dual wield and chance

Shield Bash makes still shield far to good – As I said earlier, a -1 to hit for one of the opponents attack would be much more appropriate.

I actually like that the wording of Shield Bash doesn't specify critical or not - leave that to the off-hand rules.

Regarding what HtH items warriors can have: they can have normally have up to three HtH items, one of them being the beginning dagger. This is from the Mordheim Rules Review. Without violating the spirit of the rule, I would allow special daggers (like a Gromril Dagger, or the Jewelled Dagger from the Exploration charts) to be substituted for the beginning dagger. Also, it seems that the Extra Arms and Tail Fighting special rules must also allow the model to carry one extra weapon/shield per Extra Arm and/or Tail.

popmouth wrote:

I'd rather think a warrior has trained with a certain setup and therefore may not swap.

I'm still more for not allowing models to switch HtH items during play, but there are many who are for allowing this. My reasons for not allowing it is clarity and speed of play, along with the justification popmouth stated. However, since models can freely switch between missile and HtH weapons, swap between shields and 2h items between player turns, and are allowed to swap from pistols to other HtH weapons even in the same combat, it is hard to fully justify restricting this.

Yes, Shield Bind is a better name for that skill. So, Shield Master and Shield Bind? I'm thinking only one shield skill should be usable during any single player's turn (not round, but turn). I did look for other ideas of using shields, but without going MMORPG or superhero comic, didn't really come up with any. An idea of did occur of Shield Block: (Combat skill) the warrior receives an extra +1 AS vs shooting attacks. Maybe it would work, however, Middenheimers would love this skill way too much...

Popmouth wrote:

Shield Bash makes still shield far to good – As I said earlier, a -1 to hit for one of the opponents attack would be much more appropriate.

That's where ts061282's wording was very appropriate. Whatever off-hand penalty is used for DW applies fully to the Shield Bash. If the DW off-hand penalty is sufficient, then Shield Bash should be OK. Notice that, as ts016282 said, Shield Bash doesn't receive any special weapon effects. The effect of this skill would be you get a weapon, suffering from the DW off-hand penalty, which also grants some protection. It's the suffering from the DW off-hand penalty that balances it, in my opinion.

I think popmouth's concern was that essentially you are allowing a player to dual wield with a shield, which is pretty powerful. I would say that this kind of balances with the facts that
1) It gets no special rules like Parry, -1 Armor Save, etc.
2) It's a skill, which means that only heroes can have it and it requires them to use up a skill on it. It's fairly powerful, but more so than existing skills?

Popmouth wrote:

Shield Bash makes still shield far to good

This is the same as adding a skill that gives off-hand weapons a 5+ AS, which is what Step Aside is, except Step Aside can't be negated, so really Step Aside would be better than Shield Bash. You can say it's "far to good", but you haven't made an argument that it is, so I don't know what else I can say.

If you mean that a hero who takes Shield Bash would always use a shield, then yes, that's the point. There's a thin line between a shield being too good and exactly good enough.


------------------------------

Current Proposed Off-hand Total Solution:

Shield -> 5+ as w/ hand weapon
Off-hand penalty: -1 St
Add two skills:
Strength: Maniac Warrior: The warrior suffers no penalty while wielding an off-hand weapon.
Strength: Shield Bash: The warrior may use a shield as an off-hand weapon.

In addition to the above changes, I'm a fan of giving 2h weapons the same bonuses as their base counterparts (ie 2h swords get parry). Thoughts?

Svenn wrote:

In addition to the above changes, I'm a fan of giving 2h weapons the same bonuses as their base counterparts (ie 2h swords get parry). Thoughts?

A weapon that is so cumbersome that it always strikes last is able to parry?

Well, maybe you have a point – still combining shield bash (dual wield) and step aside and you have one hell of a hard killed killing machine... maybe I'm wrong, and also, maybe the combination would be so rare so the problem wouldn't be that great. You still want those other skills.
I just don't see way the shield bash seems necessary, I think or main problem is that in Mordheim it's quite hard to defend yourself, whiles attacking and killing is far more easier (maybe this is not a problem, maybe this is just the charm with the game), so I thought that the negating one of the opponents attacks with -1 to hit would make it a more defensive skill (not taking the old philosophy "the best defense is attack" in mind).

