dual wield and chance

Believe me, I train Kendo and using two weapons instead of one makes quite the difference, even if your good with one hand... so I think the -1 to both is justified for fluff reasons (and the change has both greater playability and makes a fairer difference).

That's a good point. Fighting with two weapons is rather hard. That 2nd weapon is usually something small that allows you to parry. Sure it might have a point and if you get the chance you poke somebody but it's not really there for an attack. You don't use 2 knives usually when fighting, you don't use two sabers or rapiers when fencing. It's just too hard and that off-hand is used for grappling. (or would be if fencing were not such a silly representation of sword fighting)
Perhaps -1 to hit on both hands is appropriate.

Nastyogre wrote:

Perhaps -1 to hit on both hands is appropriate.

This notion needs to die. It doesn't make sense for multiple profile attacks. With this penalty, a model with two attacks gains no advantage from two one-hand weapons (since -1 twice is equal to an extra 5+ roll) and a model with three or more attacks is worse off for using an off-hand weapon. -2 off-hand would be better than -1 on all attacks.

Food for thought: +1 A from off-hand (as printed in the rules) is equivalent to a large (+5) WS bonus, statistically. Go daggers go!

This is something of the problem when applying "real world" concepts to a game. Using two weapons effectively requires special training. Some gang tough who simply picked up an extra knife to fight with would actually be killed more easily by an equally experienced fighter who smartly used just one weapon and kept his other hand open for grappling (not supported in Mordheim rules, nor should it be) or utilized a shield.

More appropriate would be to disallow dual-wield period because nobody but an idiot or a desperate man would use two weapons without the training necessary. If you wanted to do it, then fine take the inordinate penalty. But a smart warrior won't do it.

To answer you directly...
A model with multiple attacks doesn't need an offhand and without the training should probably be penalized heavily for taking the extra weapon.

This is all about the balancing act. What is good for the game, in the spirit of GW rules, and addresses a widespread belief that dual-wielding is too good and too prevalent. This stems from the weakness of the armor and shields and the expense of armor. I say, correct duel-wield a little. (Say -1 to hit with off hand) and improve shields to +2 AV in HtH and reduce armor cost by 40%. If that doesn't fix the problem and dual-wield is still too good (statistically speaking) then perhaps adding a +1 to AV with offf-hand attacks on top of the -1 to hit.

Just disallow Dual wield then for all except those who pick a certain skill: i.e. Dual Wield.
This idea has been up before...
No bloody henchmen running around waving with dual weapons.

Hey - new to this forum, however, been playing Mordheim on and off for years. Resulting from reading over this and other current thoughts on dual-wield, what we're looking at testing in our next local campaign is:

1. An off-hand weapon only hits on a 6, and never causes a critical. (Representing the occassional extra "poke" the untrained user might get.)

2. Add a skill to the Combat skill list: Dual-wield: the model can use a weapon in its off-hand with only a -1 hit penalty (note that this is a penalty to the roll, not just the WS); off-hand attacks can cause criticals as normal.

My current thought is that these still allow the really dedicated two-weaponer to go at it with all his warband, but minimizes the effectiveness of the off-hand weapon. The dual-wield skill is still available, but it'll never be as good as the primary weapon, possibly making this an optional rather than a "required" skill. Off-hand weapons still retain their abilities (e.g., parry) as normal, yet the off-hand weapon only ever gets one strike in a turn.

Edited:

Ok, so 1 handed weapon (with the original example for this post) has a 50% chance to hit compared to 2 x Hand Weapons ending up with a 75% chance to hit.

Couldn't a viable (and REALLY easy option be) to make shields have a 4+ Save against hits. (not even wounds, but rather a roll to see if the warrior simply put the shield in front of a blow)

that would mean a player with 2 hand weapons would have

25% - No Hits
75% - 1 Hit
25% - 2 Hits

0% chance to deflect a hit (excepting Parry)

And a player with a shield and a single handed weapon has:

50% - No Hits
50% - 1 hit
50% chance to deflect hits. (excepting Parry)

This would result in the 2 handed attacker having his chances reduced to

50% - No Hits
37.5% - 1 Hit
12.5% - 2 Hits

Now I am SURE there is some form of logic error here, so tell me what I am doing wrong


Second Thought:

OR! When a blow is successfully landed on a player with a shield, the player with a shield uses HIS WS to make an immediate "attack" back with his shield. If his "attack" is successful, he blocks the blow that was landed.

