dual wield and chance

Hmm, might be a point actually...

Svenn wrote:

That would make dual wielding almost worthless at that point...

I have to agree with Svenn. Dual wielding should be a good option for Mordheim to feel like Mordheim.

For those talking about just St -1, WITH crits:
On charge, switching DW -> shield, against DW, total detriment is -15% (revised from -5.2%), against shield, total detriment is -9.3% (revised from -4.1%). Being charged, against DW, total benefit is 4.6%, against shield, total detriment is -1.1%. Still DWing by a nose I feel.

If we feel off-hand should crit, maybe we can do an off-hand crit like an impossible shot. 6 to wound followed by a 4+ crits. You can exactly tune DWing/shield this way, by setting the chance of the crit. You could even incorperate this variable into campaign mechanics. Also, -1 st off-hand certainly argues for putting the DW skill under Strength.

EDIT 2: Bad news. The detriment on the charge was below the real value due to a calculation error. I have revised my original entry. It isn't pretty, my conclusion that -1 st, no crits is a perfect solution is pretty well shot.

ts061282s DW/Sh stats 1.2
1.2 includes vanilla mordheim stats! Man shields were/are funny bad.

The spreadsheet file for those wanting to tinker.

As those following the Yahoo Mordheim group will soon see, I no longer have objections to changing even core WHFB rules to achieve a good parity between DW and armor. After all, many core WHFB rules were changed (not just extended) to make Mordheim.

I really like the offhand -1 Str with keeping the chance to crit. DW by a nose for A1 models against single models sure, but not really with high Attack models and/or multiple opponents. However, to keep the free dagger in (which can be kinda/sorta traced to WHFB getting a "regular" weapon without cost), what about changing the dagger penalty from "+1 AS to opponent" to -1S as well? That way, an off-hand dagger has a -2S, and therefore loses its ability to crit when attacker S is balanced with defender T.

If we go with offhand -1 Str, then the Skill to remove that penalty should be a Strength skill.

Now, offhand -Str doesn't feel realistic to me. My left (primary) is my most dextrous/accurate, but my right (off) is strongest. However, a -1S offhand plays into changing the dagger to -1S as well, and helps out the armor/crit situation immensely vs DW specifically without affecting other balances.

As for an older concern of remembering the difference in prime/off S, we had been discussing a difference in prime/off hit, and we have to already remember the difference in weapon abilities when not paired, so I don't agree with that concern.

I did get to play my DWing mace/dagger Ostlanders against a Skaven club/shield band. They had the upper hand until I managed to OOA three of the Skaven heroes in one HtH round. None of those OOAs were from offhand attacks - I didn't get to use the daggers since all of my mace attacks hit (I detailed the rules we're using a few pages back in this thread, and we'll continue to use them throughout the campaign). So while shields didn't prevent my good fortune, DW didn't help either.

My son and I are also beginning to play a lot of Mordheim (he's almost six, and he has a blast playing!). While his entire Pirate warband DWs (his henchmen can't get shields), and occasionally benefits from it, he's hurt by the absence of shields, which my Orcs do get the benefit from. We're using the same rules as my local group, but may try out the latest suggestions here at different points.

I am liking what I am hearing

I have tried out a small battle between 2 human merc warbands equipped with a variety of shields, DWs and two handed weapons...

It required a lot more strategy than Mordheim usually opened up for me and ended in an equal ammount of downed men.

hmm yeah a fanatic grabbed me

only maniac warriors you say?

Why not give them frenzy instead of +1 attack? that way, once the get knocked down they lose their attack?!

Well I believe that the "maniac warrior..." is rather some stylistic writing.

(When I say better or worse I mean in terms of wounding/being wounded.)

So my numbers show that under the original rules, you are always worse off with a shield. They show that under our revised rules, 5+ shield save and -1 to hit off-hand, shields are only better when being charged by a DWing warrior, and only marginally (3%). Yes, this benefit improves as you are facing more attacks, but I have previously shown that more attacks means it is probable (>50%) that you will be wounded, which doesn't make a sound strategy. Still, there are going to be situations when you are being charged by multiple opponents, or DW so there are going to be situations where a shield is better. Is this enough?

I still prefer -1 st, no crits off-hand to really underline shields as a viable strategy. Although, I'm somewhat disconcerted that it is likely everyone will just keep dual wielding and pulling out a shield when the situation calls for it, which doesn't help the prevelance of DWing. I think I'd prefer that a shield took a close combat weapon "slot". Maybe just for henchmen? Forcing them into one role or another. So, in sum, I am proposing: 5+ save in cc with shield, 6+ out of cc; -1 st, no crits off-hand, adding an absolving skill under strength; shields take up a cc weapon slot, heroes gain +1 cc weapon slot; 1s always fail an armor save.