Some dual wield swords would be no problem to parry with (say Japanese swords and such) though the Mordheim is in general (really) huge blades... Don't think that a Great Axe needs the extra -1AS either, I mean, come on, -3AS in total?

Well, as I see it now, people rarely use 2h weapons, even with the changes to off-hands we've been using. It's still just not worth it to lose the extra attack from dual wield. If anything, people use 1h and shield instead of dual wielding. It's a little better with people who have more than 1 profile attack, but still they seem to be pretty rare. Don't forget that they are also 5 times as expensive as a mace, which by itself will give you 2 attacks (combined with the free dagger) and extra stunning power.

Any other suggestions on something to bring 2h in line with the other stuff?

I like two-hand weapons.

cianty wrote:

I like two-hand weapons.

Me to
It might be hard then you miss, but its worth for the easy wound check!

cianty wrote:

I like two-hand weapons.

Even at only +2 str with strike last, when you could potentially be getting +1A, 2 additional effects (parry, concussion, etc), AND not strike last?

When I say I like them, then I mean it. After playing the game for 10 years I do know the rules.

What's +1 attack worth when you only wound your enemy at 6+, don't cause criticals so in the unlikely event that you get a wound through AND your opponent fails his Step Aside, then he passes his armour save roll. 2-handed weapons are good, especially late game and on models who have the apropriate stats/skills/equipment.

Just some quick numbers...

EDIT: My Math is wrong. >_< Disregard this, working on finding the real numbers...

Assuming 2 average warriors (3ws, 3str, 3t, 1a) with a single weapon:
Chance to hit is 3/6 (4+) = 50%
Wound roll is 3/6 (4+) = 50%
Total chance to hit and then wound is 50% * 50% = 25%.

Now, use the same warriors with a double-hand weapon and you get
Chance to hit is 3/6 (4+) = 50%
Wound roll is 5/6 (2+) = 83.33%
Total chance to hit and then wound is 50% * 83.33% = 41.66%.

And same warriors with dual wield (-1Str to offhand):
Chance to hit: 27/36 = 75%
Chance to wound: 24/36 = 66.66%
Total chance to hit and then wound is 75% * 66.66% = 50%. Plus additional chance for a second wound. In addition these get extra bonuses (parry/concussion/etc).

Then add in the fact that you strike last, which means you have to somehow survive attacks to the point where you can even get the chance to attack back. If Dual Wield has a 50% chance to wound you before you get to attack back, then you're looking at essentially 50% * 41.66% = 20.83% chance to wound someone after you add in your chance of surviving long enough to get to attack.

cianty wrote:

What's +1 attack worth when you only wound your
enemy at 6+, don't cause criticals so in the unlikely event that you
get a wound through AND your opponent fails his Step Aside, then he
passes his armour save roll. 2-handed weapons are good, especially late
game and on models who have the apropriate stats/skills/equipment.

Fair enough, but this seems like a very specialized situation... IF you need 6s to wound your enemy AND your opponent has Step Aside AND has armor... THEN maybe double hand will be better. Also, keep in mind that 1h axes have a -1 AS penalty so using an axe would bring the 2h benefit to only -1 extra to AS (but still 2 better for wounding). Lemme do some quick numbers...

Attacker: 3WS, 3STR, 5T, 2A, 5+ AS
Defender: 3WS, 3STR, 5T, 2A, 5+ AS
Chance to hit with double hand: 27/36 = 75%
Chance to wound with double hand: 27/36 = 75%
Armor Save = 7+ = 100% chance to make it through
Total chance to wound at least once: 75% * 75% = 56.25%

Chance to hit with dual wield: 189/216 = 87.5%
Chance to wound with dual wield: 91/216 = 42.13%
Armor Save = 5+ = 208/216 = 96.3% chance to make it through
Total Chance to wound at least once: 87.5% * 42.13% * 96.3% = 35.5%

If you figure in the chance that the double handed will be wounded (thus unable to attack back) before his turn then his chance to wound is 56.25% * 64.5% = 36.28% Also, keep in mind that I didn't add in the 1h weapon bonuses either. If one or both of those are axes then the chance for an armor save is decreased making dual wield edge out double handed weapons. If one of those is a sword, then that's even less chance for double hand to hit, meaning dual wield wins again.