While increasing armor/shield value is a good way to minimize dual-wield use, increasing shield value too much will also decrease the use of 2h weapons even further, which to me is an undesired side effect.

Having shields block by an "attack back" really makes them more like a parry. We've considered changing Parry from a straight "roll more than the attack" to "make an attack back, and success better than the original strike" - but having to remember "how much the hit roll succeeded by" is more than we really want to do. I believe that allowing shields to successfully block on a straight hit roll will make them much too popular, especially with high-WS models.

At the risk of sidelining the main topic of this thread, I'm also proposing in our next local campaign that any armor+shield combo gives an extra +1 armor save in close combat (instead of weapon+shield combo giving this bomus, as others are playing). This gives a place for Toughened Leathers (won't help more than shield against missiles, but does help with shield against close combat), and helps make armor itself a little more desirable.

From my proposal for dual-wield, an untrained combatant against the same WS would get:
42% no hit
42% main-hand hit
8% off-hand hit (no crit possible)
8% both hit (crit possible on only main-hand)

This still does give a bonus of 8% to dual-wield over single, but I believe this is the minimum benefit possible w/o affecting main-hand attacks. Original rules give dual-wield a 25% advantage here (and 25% for 2 hits, rather than my proposed 8%).

For completeness: a higher WS attacker vs a lower WS defender would have:
Single weapon: 33% miss, 67% one hit (rounding % obviously)
Dual-wield: 28% miss, 56% main-hand hit, 6% off-hand hit, 11% both hit.
This gives dual-wield a 5% total benefit over single weapon, compared to 22% adv from orig rules, with a whopping 44% for 2 hits.

An attacker with WS <1/2 defender's WS would have:
Single weapon: 67% miss, 33% one hit
Dual-wield: 56% miss, 28% main-hand hit, 11% off-hand hit, 6% both hit
This gives dual-wield an 11% total benefit over single weapon, compared to 23% adv from orig rules, with 11% for 2 hits.

the "Shields have a save agianst the hit" that isn't an armor save is giving you some sort of double save. I assume you are still having shields modify armor value? Or are you removing that? Most 2H can ignore or virtually ignore armor. So that's a huge reduction in their effectiveness.

The attack back with a shield is interesting but that may be too effective. Again it reduces the effectiveness of 2h weapons dramatically and when combined with a parry would make a fighter awfully tough to take down by anybody at all. If anything that sort of a rule increases the reason to take 2 weapons because it's reducing the effectiveness of everything so much you might as well take that extra weapon to try and get by the new "super shield."

The massive reduction of the effectiveness of the off-hand that wyldhunt proposes is interesting. It probably does the job of making DW less effective while not gimping the Main-hand. My concern would be that it falls a good bit outside the normal mechanics. Hits are usually tied to a comparison of WS. Pegging the "poke" at 6 doens't seem to make alot of sense when you have a WS7 Vampire vs a WS 2 youngblood (or goblin or whatever)

The problem with the game balance (if you perceive one) isn't just that shields aren't effective enough it's that dual wielding is too effective, and done so cheaply. So against models armed with 2h weapons or that only have 1 weapon or no weapons, DW is still unrealistically effective.
That's why many people look to fix DW and shield/armor seperately.

I've never been a fan of adding entirely new rules to fix the problem. Sticking with existing mechanics (-1 to hit with one or both weapons, creating a skill to eliminate the penalty and increasing the effectiveness of shields) seems to have the most favorable reception. You can house rule whatever you want, though.

Realistically, DW should probably be relegated to a specific class of weapons. Daggers mainly. At least without a specific skill to represent the extensive training it would take to have using a second weapon not actually be a liability. You could throw in things like rapiers, sword-breakers etc. The use of that 2nd weapon is historically one of parrying. Could SOME warriors/soldiers do it? Sure, but not most.

Restricting DW to heroes with skills is probably the most realistic change. Few warriors would ever do it without the training. If you wanted the extra poke relegating it to a 6 only to hit would probably do the trick. You should probably make it easier to be hit if you try it without the training as you open yourself up because you don't know what you are doing. But that's a whole different can of worms...

ts061282 wrote:

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

might be unrealisitc, but it stays a tabletop game.. your solution might be better in the sense that it is more realistic, but it has more fuss and more registration to it.