After realizing that henchman with a shield and hand weapon still have a free dagger, I have analyzed the cost/benefit of a shield assuming free dagger is off-hand (both combatants).

Assuming -1 to hit offhand, 5+ sv shield:

Charging DW: -11.4% net wound/wounded chance
Charging Sh: -7%
Charged by DW: 4.71%
Charged by Sh: 0.33%

Meaning, even if a henchman has a shield, he should still prefer DWing with his free dagger on a charge. Also, prevalence of off-hand daggers doesn't make shields much better than normal.

Since I haven't had any direct feedback on this, what do you all think of my numbers? Can you follow? Have I gone mad?

I now view this problem as one that cannot be resolved within the boundaries set by "the man". Splashing around +1 AS with a helmet isn't very easy to analyze, but frankly any helmet based solution is too good because you aren't giving up anything substantial in terms of your head slot, so on an infinite timeline, everyone will have one. Without calculations, I can tell you right now that if I give everyone an extra point of armor save, or whatever, DW is still better than shields. Free daggers are problematic and should be generally nonexistent. Something along the lines of "a warrior that has been completely disarmed will rely on his eating dagger." Do skaven have eating daggers lore-wise? Seems like teeth and claws would work better.

To make off-hand attacks proportional to shields you need to nerf off-hands to the tune of -1 to hit, -1 st, no crits and then DW is still ahead by a nose (~2%).

I'm going to run a campaign with the rules proposed in the above post, minus free daggers, and see where that gets me.

To those frustrated at this point, there are two ways to do this: one, push through changes in a rules review that we can get made even if they don't actually work; or two, find a perfect solution that is effective and everyone will adopt. If we can achieve number two, the "official" rules will either follow or become irrelevant. I don't see any point in achieving number one.

There is no way I'll be able to get Tewfik to implement that many changes. He was complaining about -1 to hit, and almost flat out refused to even do -1 str instead. I'm surprised he didn't complain too much about the shield save and lower armor costs.

-1 St doesn't seem to make sense at first. I think about it this way, a warrior dedicates the majority of his energy and coordination to the momentum and follow through of the main attack to make it the best that it can be. Once he has struck, he may follow through with an off-hand attack if he has a second weapon.

Compare to Fantasy, you have a whole bunch of guys with two weapons, if you are in combat with them, in the front rank, whichever way you turn there's a hand weapon in your face. A strait +1 A makes sense. One on One, or skirmish level combat, is much more fluid and unconfined, there's not a mob of guys fixing you to the spot for your opponent to follow on with an easy second.

If everyone wants to take -1 to hit, 5+ shields and make it official, be my guest, but that means shields are just a common lucky charm and should not be used often enough to even warrant modeling them in hand.

Well, I'm all for the -1 Str. In fact, we had a bunch of people over yesterday and played all our games with -1 Str, +2 AS from shields in CC, and half price armor. It worked fairly well I think.

Personally, I'd even be up for trying the -1 to hit, -1 Str, and no crits, but I think that's a large number of changes for some people.

New Idea: Shields should allow you to always strike back in combat, even if you are wounded first. Resolve all wounds after the shield wielding model has attacked for the turn.

Effect:
DW is still better, but shields would be worthwhile for sure. Assuming -1 to hit, 5+ sh; switching from DW -> shield, charging DW, detriment is -15.46%; charging shield, detriment is -5.8%; charged by DW, benefit is 11.56%; charged by shield, benefit is 1.9%. This would scale appropriately against multiple models so that shields are a great choice, but not overpowered.

I still see it as a problem that there is no restriction on switching between DWing and wielding a shield. Cianty, what does your group do exactly for switching between the two?

If I can add my 2 cents...

We allow each Hero / henchmen to swap items to their hearts content, as long as it is done within the few restrictions we put in place:...


1. Weapon changes have to be announced in the players Shooting phase.

2. Weapons cannot be swapped or changed when a model is in HtH combat.

we figured this sounds realistic since in the original rules, a shield only gave +1 AS against ranged shots, so it seemed that a player could charge while holding a shield (to protect against ranged weapons) and swap off the shield as soon as they got into HtH.

I don't like swapping HtH weapons during a scenario - to me, that's too much to keep track of. Each warrior should be able to carry one HtH item per hand. It's fine to me if they keep the free dagger tucked away, but it's not fine to me if they switch around in the same scenario as cianty's group does.

