svenn. That is what we thought to as the rulebook notes "some maniac warriors...blah..blah..blah" so taking from that we houseruled it that way.

I will say from playing the way I just mentioned about henchmen can't dual wield until they gain +1 A, it does change the dynamics a bit. Not a ton but it can take a bit longer to take models OOA.

EDIT: At this point I'm assuming 5+ AS from shield is golden.

The average starting strength of a random warrior in the core rulebook is 3.235. This means 24% of the time the opponent is st 4, approximately. Not including DHWs, axes, mutations or the like. All merc types included seperately.

For vanilla warriors (including chance models st is negating and chance to negate armor on a crit):

Chances to wound with a single attack against a
Main Hand
Offhand -1 to hit
Offhand -1 st
Offhand -1 st, no crit


Conversely,

Chance to save (incl st and crit negation) a wound with a shield against:

Mainhand/Offhand -1 to hit:
26.1%

Offhand -1 st:
29.3%

Offhand -1 st, no crit:
33.3%

(FYI. Reduced chance to be wounded is not the same as chance to save against a wound. If you are wounded 30% of the time and pick up a 5+ save (30%), you are still wounded 20% of the time, a total difference of 10%. Also, if you charge, you reduce your chance to be wounded by the chance that you yourself will wound.)

On the charge against a DWer (-1 to hit offhand), you are giving up 16% chance to wound for a total 10.8% lower chance to be wounded. Total detriment is -15.5% (revised from -5.8%) in terms of raw chance to wound/be wounded. On a charge against a shield wearer, you are giving up 12.3% chance to wound for a 8% reduced chance to be wounded. Total detriment is -10.1% (revised from -4.3%).

-1 St, no crits, reduces the detriment to -14.6% (revised from -4.5%) against a DWer, -8.6% (revised from -4%) against a shield.

Being charged by a DWer (-1 to hit offhand), you are giving up 7% chance to wound (including chance you are wounded, and therefore not causing any wounds) for 10.8% reduced chance to be wounded. Total benefit is 3.8%. Charged by a shield you are giving up 8% chance to wound for a 6.5% reduced chance to be wounded. Total detriment is -1.5%.

-1St, no crits Increases the benefit against DW to 5.4% and reduces the detriment against a shield to -0.6%.

We are getting very close to were we need to be with just -1 to hit and 5+ on shields, but I feel this shows we are still in a region were DWing is an obvious choice.

EDIT: Revision due to calculation error. Detriment on charge substantially worse.

See, I wasn't crazy, -1S is a far better option

My group have given up and decided on

-1S, no crits on the off hand,
shields having +1AS in HtH
Maces and Axes cost double.

That's it until we can find a more balanced setup. (I continue to support +2 AS, but it seems that's too outside of the traditional Warhammer rules apparently)

Has ANYONE come across something new?

Hmm, I really like this -1 str idea. I'm trying to convince my group to play with that now.

Here's an interesting point to consider though... are there any skills or scenarios where -1 to hit is different than -1 to wound? Are there skills that might affect wounding that wouldn't affect hitting (or vice versa) that could be affected by these changes? I can't think of anything off the top of my head but it's a possibility...

Also, -1 to Str AND Shields are +2AS in HtH?

+2 AS from a shield...

I REALLY think this is a clean and quick answer to balance DWing, both in a young campaign and in an old one.

However... People don't support it

I can sit here and list near 30 reasons why it is a better option than most, but I have decided to leave it alone until people get discouraged at other options.

So Svenn, if you like +2 AS with a shield, join me!

We can bide our time....

I'll try to produce a presentable spreadsheet by the end of the weekend.

I'm torn on the +2AS from shield... Does that make shields TOO powerful? It essentially makes them as good as heavy armor with a lot less of a cost. Of course, it DOES prevent you from using dual wield or a 2h weapon... Hmm. I think I do like it.

The only thing that worries me is people building up to 1+ saves and being nearly invincible (though I AM of the mindset that 1 should always fail).

So yeah, -1 Str and +2AS from shield in Hand to Hand I think would promote people using dual wield, 1h and shield, AND 2h weapons all for different situations. It doesn't need to be perfectly balanced (and it can't really be) but it does give you plenty of options where one is not always a clear winner over the others. Want to sacrifice some defense for an extra attack at a slightly lessened chance to wound? Use 2 weapons. Want to beef that guy up so he doesn't die so easy? Add a shield. Want to make that guy a powerhouse slicing through guys with ease? Give him a 2h.

Da Bank wrote:

@svenn. That is what we thought to as the rulebook notes "some maniac warriors...blah..blah..blah" so taking from that we houseruled it that way.

I will say from playing the way I just mentioned about henchmen can't dual wield until they gain +1 A, it does change the dynamics a bit. Not a ton but it can take a bit longer to take models OOA.

Wait, that's quite interesting – how about applying that rule as an over all rule:

Dual Wield does not give you an extra attack, instead warriors with an additional attack may equip his hand with any (one hand) additional weapon.

Popmouth wrote:

Da Bank wrote:

@svenn. That is what we thought to as the rulebook notes "some maniac warriors...blah..blah..blah" so taking from that we houseruled it that way.

I will say from playing the way I just mentioned about henchmen can't dual wield until they gain +1 A, it does change the dynamics a bit. Not a ton but it can take a bit longer to take models OOA.

Wait, that's quite interesting – how about applying that rule as an over all rule:

Dual Wield does not give you an extra attack, instead warriors with an additional attack may equip his hand with any (one hand) additional weapon.

That would make dual wielding almost worthless at that point... Is it worth having one of your attacks with a different weapon bonus in place of anything else you could do? Probably not. You really don't gain anything from it then, you just the option of 1 different off-hand bonus.