EDIT: My initial numbers were wrong. It looks like in this case, double handed weapons are just about even with dual wielding. It looks like double hand weapons are worse than dual wield early on and just about on par with them late game.

One thing I propose... when we are testing out new ideas we need to create at least like 3-4 different cases at various extremes and not always go with the basic even characters. As you can see above, things might scale differently at different extremes and those extremes need to be tested for balance.

For future reference to anyone trying to calculate percentages to hit/wound...

A = num attacks
M = MISS value with one dice (so 5+ to succeed is 4 to miss, 3+ to succeed is 2 to miss)

(6^A - M^A)/6^A = Percentage to succeed

So, If you need 3+ to hit and 5+ to wound with 2 attacks...
To hit is:
(6^2 -2^2)/6^2 = (36 - 4)/36 = 32/36 chance to hit once with 2 dice
To wound is:
(6^2 - 4^2)/6^2 = (36 - 16)/36 = 20/36 chance to wound once with 2 dice

Take a Middenheimer champion ST4 add a double handed weapon +2ST give him Strongman and Mighty blow, so in a fight you have a warrior who ignores strike last and has a weapon strength of 7. it may take a few games to get there but the end result is one tough cookie

Yeah. I don't care for all those numbers and percentages. It is a fact that gromril weapons, double-handed weapons and axes are simply necessary if you have enemies with Resilient and awesome armour.

conan the ballbearing wrote:

Take a Middenheimer champion ST4 add a double handed weapon +2ST give him Strongman and Mighty blow, so in a fight you have a warrior who ignores strike last and has a weapon strength of 7. it may take a few games to get there but the end result is one tough cookie

EDIT: My Math is wrong. >_< Disregard this, working on finding the real numbers...
Sure, he's pretty tough. Against anyone lower than toughness 5 though, his str bonus is pointless. On top of that, what skills could you have taken to improve your dual wield character in place of those 2? Give the dual wield guy Mighty Blow and Expert Swordsman.

Let's pit those 2 against each other:
Base Stats: WS3, ST4, T4, A2, 5+ AS
With Dual wield (Main: Axe, Off: Sword), Mighty Blow, and Expert Swordsman: WS3, ST5, T4, A2, 5+AS
To Hit: 189/216 = 87.5% chance to hit + re-rolling missed sword attacks (which I won't calculate right now)
To Wound: 202/216 = 93.52%
Armor Save: 7+ = 100% pass through
Total: 81.83%

With Double Hand, Mighty Blow, and Strongman: WS3, ST7, T4, A2, 5+AS
To Hit: 27/36 = 75% (Not including the parry chance)
To Wound: 35/36 = 97.22%
Armor Save: 9+ = 100% pass through
Total: 75% * 97.22% = 72.92%

That's NOT including the re-rolls for Expert Swordsman OR the parry chance for the dual wielder.

Let's pitt them against a separate model:
Defender: WS3, T5, AS3+, Resilient

Attacker: Dual wield (Main: Axe, Off: Sword), Mighty Blow: WS3, ST5, T4, A2, 5+AS
To Hit: 189/216 = 87.5% chance to hit
To Wound: 152/216 = 70.37%
Armor Save: 6+ = 215/216 = 99.54% pass through
Tota: 87.5% * 70.37% * 99.54% = 61.29% NOT including re-rolls from expert swordsman

Double Hand, Mighty Blow, and Strongman: WS3, ST7, T4, A2, 5+AS
To Hit: 27/36 = 75%
To Wound: 32/36 = 88.88%
Armor Save: 7+ = 100% pass through
Total: 75% * 88.88% = 66.66%

cianty, a 5% increase in double handed weapons against a T5 guy with 3+ armor save and resilience over dual wielding, and that's NOT including the fact that a) the dual wielder also gets a parry and b) the double hander has taken TWO skills and the dual wielder only has one. How necessary is that double handed weapon? It just BARELY edges out a dual wielder in an extreme case of someone who is super hard to hit.