I like -1 Str offhand, however, I only really like it if the dagger penalty is switched from +1 opp. AS to -1 Str as well. To help keep the free dagger down to "you get what you pay for," I do think the off-hand penalty should be in the same class as the dagger penalty. If we use -1 Str for both of these, then I don't think we have to specify "no offhand crits" - in many cases with the dagger, this will take care of itself. (The same penalty for fist would be changed for consistency.)

I still have a concern that helping armor by just a +1 AS bump will only bring it into line with current WHFB, and not balance it with Mordheim's prevalent +1 Str (without another equivalent bump to AS's power). Consolidating the offhand/dagger penalties both to negative Str definitely help with this - I'd like to see how it plays out, so my son and I will try it for a while.

ts061282 wrote:

To those frustrated at this point, there are two ways to do this: one, push through changes in a rules review that we can get made even if they don't actually work; or two, find a perfect solution that is effective and everyone will adopt. If we can achieve number two, the "official" rules will either follow or become irrelevant. I don't see any point in achieving number one.

TS, after analyzing the true rules situation between WHFB and Mordheim, and assessing the reaction on the Yahoo mailing list, I'm with you on this. Regardless whether the official rules are changed, I'm after an enjoyable game with many viable options, and the best rules balance we can achieve supports exactly that.

Even so, for those concerned about core WHFB rules changes: offhand daggers do not have a penalty in 4th ed. WHFB, nor is there differentiation in the effect of any basic 1H weapons (except Spears and Lances). The dagger penalty may be from some of the other games upon which Mordheim was based, but is not from core 4th ed. WHFB. Mordheim added differentiation in the effect of 1h weapons, including the effects of weapons held in different hands, so it is a logical extension of these rules to apply a differentiation in the effect of main/off-hand attacks themselves, which in my opinion is required to balance the armor effectiveness imbalance introduced by the Strength-improvement rules extensions made from WHFB to Mordheim.

Here is what my son and I will playtest:
1. Any 1h weapon+shield grants a +1 AS in HtH.

2. All AS rolls of 1 always fail.

3. At the start of a scenario, each model must specify which HtH item will be used by which hand (or other appendage allowed to carry HtH items), and stick with it through the scenario when in HtH (unless disarmed for some reason, at which point the model may fall back to an extra dagger if carried).

4. Attacking with a dagger or fist (in either hand) incurs a -1 Str penalty to the dagger's/fist's attack (this replaces the +1 to opponent AS).

5. Except for off-hand attacks granted by Special Rules and Skills, any attack by an off-hand weapon incurs a -1 Str penalty to that attack.

6. Maniac Warror is a Strength skill, and knowing this skill removes the -1 Str penalty from off-hand attacks.

If we still perceive too much benefit from free daggers, we'll remove them entirely. If we still perceive too little benefit from armor, we'll likely begin Strength's AP at 5 (as my regular group is playtesting now).

wyldhunt wrote:

I don't like swapping HtH weapons during a scenario - to me, that's too much to keep track of. Each warrior should be able to carry one HtH item per hand. It's fine to me if they keep the free dagger tucked away, but it's not fine to me if they switch around in the same scenario as cianty's group does.

well, that IS a balanced option!

If they cannot swap, they can't eat out off two hands!

if you wield a shield you are protected vs shooting better, if you use dualwield, then watch out for them arrows! And i really think that hiding is too imba.. if we just do these simple changes might get better

Paluke wrote:

If they cannot swap, they can't eat out off two hands!

Exactly. I was thinking of not allowing the swapping of close combat options during a scenario (and worded the point that way), not restricting "shields for missiles use," which is a WHFB core rule - however, the intent of WHFB rule is to allow units with 2h weapons to use a shield for missile fire (since that's when it's mentioned), not to allow dual-wield units to swap between shields and an off-hand weapon. If, per the Mordheim Rules Review, we only allow a model to carry two HtH items and a back-up dagger, this is preserved by disallowing swapping to the back-up dagger unless the primary weapon is taken away. A model with a 2h weapon and shield can still swap between shield-during-shooting and 2h-weapon-during-HtH, however, a model with 1h weapon and shield cannot decide to pull out his back-up dagger during HtH (unless the primary weapon is taken away during the scenario).

So, I think our goal is shifting a bit:

Whereas I have been trying to equalize DW and shield statistically, what we must also do and so should consider immediately is how to restrict DW/sh switching. I like Wyld's approach generally, but I don't want to feel restricted, especially if those restrictions are less than awesome.

I feel with Wyld's proposal you'll see maybe 2 shield wielding henchmen in a 12 member warband for intercepts and everyone else (all heroes) DWing still. I think we should come up with some awesome shield skills to encourage heroes to wield shields. (Other than later in development when they have money for real armor).

