dual wield and chance

ts061282 wrote:

I would think focusing on balancing for 1-2 attacks is crucial; 3-4 attacks should be looked at but not a guiding situation. I'd like some second opinions about the end game equipment selections as well. Halberds/DHW for everyone? 5+ shields worthless?

Agree that 1-2 attack is crucial. 3-4 attacks should considered, but not crucial.

There are three types of extreme equipment options:
1. Max DW: 2xSwords, Sigmarite Warhammers, Fighting Claws and the like. Mighty Blow where possible, skills with increased attacks at times.
2. Max Strength: Double-handed weapons with Mighty Blow and Strongman.
3. Max Tank: Gromril+Shield+Sword, possibly mounted

Max DW will likely be high-Strength lower-Attack models, or those designed to take on targets with multiple wounds. Weapons are likely to be paired weapons, or strong weapon combos with extra desirable effects (like Sigmarite Warhammer and Steel Whip).

Max Strength will likely be high-Attack models, especially those who can also get Strength skills. Equipment-wise, the most extreme will have Double-handed weapons with Mighty Blow and Strongman (but, according to a friend who is a longtime player, the ones who don't want to spend a skill getting Strongman, and are designed to hit hard beyond the first charge, will use Halberd instead). It's quite possible that these models will have Heavy Armor.

Max Tank will likely be valuable models with access to money, specialty shooters (Hunting Rifle types), riders, and those designed to absorb charges. They'll have Gromril+Shield, using Sword (or possibly Spear if high Initiative).

----------

My son and I have reset our warbands in order to playtest some new campaign rules our group is formulating. We made ten warbands in this test. After playtesting the DW rules below, I've found the following preferences for equipping starting warbands:

1. Models which start with S4 will DW, getting an offhand mace/etc. if gc permits.
2. Youngbloods will get swords/shields.
3. Other models will get maces/shields when gc permits, going with maces/daggers when gc doesn't permit a shield.

This feels okay to me (not "just right," but okay). The stronger, more offensive warriors go for effective DW, the better-funded go for defense, and the poor go for whatever they can get. I don't know though, I'd like to see the poor stuck with one weapon - maybe using DW without a skill or raised characteristic should give a penalty to main-hand attacks.

DW rules:
1. Armor Save roll of 1 always fails.
2. Shield+weapon grants +1 AS in HtH.
3. Offhand attacks suffer -1 Strength.
4. Dagger penalty is -1 Strength (rather than granting opponent +1 Armor Save)

--------
Did anyone else pick up on another dagger penalty in Matumaros's post? This one: "-1 Injuries: All wounds inflicted with this weapon suffer a -1 on the following roll for Injuries"

That's not in the Mordheim Living Rules Book from 2004 (my original rulesbook is packed away for posteriy), and I'm not finding a reference to it in a Rules Review or FAQ - of course, it's always likely I've missed it somehow. Is this an official rules change I missed, an older rule, or a house rule?

wyldhunt wrote:

Agree that 1-2 attack is crucial. 3-4 attacks should considered, but not crucial.

I can't update the original spreadsheet at the moment (forthcoming), but here are some numbers. Assumptions: Off-hand penalty of -1 St, Shield save of 5+, 23% chance hit is -1 AS (chance hit is st 4, not included for off-hands due to -1 St), 11% chance wound negates all armor (crits negating AS), even stats (including attacks!), these are REAL percentages, not my quick math, so beware, these really mean something!

Attacks			Oppo		Average % to Wound Gained/Lost
1	Adv/Disadv DW->Sh		DW	Sh
	Charging		-12.50%	-9.56%
	Charged		-5.45%	-5.97%
	Average		-8.97%	-7.76%	-8.37%
Attacks			Oppo
2	Adv/Disadv DW->Sh		DW	Sh
	Charging		-9.38%	-7.79%
	Charged		0.76%	-0.96%
	Average		-4.31%	-4.38%	-4.34%
Attacks			Oppo
3	Adv/Disadv DW->Sh		DW	Sh
	Charging		-7.03%	-6.35%
	Charged		4.85%	2.81%
	Average		-1.09%	-1.77%	-1.43%
Attacks			Oppo
4	Adv/Disadv DW->Sh		DW	Sh
	Charging		-5.27%	-5.18%
	Charged		7.23%	5.35%
	Average		0.98%	0.09%	0.53%

Many edits later ...