I like a clean and simple rule that is balanced and less fussy.

It's awesome that you guys are all spawning ideas

This problem is plaguing me!

Watching Year One only an hour ago, as Jack Black smashed 5 or 6 anonymous henchmen with his shield (totally ignoring his sword) I continue to think about this problem.

It's interesting that historically the 2nd weapon was for parrying, I wonder if that should be the case with a 2ndry weapon in Mordheim.

Maybe daggers and swords for an additional parry (aka a reroll if the primary hand is holding a sword)

and an Axe and Mace for a "poke"

This problem is driving me crazy because even as I type this I know this isn't the solution, but hopefully it will trigger someone else into action

Trying to be more realistic vs keeping within the current Mordheim ruleset will likely always fail - believe me, I tried to "cure" the ails of the chaotic Mordheim system when I first got into the game, and that's what drove me away for a few years. Now that I'm willing to accept the inherent wild randomness, I can play again happily. In fact, I was just in a battle which turned from lose to win in one turn due to my opponent rolling three 1s to wound, and myself rolling three OOAs on him, even though he managed to get a better tactical position on me.

I actually prefer restricting dual-wield to skilled heroes, but I can accept those who don't, and would throw them the unskilled "poke." I'd even rather tie that to WS, however, WS itself brings you in at 5+, not 6+, and I believe that only -1 to offhand is really too weak a penalty. Maybe -2 would be enough: that would still limit the >WS attacker to 5+ at best (w/o a Dual-wield skill), and <WS attackers still only hit on 6. This actually begins to be appealing when looking at pistols in close combat, as the Duelling Pistol's +1 hit would help out here - hmmm...

A restriction on which weapons can be used off-hand would also be good, but since the discussion of powergaming revolves around henchmen with 2 daggers, I don't think that'll be enough either - by itself. Gotta be careful with restrictions on weapons though, because the canon fluff allows double-hammers (Sigmarite definitiely, and I believe Troll Slayer also), and if a case can be made for double hammers, then I can make a case for all 1h weapons to be paired (except maybe whips). Perhaps offhand weapons can only be the same as main hand (someone else has already suggested this part), except that daggers (and pistols) can always be used as offhand weapons. Yet, this still won't help with the powergaming aspect by itself.

If a dagger allows a buckler's ability, bucklers will never be bought. (Are they now?)

Isn't there a Shield Bash skill somewhere, or am I confusing games again? If not, I'd say that a Shield Bash (Strength skill) can only be used during a charge, in place of any/all other attacks, gives a +1 WS for the attack, no parry possible by opponent, and a -1 Injury roll (less likely to OOA, more likely to KD). This makes it very close to, but not exactly the same as, the Ostlander's Bull Rush skill. Even so, I'm not sure about adding this to Mordheim - more complexity again.

Thoughts are still milling around - this IS good discussion!

EDIT - more ideas:

Nastyogre wrote:

Pegging the "poke" at 6 doens't seem to make alot of sense when you have a WS7 Vampire vs a WS 2 youngblood (or goblin or whatever)

The base problem here is two issues with Mordheim's Close Combat To Hit Chart:

1. It doesn't make a distinction in the roll between WS7 attacking WS2 and WS4 attacking WS3 - in all cases, the better attacker gets a 3+. So what you grant the skilled Vampire vs the green Youngblood must also be granted to the slightly-better henchmen vs the green henchmen.

2. The worst possible result by WS is 5+. You can't get to requiring a 6+ roll by WS alone.

While we could combine the two in an off-hand rule, say -3 WS and -1 hit, ruling this way seems wonky. Contradicting myself above, I still actually prefer the straight-up "offhand requires a 6 to hit" w/o a Dual-wield skill. The Vampire can have WS7 and be fighting a kid, but he didn't train in Dual-wield, so his offhand is still a wild strike. Now if the Vampire DID train in Dual-wield (per my proposal), the WS7 Vampire would have an off-hand 4+ to hit the Youngblood.

wyldhunt wrote:

While we could combine the two in an off-hand rule, say -3 WS and -1 hit, ruling this way seems wonky. Contradicting myself above, I still actually prefer the straight-up "offhand requires a 6 to hit" w/o a Dual-wield skill. The Vampire can have WS7 and be fighting a kid, but he didn't train in Dual-wield, so his offhand is still a wild strike. Now if the Vampire DID train in Dual-wield (per my proposal), the WS7 Vampire would have an off-hand 4+ to hit the Youngblood.

that might be a good solution, but it should be a game and not a mathematicians contest. The game is quite complex for beginners as is, and in my humble opinion the less variables the better.