Strength: Shield Bash: The warrior may use his shield as an off-hand weapon.
Strength: Bulldoze: The warrior may push his opponent back with his shield up to a number of inches equal to his strength. The warrior and his opponent remain in base contact but all other combatants are left behind. An opponent ending this movement close to a ledge must take an initiative test or fall.
Combat: Fend Off: The warrior wielding a shield makes his attacks before wounds are resolved against him in close combat.
Combat: Shield Master: The warrior wielding a shield may cancel one of his opponents attacks (Shield Master's choice) down to a minimum of one.

EDIT:
Speed: Pack Rat: The warrior may carry two weapons and a shield and switch between them while not in combat. Declare which equipment you are using when a charge is declared (by or against you.)

So, here's another interesting thing... If you use penalties to Off-hand weapons... what about mutants with 3 hands? Do they have 1 or 2 "Off-hand" weapons? Do they ignore this rule since they are mutants?

Svenn wrote:

So, here's another interesting thing... If you use penalties to Off-hand weapons... what about mutants with 3 hands? Do they have 1 or 2 "Off-hand" weapons? Do they ignore this rule since they are mutants?

I was thinking about mutants yesterday in terms of two shields... yuk, probably should be a hard limit of one shield. However, I would think three weapons means two off-hand attacks.

ts061282 wrote:

Svenn wrote:

So, here's another interesting thing... If you use penalties to Off-hand weapons... what about mutants with 3 hands? Do they have 1 or 2 "Off-hand" weapons? Do they ignore this rule since they are mutants?

I was thinking about mutants yesterday in terms of two shields... yuk, probably should be a hard limit of one shield. However, I would think three weapons means two off-hand attacks.

Seems like a bit of a nerf to mutants then. You have to pay quite a bit for those mutations, and then purchase weapons for that hand... only to have a penalty on it?

Svenn wrote:

ts061282 wrote:

Svenn wrote:

So, here's another interesting thing... If you use penalties to Off-hand weapons... what about mutants with 3 hands? Do they have 1 or 2 "Off-hand" weapons? Do they ignore this rule since they are mutants?

I was thinking about mutants yesterday in terms of two shields... yuk, probably should be a hard limit of one shield. However, I would think three weapons means two off-hand attacks.

Seems like a bit of a nerf to mutants then. You have to pay quite a bit for those mutations, and then purchase weapons for that hand... only to have a penalty on it?

A shield and two weapons might be more attractive... and the offhand skill. Conversely, great claw and scorpion tale both get substantially better. I do understand though, I have my own converted mutant with two hammers and an axe.

I've repeatedly stated a viewpoint that attacks granted by Special Rules should not be affected by off-hand restrictions. This includes Tail Fighting, Extra Arms, etc. I had already wondered about a dual-shielding Tail Fighters - I haven't seen any official comments on this edge case (I did search), and I'm in agreement that only one shield should give a benefit. A model may wield more, but only one will benefit.

The practical application of this with off-hand weapon penalties is that models with Extra Arms and Tail Fighting will always opt for weapons in the Extra Arms/Tails, and would possibly reserve the off-hand for a shield.

I'm still mulling over the shield skills. Regardless of our balancing act, having a few shield skills would be nice for options. My initial reaction on Shield Bash is "hey, have a shield and an attack too!" which means that everyone who can would get it. But not allowing a Shield Bash skill is almost a crime to the fantasy genre, so there's gotta be some way to do it proper. I don't think we want to duplicate Bull Rush with a shield either (not that ts did, but I've seen it proposed before). More later...

I believe there is a shield bash in Lustria for the NOrse or was it a something else?

Da Bank wrote:

I believe there is a shield bash in Lustria for the NOrse or was it a something else?

Norse Skill: Shield Master: Shield gives a parry + save.

wyldhunt wrote:

My initial reaction on Shield Bash is "hey, have a shield and an attack too!" which means that everyone who can would get it.

It is a good skill, but a shield doesn't have any special rules other than it's save, you could argue Step Aside is better. That and if you were wielding two weapons, you could take a skill that better benefits them, so if you want to attack with a shield you are a skill behind in terms of becoming that close combat monster. Speaking of which, why would anyone take the offhand skill (no -1 st offhand) when they can just take Mighty Blow (+1 st in cc)? Unless they already have it and are a 2x dwing mutant/tail fighter.

EDIT: Also, remember the off-hand shield attack is at -1 st.

EDIT2: I do like the idea of dagger penalty going to -1 st, makes just as much sense as +1 AS, people just won't be used to it, and like you said, then it can't crit off-hand against even up st toughness (needing a 6 to wound) nor can it crit away it's own drawback.