So basically it doesn't matter how many attacks you have, you always want DW until you want Halberd/DHW (at 3-4 attacks and depending on WS), EVEN with our much labored over changes. Ok, so maybe you want a henchmen with a shield to take the charge of that vampire with 3 attacks, but this and any other similar situation is fringe.

I've taken a look at pegging off-hand at 6 to hit and making off-hand attacks first round of hth only. These were also insufficient. Leading me to the conclusion NO SINGLE, SIMPLE PENALTY TO OFF-HAND IS SUFFICIENT TO BALANCE DUAL WIELD AND SHIELDS.

I don't know if this idea has been brought up already, but on the subject of dual-wielding my friends and I play that a model which wields 2 or more weapons has -1 WS all the time in CC. This doesn't usually affect their chances to hit others (the charts are weird like that), but it DOES usually mean that they're easier to be hit themselves. So we've kind of turned it into a risk/reward type of situation, and I'm very satisfied with how things have turned out thus far.

Of course, dual wielding isn't the only thing we've modified. Armor is also ~20% cheaper and shields are significantly better. Armor is an enticing option in our campaign which helps tip the balance away from dual-wield fiestas.

I haven't really done any number crunching, so I don't know exactly how this affects the odds, but it seems to work so it's not exactly on top of my to-do list. However, if anyone is interested enough to do some number crunching I'd be most interested.

Just thought I'd throw it out there.

wyldhunt wrote:

Did anyone else pick up on another dagger penalty in Matumaros's post? This one: "-1 Injuries: All wounds inflicted with this weapon suffer a -1 on the following roll for Injuries"

That's not in the Mordheim Living Rules Book from 2004 (my original rulesbook is packed away for posteriy), and I'm not finding a reference to it in a Rules Review or FAQ - of course, it's always likely I've missed it somehow. Is this an official rules change I missed, an older rule, or a house rule?

Yes, -1 to injuries is an house rule I use for daggers... much like I use +1 injuries for handguns.
Mordheim provides us another "level" of combat rolls (compared with WHFB and WH40K) we can tool with and I found that useful in balancing weapons.
I feel balancing DW and combat in general passes through a minor revision of weapons. Also, and this taking into account the eventual S modifications, I think Mighty blow and Resilient should be eliminated as skills, being quite the stuff people are always gonna take, moving the balance of games.
I'll never want my beasties without those skills unleashed against enemy beasties that already got 'em, and this more or less applies to all CC oriented bands facing each other... not to say that said skills tend to augment the CC gap between CC oriented bands and "other" oriented bands.
Just throwing inputs anyway.

Avarice wrote:

I don't know if this idea has been brought up already... -1 WS all the time in CC.

Yes it has, but since you asked nicely:

Attacks			Oppo		Average % to Wound Gained/Lost
1	Adv/Disadv DW->Sh		DW	Sh
	Charging		-10.42%	-14.34%
	Charged		-2.22%	-6.82%
	Average		-6.32%	-10.58%	-8.45%
Attacks			Oppo
2	Adv/Disadv DW->Sh		DW	Sh
	Charging		-2.26%	-11.69%
	Charged		6.03%	2.19%
	Average		1.89%	-4.75%	-1.43%
Attacks			Oppo
3	Adv/Disadv DW->Sh		DW	Sh
	Charging		2.01%	-9.53%
	Charged		9.78%	8.42%
	Average		5.90%	-0.55%	2.67%
Attacks			Oppo
4	Adv/Disadv DW->Sh		DW	Sh
	Charging		3.98%	-7.77%
	Charged		11.10%	12.09%
	Average		7.54%	2.16%	4.85%

Matumaros wrote:

I think Mighty blow and Resilient should be eliminated as skills, being quite the stuff people are always gonna take, moving the balance of games.