Interesting how everyone goes at this. but simply restricting dual wield to a percentage (25%) of the warband seems to be very efficient. without penalizing anything else.

This would:

A. Reduce the amount of dual wielders
B. Give you a choice if you want henchman to dual wield, or heroes, or a mix.
C. Doesn't Nerf 2 handers, they become a more viable option
D. Doesn't Nerf shields, because you still need to equip the other guys.
E. It's plain and simple and you only need to check once per game when you fiddle with your warband units.

Isn't that enough reasons?



I'm open for suggestions though, but please don't come with "realistic" solutions, it's a tabletop game with rats, orks, possessed, vampires and what not running around! How is that realistic?

Don't go fix a plane with bicycle parts... it does not match

Exactly agreed, Paluke, on all points: rules simplicity, realism, and so many people feeling there are issues with the original rules. However, rather than just a "25% of members" restriction, I'd personally rather my first suggestion, as it feels more fluid and less restrictive (even though it is a little more complicated than your suggestion).

1. An off-hand weapon only hits on a 6, and never causes a critical.

2. New Combat skill: Dual-wield: the model can use a weapon in its off-hand with a -1 penalty to the hit roll; the off-hand attack can cause criticals as normal.

I'm waiting for feedback from the other players in our local campaign, and if they agree, we'll try it out. I'll respond on this forum to the outcome, especially if we all end up liking it. I'll also bring up your suggestion, and see what the others think.

Now the next question to add to this fray is...

When DW is balanced, why would someone buy a halberd or two handed weapon.

I still think the problem with DW is directly related to the problems of armour. (Or specifically, defensive things held in the off hand)

The advantage of DW should come from the increased attack chance while the advantage of a shield/buckler and weapon should have an increased defensive quality. (Leaving the Two handed weapons as can openers that risk hitting last yet deliver a higher quality wounding chance with an armour save penalty as it is)

What is wrong with a shield giving a +2 armour save? (existant in HtH and doesn't need to stack, so a model with just a shield gets a 5+ save against an S3 hit)



As far as the maths goes:

DWing Henchmen VS Shield + Weapon Henchmen

The DWing Henchment has

50% chance to hit once with a 50% chance to wound [25% all up]
- The armour save [5+ = 66% to succeed]
25% x 66% = 16.5%
25% chance to hit twice with;
50% to wound once
- The armour save [5+ = 66% to succeed]
25% x 50% x 66% = 8.3%
25% to wound twice
- The armour save [5+ = 66% to succeed]
25% x 25% x 66% = 4.1%

Leaving a DWer with 16.5 + 8.3 + 4.1 = 28.9% chance of delivering at least one wound past the armour.




The Henchmen with a shield has a flat out 25% chance to hit [50%] and wound [50%].

Also, shields are cheap!

This didn't even include any of the awesome ideas already outlined, but if we bring this thought INTO the equation, maybe we can fix DWing and shields, all in 1 go!

"Realistic" a problem Paluke? How about "believable" then. Beginners shouldn't be dual wielding excessively anyway. They shouldn't know it's broken yet! And remember Einstein's Razor: "Keep it as simple as possible, but no simpler."

I think many of these suggestions are interesting. The universal 6+ poke especially, but dw's worst case is still a shields best case. Ok, so bump shields to 5+...

One thing I havn't seen anyone discussing is the impact of dual wield changes on multiple attacks. If dw gets nerfed hard, why don't I just take a bunch of possessed and beastmen, a vampire with five ghouls, mercenaries w/ all braces, skaven with all fighting claws; attacks are still the statistical king of the game, anyone experimenting with new dw rules needs to keep a watch on this kind of thing.

ts061282 wrote:

"Keep it as simple as possible, but no simpler."

lol never heard that before. I love it! It's not just funny but has an important meaning to boot, which can be perfectly applied to rules design.

I agree, its not a matter of realism, perhaps my choice of words was poor. Believable is a better term.