Well, you don't have to assume that both models have an equal number of advances or even skills. This balance is lost after very few battles anyways. Models gain advances, skills and new equipment at totally different rates. Especially with Strongman they are pretty good. +1 Attack vs +2 Strength, sometimes the latter is better. The more attacks you already have, the better the 2-handed-weapon obviously so they are viable late game options.

Some people like to give 2-handed-weapons to weak models in even starting warbands like Youngbloods and Necromancers and let them join the fighting only to take out knocked down and stunned models.

cianty wrote:

Well, you don't have to assume that both models have an equal number of advances or even skills. This balance is lost after very few battles anyways. Models gain advances, skills and new equipment at totally different rates. Especially with Strongman they are pretty good. +1 Attack vs +2 Strength, sometimes the latter is better. The more attacks you already have, the better the 2-handed-weapon obviously so they are viable late game options.

Some people like to give 2-handed-weapons to weak models in even starting warbands like Youngbloods and Necromancers and let them join the fighting only to take out knocked down and stunned models.

I'm assuming you took the exact same model and along the way went two different directions. You can choose which skills to take along the way, so if you give him a double hand weapon and appropriate skills (Mighty Blow and Strongman) then he ends up with one percentage to wound an enemy. If you were to take the exact same model with the same advances and go a different route with his skills and weapons and give him dual wielding and supplementary skills, then he is better off in almost all circumstances except rare cases where double handed weapons might just barely edge him out. Make sense?

Does this mean that double handed weapons have NO use whatsoever? Not quite. It does mean that the only real reason to take double handed weapons is for fluff/to change things up a bit, or for perhaps a VERY very specialized role. However, in almost all cases, you are better off just giving that same guy two weapons and skipping the strongman skill as he will perform better than a double handed guy with or without strongman.

I think the whole point here is that dual wield, 2h, and weap/shield should be close enough that no choice is far greater or far worse than the others, but each has their own specific uses. With the changes we've already proposed dual wield and weap/shield have been brought pretty close to being in line with each other to the point where neither is significantly more powerful than the other (and thus the clear choice). Double handed weapons aren't there yet. Statistically they are far weaker than the other options and you are almost always better off using something else. They need something to get them up to the point where they have an area where they shine.

I don't want to derail your findings, but I was just wondering what would be the result of changing shields to be a flat out 6+ armor save and -1 to hit in hand to hand (not shooting, does not stack with fear effects).

Heres my basic findings:

Scenario 1
A = club/shield 3 WS, 3 Str, 3 Toughness
B = club/club 3 WS, 3 Str, 3 Toughness

(no charges, not counting crits)
A = 4+ to hit, 4+ to wound = 25% to roll injury
B = (5+ to hit, 4+ to wound, 6+ save)x2 = (13.9% to roll injury)x2 = ~24% to roll injury, 2% chance to roll 2x injury

Scenario 2
A = club/shield 3 WS, 3 Str, 3 Toughness, 2 attacks
B = club/club 3 WS, 3 Str, 3 Toughness, 2 attacks

(no charges, not counting crits)
A = (4+ to hit, 4+ to wound)x2 = (25% to roll injury)x2 = ~38% to roll injury, ~6% chance to roll 2x injury (56% chance to whiff)
B = (5+ to hit, 4+ to wound, 6+ save)x3 = (13.9% to roll injury)x2 = ~3X% to roll injury, ?% chance to roll 2x injury, 2% chance to roll 3x injury (64% chance to whiff). Sorry don't want to get into the math here but its close enough ^^)


Shields would be alot more useful. Possible changes could be -1 to hit only in first round of hth, -1 to hit only when charged, etc. -1 to hit vs shooting would be unfair as it would completely negate shooting until a few BS upgrades (which isn't possible on henchmen). A diff save vs shooting may work just fine. Knocked down models are autohit thus don't get the -1 to hit feature, which makes sense.

Other perks:

-1 to hit with a shield would mean an attacker who rolled a 6 actually rolled a 5. Sword & shield could also always parry. A hero with WS 5, sword, and shield, vs a WS 2 henchmen with dual wielding... Henchmen would need 6's to hit, and would be parried on a 6. Chance to hit at least once went from 56% (1-(1-(2/6)^2) to 25% (1-(1-(1/6*5/6))^2). Thus making high weapon skill alot more useful than it used to be.