Now here's an original thought. I agree with the principal. We could completely alter the flow of the game by modifying only the skills and leaving every other rule alone. (Except henchmen DW )

...Back to -1 WS all attacks for the off-hand penalty... this is more interesting if combined with -1 St Off-hand (note: hard to add to a post with a table at the bottom!) Then again, many double penalties for off-hand could be interesting.

Attacks			Oppo		Average % to Wound Gained/Lost
1	Adv/Disadv DW->Sh		DW	Sh
	Charging		-4.17%	-9.56%
	Charged		0.55%	-3.63%
	Average		-1.81%	-6.59%	-4.20%
Attacks			Oppo
2	Adv/Disadv DW->Sh		DW	Sh
	Charging		2.43%	-7.79%
	Charged		7.69%	3.92%
	Average		5.06%	-1.94%	1.56%
Attacks			Oppo
3	Adv/Disadv DW->Sh		DW	Sh
	Charging		5.53%	-6.35%
	Charged		10.85%	9.36%
	Average		8.19%	1.51%	4.85%
Attacks			Oppo
4	Adv/Disadv DW->Sh		DW	Sh
	Charging		6.61%	-5.18%
	Charged		11.87%	12.61%
	Average		9.24%	3.71%	6.48%

@ts061282:

I'm not following what those percentages mean. (Including headers, A1 being Upper Left) C3 says -4.17%. Does that mean a shield user charging a dual wield user has a 4.17% less chance to wound? 4.17% less than what? If dual wield has a 10% chance and shield is -5% thats a 100% difference (10% to 5%), whereas 55% to 50% is only a 10% difference. I think we need both numbers to make a judgement. C4 says 0.55%, so a dual wielder charging a shield has roughly the same odds of wounding as the opponent?

Brief explanation is needed.

rain9441 wrote:

@ts061282:

I'm not following what those percentages mean. (Including headers, A1 being Upper Left) C3 says -4.17%. Does that mean a shield user charging a dual wield user has a 4.17% less chance to wound? 4.17% less than what? If dual wield has a 10% chance and shield is -5% thats a 100% difference (10% to 5%), whereas 55% to 50% is only a 10% difference. I think we need both numbers to make a judgement. C4 says 0.55%, so a dual wielder charging a shield has roughly the same odds of wounding as the opponent?

Brief explanation is needed.

I'm with rain here. I'm not fully sure what your numbers mean. We need a lot more than just the percentage of difference that it makes. We need to know what the actual percentages are for comparison. If dual wield has an 80% chance to wound someone and 1h and shield has 30% and then you drop dual wield by 5%... that's a lot different than if dual wield was 40% and you drop it 5%.

rain9441 wrote:

@ts061282:

I'm not following what those percentages mean. (Including headers, A1 being Upper Left) C3 says -4.17%. Does that mean a shield user charging a dual wield user has a 4.17% less chance to wound? 4.17% less than what? If dual wield has a 10% chance and shield is -5% thats a 100% difference (10% to 5%), whereas 55% to 50% is only a 10% difference. I think we need both numbers to make a judgement. C4 says 0.55%, so a dual wielder charging a shield has roughly the same odds of wounding as the opponent?

Brief explanation is needed.

These are the same as my previous numbers. It's [% to wound with shield] - [% to wound w/ DW]. I'll see if I can't post a more extensive spreadsheet when I get home tonight, but for example if 2 attacks gives dw 55% to wound and shield 45% to wound, the difference is -10%. This shows the raw disadvantage of choosing a shield over DW. These aren't percents of percents to wound, so 5-10% difference is pretty substantial when making decisions about equipment.

Extended example for 1 attack, with my original assumptions

Plain chance to wound >= once		Enemy
		DW	Sh
Charging	DW	37.50%	28.04%
	Sh	25.00%	18.48%
Charged	DW	23.44%	21.03%
	Sh	17.99%	15.07%
Adv/Disadv DW->Sh		Difference [DW-Sh]
Charging		-12.50%	-9.56%
Charged		-5.45%	-5.97%
Net		-8.97%	-7.76%	-8.37%

ts061282 wrote:

rain9441 wrote:

@ts061282:

I'm not following what those percentages mean. (Including headers, A1 being Upper Left) C3 says -4.17%. Does that mean a shield user charging a dual wield user has a 4.17% less chance to wound? 4.17% less than what? If dual wield has a 10% chance and shield is -5% thats a 100% difference (10% to 5%), whereas 55% to 50% is only a 10% difference. I think we need both numbers to make a judgement. C4 says 0.55%, so a dual wielder charging a shield has roughly the same odds of wounding as the opponent?