I agree with Halberd and 2H. I've always though shields should be better (+1 in HtH when with a 1H weapon like current WHFB is a logical solution) I've seen Halberds used with buckler style shields (In reality I mean) perhaps that would be a good addition. Able to use bucklers. 1st Strike might make them too good, unless you increased their cost.

We decreased cost of armor by 40% (12 gc for Light armor, 30gc for heavy) and gave models a "save" against serious wounds if they were wearing armor. That save is equal to their armor save. Save is successful all armor on the model (that provides a save, not helms or bucklers) is destroyed but you ret an automatic "full recovery." If its failed, well then take your serious injury and keep your armor (if you are still alive)

I think perhaps limiting DW to a % of the warband is a good way to deal with it. You see that sort of thing in LOTR in limiting bow equipped figures. A thorough review of the warbands could be done designating specific heroes and henchmen that might not count towards that 25% (or 30% or whatever) quota or that might inherently have the dual wield skill. Many hired swords and all dramatis should probably be unpenalized. They are professionals after all...

I do think teh DW skill should eliminate the penalty altogether. We play that ANY combat or strength skill eliminates the penalty. Justification: You are now good enough to overcome the penalty. We didn't want to force DW to become a "mandatory skill." We gave it to STR and Combat because there are the odd fighters that have access to neither. We figures there were two ways to overcome the penalty skill or raw power.

Anyway, why would 2A models not be abused? Well, any warband that can take them SHOULD take them. Regardless of what happens with DW in your campaign. Most 2A models or items are restricted. Braces of pistols can only be used in the 1st round, even if you can reload them the rules state in 1st round only. Fighting claws are rare and expensive. Ghouls have no weapons and equipment possibilities. Though I do think undead should focus on ghouls, at least until you have your lad. So there are some limits that should make it reasonable.

It's true, to power game Mordheim, players would pull on the double attacks from

Quote :

a bunch of possessed and beastmen, a vampire with five ghouls, mercenaries w/ all braces, skaven with all fighting claws

But, these are expensive and very tailored fighting styles.

However, they still result in a few main classes of Henchmen / Heroes continuing with DW rampages, compared to the current Mordheim warband setups that have nothing but DWing members.

It also means that, knowing your enemy has less armour than you (as they are not holding a shield and therefore [unless they are really decked out] they would most probably have no armour save), you can focus on more appropriate attack styles. (Such as adopting Crossbows over Handguns, Using spears to recieve the charge and flanking with warriors that have shields / Halberds)

so rats running around in a city that has been destroyed by a meteorite, killing people, you would call very believable?

Don't get me wrong, i LIKE fluff and stuff, but those are just what spoilers and new tires are to a car.

The engine however, is still a piece of machinery, that has to be good.

I am talking about the core of mordheim, and only the core, the rules and game mechanics. those should be fine tuned. And even with arbitrary restrictions it can be fluffy.

more attacks mean more chance to kill, that's very simple. so it should not be THAT accessible to gain the extra attack in my humble opinion. ANY restriction on dice rolls, weapon skill or what not will make it more complex. AND it doesn't really help, maybe in theory but in real life, someone can get extremely lucky.

Maybe you are all trying to keep dualwielding in the game at any cost, just because it has been the unwritten style to play? or perhaps i'm pulling on the wrong end of the wire.

Keep dual-wielding in the game? Well, to keep with the established fluff, certain types of heroes, certain Hired Swords, and certain Dramatis Personae should be able to use it. Honestly, I don't care about the rest. However, I'm not the only one who plays - I'd like to strike a middle ground where dual-wield gives a slight advantage in certain cases, and a standard, balanced advantage to those who spend a dedicated skill pick to achieve it.

A 6-only poke is still too much of an advantage for the average Joe Hench in my opinion, but I'm not sure whether others are ready to restrict it to Heroes-only. Paluke, if my group accepts the 25%-of-warband restriction, I'll feel more comfortable that they are (gotta wait until this coming Saturday to find out), and I'd rather restrict to heroes-only (still using the 6-only poke) than 25% of the entire warband.

Nastyogre, we've successfully used the Serious Injuries save for armor in the past - it was the only use for armor! However, in this next campaign, we're going to use Jim Weaver's "The Warpstone Belong to Us," along with its action decks. Including both rules looks to be too much model-saving, so we're giving the Serious Injuries armor save a pass - this time.