By modifying the to-hit factor instead of the to-wound factor, your making shields that much more useful vs crits. A model which cannot hit, cannot crit. Even at -1 str for dual wielding that doesn't matter much if the chance to crit is the same (And for all intensive purposes, crits are what gets the job done).

Models with higher weapon skill get more out of the shield than models with lower weapon skill. Makes sense to me.

The gc price for shields is irrelevent IMO, as the actual price of a shield is not the gold crowns invested but the opportunity costs of not having an additional attack.

Does it need to be tested? Not really. Just play against carnival of chaos. They have cloud of flies which does the same thing (for free). There is also a counter - dueling pistols/expert swordsmen. They'll eat through shields no problem.

I'm curious on what you other fellas think about this way of looking at dual wielding. Don't nerf dual wielding - improve other opportunities! (Bucklers could use some love too).

rain, your numbers are wrong.

Quote :

Scenario 1
A = club/shield 3 WS, 3 Str, 3 Toughness
B = club/club 3 WS, 3 Str, 3 Toughness

(no charges, not counting crits)
A = 4+ to hit, 4+ to wound = 25% to roll injury
B = (5+ to hit, 4+ to wound, 6+ save)x2 = (13.9% to roll injury)x2 = ~24% to roll injury, 2% chance to roll 2x injury

For B, it's not a simple times 2... Check out the earlier posts. The actual percentage here:
B = 45.57% chance to get at least 1 injury roll and 4.63% chance that you'll get 2 injury rolls.
That's an extra 20% more than the club/shield.

There are 36 possibilities when rolling 2 dice, NOT 12 possibilities. Both A and B for scenario 2 are incorrect as well.

(5+ to hit, 4+ to wound, 6+ save) x2:
let x = (2/6 * 3/6 * 5/6) = chance to roll serious injury
(1-x) = chance to whiff
(1-x)^2 = chance to whiff twice
let y = 1 - ((1-x)^2) = chance to deal 1 or 2 serious injuries
x^2 = chance to roll 2 serious injuries
1 - y - x^2 = chance to roll 1 serious injury.

So x = 0.1388
Chance to whiff twice = .7416
Chance to roll 2 serious injuries = 0.0192
Chance to roll 1 serious injury = 0.2392

Not following you on where I went wrong here.

rain9441 wrote:

(5+ to hit, 4+ to wound, 6+ save) x2:
let x = (2/6 * 3/6 * 5/6) = chance to roll serious injury
(1-x) = chance to whiff
(1-x)^2 = chance to whiff twice
let y = 1 - ((1-x)^2) = chance to deal 1 or 2 serious injuries
x^2 = chance to roll 2 serious injuries
1 - y - x^2 = chance to roll 1 serious injury.

So x = 0.1388
Chance to whiff twice = .7416
Chance to roll 2 serious injuries = 0.0192
Chance to roll 1 serious injury = 0.2392

Not following you on where I went wrong here.

EDIT: My Math is wrong. >_< Disregard this, working on finding the real numbers...

Look at the first post. You are correct when doing this for a single die. When you add in a second die, you can't simply multiply the percentage times 2. That doesn't work.
When rolling a single die, a 4+ roll gives you a 3/6 chance to hit. When rolling two dice at 4+, you have 27/36 chance to hit... NOT (3/6) * 2. Also, look at your numbers... chance to roll 2 injuries = 0.0192 and chance to roll 1 injury is 0.2392. That's a total of 0.2584. Your chance to roll a single injury is 0.1388 and you multiply that by 2 to get 0.2776 which is pretty far off your other numbers.

Here: 5+ to hit with 2 dice possible outcomes
[ 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]
So your chance to hit at least once is 20 out of 36.

And chance to wound with 2 dice at 4+:
[ 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]
That's 27 out of 36.

And chance to make it past the armor save of 6+ with 2 dice:
[ 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]
That's 35 out of 36 that at least one dice will make it through.

Multiply all that together:
20/36 * 27/36 * 35/36 = 40.51% chance for at least one injury roll (I was a little off above)

You're numbers would be correct if you were situation was to have one attack and every time you rolled d6 you instead rolled "2d6 and pick the highest". This is not the case.