Brief explanation is needed.

These are the same as my previous numbers. It's [% to wound with shield] - [% to wound w/ DW]. I'll see if I can't post a more extensive spreadsheet when I get home tonight, but for example if 2 attacks gives dw 55% to hit and shield 45% to hit, the difference is -10%. This shows the raw disadvantage of choosing a shield over DW.

Aha, that makes more sense. Still though, 85% to 75% is different than 25% to 35% I think. Also, that's still only part of the picture... that's DW vs shield in a fight, but DW vs DW, shield vs shield, DW vs 2h, shield vs2h, etc all need to be considered as well.

Yes we are going to need the actual %'s that are used to calculate the difference to make a judgement.

Remember Svenn, DW vs DW is going to be equal grounds, DW vs 2h is going to be (if attacks > 2 then 2H else DW). Shield vs 2H is important though. I imagine most 2h would eat shields due to armor save modifiers. In current settings 2H > shield, so if you are only modifying DW then theres no point in argueing, 2H still > shield. (part of the reason I'm favoring the buffing shields approach).

Same as my initial numbers, but including real chances to wound for context (I don't think it is relevant to actual analysis, but since you all asked). Also note: the average of charge/charged is useful after the first round when attack order is randomized (Ini being equal).

Attacks
1			Enemy
			DW	Sh
	Charging	DW	37.50%	28.04%		% chance to wound at least once
		Sh	25.00%	18.48%
	Charged	DW	23.44%	21.03%
		Sh	17.99%	15.07%
	Adv/Disadv DW->Sh
	Charging		-12.50%	-9.56%
	Charged		-5.45%	-5.97%		Average % to wound gained/lost
	Average		-8.97%	-7.76%	-8.37%
2			Enemy
			DW	Sh
	Charging	DW	53.13%	41.34%
		Sh	43.75%	33.55%
	Charged	DW	24.90%	23.25%
		Sh	25.66%	22.29%
	Adv/Disadv DW->Sh
	Charging		-9.38%	-7.79%
	Charged		0.76%	-0.96%		Average % to wound gained/lost
	Average		-4.31%	-4.38%	-4.34%
3			Enemy
			DW	Sh
	Charging	DW	64.84%	52.18%
		Sh	57.81%	45.83%
	Charged	DW	22.80%	22.01%
		Sh	27.64%	24.83%
	Adv/Disadv DW->Sh
	Charging		-7.03%	-6.35%
	Charged		4.85%	2.81%		Average % to wound gained/lost
	Average		-1.09%	-1.77%	-1.43%
4			Enemy
			DW	Sh
	Charging	DW	73.63%	61.02%
		Sh	68.36%	55.84%
	Charged	DW	19.41%	19.31%
		Sh	26.65%	24.66%
	Adv/Disadv DW->Sh
	Charging		-5.27%	-5.18%
	Charged		7.23%	5.35%		Average % to wound gained/lost
	Average		0.98%	0.09%	0.53%

BTW... to calculate the odds of X attacks of [chance to hit] hitting at least once, the equation is

[total chance] = 1 - ( 1 - [chance to hit] ) ^ X

to combine varying odds of [chance to hit A] and [chance to hit B], the equation is

[total chance] = 1 - ( ( 1 - [chance to hit A] ) * ( 1 - [chance to hit B] ) )

and this can be expanded for any number of hits/odds.

Logically, these are the chances to miss your chances to miss all attacks.

That would be the formula that I'm using here
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AiTHwqnK9kmGdGhMZmhia2l1a1hTeGotZ1ZheXRMdVE&hl=en

Modifiable spreadsheet, formula bar can be viewed by selecting View -> Formula Bar. (I didn't know I could see your formulas Svenn!)