I'm no longer in favor of giving a -1 hit to main-hand attacks with dual-wield due to the side-effect on high-Attack models (yes, ts061282, you easily convinced me of this before my first post here).

The mix of armament I would prefer to see is:
1. Single-weapon for the poorest bands
2. Mostly 1h-weapon and shield for mainline henchmen.
3. 2h-weapons for select heavy hitters.
4. The occasional dual-wield for the flashy hero.
5. Armor on those who can afford it.

Right now, armor is not worth the expense, and decreasing armor cost is a definite workaround, which we might do (I'm resistant to this at the moment purely for fluff reasons). I'm not in favor of straight up increasing armor saves for shields, as that makes them too valuable for their cost. I want to try increasing the body armors' save values first, to offset the armor-piercing of high Strength. What I'm proposing first in my Mordheim group is +1 Armor Save in HtH from a shield+armor (rather than shield+weapon) combo. If that's not enough to transition people from dual-wield to primarly weapon+shield+armor (along with the 6-only poke), then I'll look to make Toughened Leathers stack with Shield, and increase all body armor values by 1. If that's not enough, then I'll try both the straight-up body armor value increase along with the shield+armor combo. I can't see going any further with Armor Save increases without overhauling armor, Strength AP, and crits, which I won't do. Small moves to balance, rather than see-sawing.

If we get armor to show up again, and reduce dual-wield, I believe we'll see 2H weapons make a return. If we only nerf dual-wield and super-buff shields, we still won't see 2H weapons. This is the primary reason I'm not for buffing sheilds alone (nor the weapon+shield combo).

Two henchmen with S3 T3 WS3

A mace/axe/sword and shield costs 8/10/15 GC

A 2 handed weapon costs 15 GC (and gets +2 S)

If two identical henchmen bought one of each outfits.

The sword and shield henchmen would attack first with a 50% to hit and 50% to wound. (25%) (regardless of who charges)

The returning Two handed henchment would get

50% to hit, and then wounds on a 2+ (Also negating the armour save)
so thats 83.3% to wound.

I can definitely see the advantage of having a 41.6% chance of Hitting and Wounding in return.

I still see giving shields a 5+ as a good rules option

I still think that regardless of all the other changes, people will always want to fill their other hand with something and bucklers are next to pointless and sadly, shields as they are now are almost never worth anything.

a 5+ shield would mean it would be an option for a defensive model, as an offensive one would opt for duel wielding, halberds, spears etc while a "screen" unit would opt for a sword and shield (5+ save and Parry)

Now, correct me if I'm wrong but the extra attack with a weapon is the only attack the weapon makes. So I don't see how the -1 to the offhand penalizes multi-attack models?
The rulebook clearly states "A warrior armed with two one-handed weapons may make 1 extra Attack with the additional weapon. Note that this is added to the total of the warrior’s attacks after other modifiers, such as frenzy,
have been applied. If he is armed with two different weapons (sword and dagger, for example), he will make a single attack with whichever weapon he
chooses, and all others with the remaining weapon."

So all those wonderful multiple attacks are made with the "main-hand" unpenalized hand. The Extra attack suffers the -1. How are multiple attack models penalized? Am I just being dense?

You are correct sir,

Multiple attack models following the -1 penalty you mentioned are still statistically at an advantage.

In the end, there are 4 setups a player can have (1 single handed weapon, DW, a 2 handed weapon and a single handed weapon and defensive item) and of which currently only 1 is clearly ahead of the rest. (DWing)

My argument throughout the post has been that in order to adopt 2 handed weapons or defensive options (shield/buckler) as a valid option along side two attacks, you either have to decrease the value of the multiple attacks (which is near impossibly statistically once a model has 2 or more attacks [regardless of DWing])

OR

Increase the value of other setups and armour. such as lowering prices and increasing armour values.

Nastyogre wrote:

So all those wonderful multiple attacks are made with the "main-hand" unpenalized hand. The Extra attack suffers the -1. How are multiple attack models penalized? Am I just being dense?

He was referring to a suggestion to extend the -1 penalty from off-hand weapons to the main hand weapon attack(s) as a way to further weaken dual wielding. In this case dual wield gets worse for you the more profile attacks you have.