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AlnDGzTHCWDndDJqano0TWxibHhrYlIyMTMybS1MTUE&hl=en

Well time to dissect the numbers now...

the (#%/#%) notation i'm using here is to dictate charger's chance to roll injury compared to chargee's chance to roll injury. So (30%/20%) means the charger has a 30% chance to injure and chargee has a 20% chance to injure. All rounded to nearest integer.

1A DW charging Shld: (28%/18%) Favors DW
1A Shld charging DW: (25%/21%) Favors Shld

2A DW charging Shld: (41%/26%) Favors DW
2A Shld charging DW: (44%/23%) Favors Shld

3A DW charging Shld: (52%/28%) Favors DW
3A Shld charging DW: (58%/22%) Favors Shld

4A DW charging Shld: (61%/27%) Favors DW
4A Shld charging DW: (68%/19%) Favors Shld

So using your numbers here is what I can assert:

1) Regardless of DW or sield, the charger has the advantage (Good!)
2) The bearer of the shield has significantly better odds of survival and opportunities for retaliation than the DW (Great!)
3) At 2, 3, or 4 attacks, the benefits of shields outweigh the benefits of dual wield (Will discuss)
4) No assessment can be made for models with 2h'ers. A model with a double hander/flail and 3 attacks in the above scenario (4+ to hit, 2+ to wound) would probably have somewhere around 80% chance to roll injury on the charge. A halberd would be 70% chance. With 4 attacks its 88%/80% respectively. So shields are left behind at that point.

Now about point #3, shields outweighing dual wield at 2-4 attacks... This seems like the wrong path to go to me. It's relatively simple, at the start of the campaign dual wielding is going to still be (slightly) better than shields thus making double clubbers just as rampant (If everyone min/maxes). The shields can be put on designated chargees (sister novices for example, at 23 gc they make excelent meat shields -- club & shield). But you really only need 2 of 'em. You say you want to have less henchmen dual wielding but all you've done is make halberds, double handers & flails even more appealing once you get that utmost important (way moreso than before) +1 Attack advance.

About #4: The 2h weapons have always been best when you have multiple attacks, and have always been better than hw&shield. So if hw&shield > dual wield and 2h > hw&shield, then 2h still reigns supreme.

Now you've succeeded on making dual wield on par with alternatives at 1 profile attack, but you've nerfed dual wield into oblivion for 2 attacks or more. I was under the impression was that dual wield was 'overpowered' only when you have one attack (eg early campaign setting).

Is it an improvement over current settings? Probably. Points 1 and 2 are huge factors in my opinion. Being able to survive and tie up enemies in combat (The enemies which are probably fodder henchmen) or actually have the advantage on the charge while using shield is a huge asset. Would I play with these rules over current campaign rules? More than likely.

But I think you can do better.

I think the solution requires more than just an adjustment to offhand attacks. Without changing any other factors, you're making the flails too good.

Rain- Can you explain your assertion that "At 2, 3, or 4 attacks, the benefits of shields outweigh the benefits of dual wield". I'm not sure where this is coming from, my numbers clearly show DW outclasses shield until 4 attacks, and only then just barely takes the lead (between the two).

Sure, assuming 2 profile attacks:

A dual wielding model charging a shield bearing model has a 41.34% chance of rolling injury.
A shield bearing model charging a dual wielding model has a 43.75% chance of rolling injury.

A dual wielding model charged by a shield bearing model has a 23.25% chance of rolling an injury.
A shield bearing model charged by a dual wielding model has a 25.66% chance of rolling an injury.

In either case, the shield bearing model (charged or being charged) has higher odds of rolling a serious injury in the same circumstance. Those are your numbers.

I understand that a strength 4 or 5 model with dual wield will cancel the benefits of the shield's 5+ save and give dual wield more of an edge. The point I was trying to send to you was that the return on investment of dual wield graphed across the number of profile attacks creates a 1/x type curve and your strategy to deal with it (to shift it down) may not be the best solution.

Maybe consider a plan of action that changes that curve to a linear function such that the return on investment is n*X instead of n/x.

Rain- That's not the same circumstance. You're changing opponents so these aren't valid comparisons. Also, I cannot take credit for any of the particular changes we discuss. I see what you're saying about the curve, but I'm currently at a loss as to how to make it linear within the existing game rules that are both believable and acceptable by a majority of players.

My numbers don't need much elaboration, they emphatically show DW/Sh are still unbalanced with our changes. What might be drawn from them is that we must approach the problem differently, completely stripping DW from the game and adding it back in with skills and possibly advances. I think this exercise also shows that attack advances are significantly better than every other type of advance, on the order of 300%. (EDIT: That is, about 4x better than other advances: I, Ld, WS, etc.; on average.) Perhaps attack advances should be altogether replaced with a DW skill. This would also resolve the issue of 3+ attacks preferring DHW/halberd/flail as well. It seems like attack advances are an unbalancing factor in the game; the "other" reason not to group henchmen. (I'm sure some of you have campaign experience where one warband gets 2-3 attack advances and "takes off". Anneccotal comments to this effect would be appreciated.)

I like the ideas of expanding starting equipment options and expanding attractive skill options. If DW is made to be a basic skill, shield bash should be as well (perhaps with AS 5+ -> 6+) for parity.

If you don't change opponents you're going to end up a wash as both are equal so both have equal odds and opportunities. The only comparison is to consider the DW vs Shield probabilities.

Yes, attacks are the best upgrade. Attacks, strength, wounds, and toughness are the 4 big stats. It is no coincidence that the top 2 skills of choice in most mordheim groups is Mighty Blow and Resiliance, with a touch of Art of Silent Death, Tail fighting, and Quickshot. They all are equivalent of or mimic the attack, strength, and toughness traits!

Anyway, heres some food for thought since we are about to obscure this topic into the realm of off topic. Just something I put little to no thoguht into but maybe a quick sketch of how to approach this from a completely different angle.

For each profile attack, roll d6. For each die rolled, if the value is equal to or under your model's initiative (6 always fails), you may make one additional attack with your offhand weapon.

Now dual wielding henchmen with I3 have a 4+ chance of swinging twice.

This is an I*A dual wield return on investment curve now, where I is initiative and A is profile attacks! Ithilmar weapons just got a bit more desireable?

Again, food for thought, no significant evaluation of the concept occured, just threw in a bunch of variables =].

Quote :

I think Mighty blow and Resilient should be eliminated as skills, being quite the stuff people are always gonna take, moving the balance of games.

agreed, not much point in making skills that are simply stat advances

who can come up with two new strength skills. keep em short, simple and balanced

rain9441 wrote:

If you don't change opponents you're going to end up a wash as both are equal so both have equal odds and opportunities. The only comparison is to consider the DW vs Shield probabilities.

I'm not following. If you want to establish the value of dual wield vs shield you must compare them under the same circumstances (same opponent). Looking at the chance to wound with DW in one situation then shield in a different situation is meaningless. I am making the valid comparisons with my numbers already. They are not a wash. Either change the equipment used or change the opponent, but not both at once.

rain9441 wrote:

Yes, attacks are the best upgrade. Attacks, strength, wounds, and toughness are the 4 big stats.

Attacks are twice as good as strength/toughness (assuming 1 profile attack). I think wounds are overrated as they are used once per game (also making them troublesome to analyze).

rain9441 wrote:

For each profile attack, roll d6. For each die rolled, if the value is equal to or under your model's initiative (6 always fails), you may make one additional attack with your offhand weapon.

This is absolutely on topic and what we need more of: original ideas. I don't think it's a very good solution because it only makes multiple attakcs even better.

Well a few days of thinking and the only real possibility that comes to mind is to make shields directly cancel off-hand attacks. This balances dw and shield without further off-hand penalty for the most part (still prefer dw for raw chance to wound w/ one profile attack by about 5%). One step further might be for the shield to both declare which weapon is off-hand AND cancel it.

ts061282 wrote:

Well a few days of thinking and the only real possibility that comes to mind is to make shields directly cancel off-hand attacks. This balances dw and shield without further off-hand penalty.

That balances shield vs dual wield maybe... but does nothing for shield vs 2h.