House Rules for parry

Polar Star wrote:

We play with a separate parry roll that takes place after the attacker hits. Both the attacker and defender roll a d6 and add their WS. If the defender's score is higher than the attackers, the attack is parried. It might be a bit drastic, but we haven't had problems with it. Fights with swords just tend to take awhile.

Why make an other separete parry role? Why not just add the WS to the hit roll, and then to the parry roll? Who ever strikes highest wins... thus you can parry 6's as well (or disallow parries when rolling 6's to hit as normal)?

@Chupacabra: this change would mean that skilled HtH attacks are harder to parry, regardless of the skill of the parrier. To me, that is desirable in some cases, but not in others. If the parrier is more skilled than the attacker, I would think that the parrier has an easier time of it.

Do you have any exceptions for parries against WS6+, or do you allow extended rolls (from one of the ancient GW systems), or do you just say that an attack from a model with WS6+ cannot be parried at all?

Hmmm... We could modify ts061282's suggestion as follows: to successfully parry, the parrier must make a successful attack roll with a -1 hit modifier. If the original attack hit on a roll of 6, and additional -1 is applied to the Parry roll. (Master of Blades would remove a -1 hit modifier on the parry roll.)

Parries would still be a bit more common than currently against even-WS opponents, but would be less common from Youngbloods. I'll have to bring this up with our group - one of the guys has been itching for something better in Parry.

EDIT: I didn't see Popmouth's latest reply. Response:

Popmouth wrote:

Why make an other separete parry role? Why not just add the WS to the hit roll, and then to the parry roll? Who ever strikes highest wins... thus you can parry 6's as well (or disallow parries when rolling 6's to hit as normal)?

This is what was given earlier in this thread by MyLittlePwny:

MyLittlePwny wrote:

We changed parry to make it as following: "to hit roll + ws" vs. "parry roll + ws" = the higher roll either hits or parries, attacker wins ties ofc. that worked out pretty good for us

This still allows lower-WS parriers into the parry game sooner than higher-WS parriers, as the initial attack roll against lower-WS is sucessful when lower. However, the addition of both opponents' WS to a roll helps balance that out. It's definitely simpler than what I just gave above. You know, I like it. If the parrier knows Master of Blades or Cutlass Master, add +1 to their Parry roll.

wyldhunt wrote:

@Chupacabra: this change would mean that skilled HtH attacks are harder to parry, regardless of the skill of the parrier. To me, that is desirable in some cases, but not in others. If the parrier is more skilled than the attacker, I would think that the parrier has an easier time of it.

Do you have any exceptions for parries against WS6+, or do you allow extended rolls (from one of the ancient GW systems), or do you just say that an attack from a model with WS6+ cannot be parried at all?

Easily, for an attacker, a roll of '6' is an automatic hit and cannot be parried, right? So a parry roll of a '6' would be a successful parry, no matter what the WS. This roll does several things. It reduces the amount of rolls needed to carry out the battle, avoiding another opposed roll for a result. It is also simple to remember. You already should know your opponents WS to get the original roll, just roll higher than that to parry. We are going to give it some trial runs soon. I will let you know how it goes.

Chup

My group make use of a simple variation of the existing Parry rules: instead of beating the highest successful 'to hit' roll of your opponent, you beat and parry the lowest. This maintains the usefulness of Parry late into the game, where multiple attacks are the norm (as well as against dual-wielding).

I quite like the WS-comparison rules, and will definitely think about giving them a trial run.

At first glance the roll+WS alternative rules look good, but then what happens when a WS6 model faces off against a WS 2 model? Not only is it nigh impossible for the WS 2 model to parry an attack, it's extremely easy for the WS 6 model to parry attacks made against him. Suppose Johnny the youngblood takes a swing at Gustav the vampire and rolls a 5 to hit - well on a roll of 2+ Gustave is going to parry it. It's a bit harsh when you already need a 5+ to hit, and that one lucky shot that you struggled for is tossed aside on a 2+.

To me, part of what the weapon skill characteristic represents is the "swordplay" between two fighters. Not simply swinging and either making contact or cutting through the air, but actually clashing weapons before breaking through the other guy's defenses. That's why it's already so tough for a WS 2 model to even hit a WS 5+ model in the first place - he's tring to get past the defenses of a more skilled warrior, who is therefore blocking more of his attacks. The youngblood and the vampire would be equally easy to hit if they're just standing there, WS represents what they're doing to hit or avoid being hit by their opponent. What I'm getting at is, a higher WS inherently carries the ability to parry along with it - not in the sense that you get more parry rolls but in the sense that you are now tougher for opponents to successfully hit.

I also agree, however, that it is a little bit ridiculous that a WS 2 model is going to have the opportunity to parry more often, and usually parry more easily, than a WS 6 model. Parrying also becomes increasingly less useful as opponents gain more attackas, as there is often at least one 6 rolled amongst a myriad of dice. For those reasons, I like wyldhunt's modification to ts061282's suggestion - a parry roll is simply a "to hit" roll against the guy attacking you, with a -1 modifier and an additional -1 if hit on a roll of 6.

Really you could just ignore the hit-chart and go for WS + roll all the way; a sword or buckler would get +1 to the roll when defending, both sword & buckler +2 (or grant a re-roll)

Popmouth wrote:

Really you could just ignore the hit-chart and go for WS + roll all the way; a sword or buckler would get +1 to the roll when defending, both sword & buckler +2 (or grant a re-roll)

Do you mean in combat each player rolls dice equal to his Attacks, adding his Weapon Skill, and comparing to see who scored higher? You could do that, this would be identical to 2nd ed. 40K and Necromunda, would it not? Initiative loses a lot of importance, though.

No, not if you mean that whoever scores the highest gets the hit (?).
I meant that the warrior with highest initiative gets to strike first, he rolls and ads his WS, while the defender rolls and his. If the defenders total is higher its the defenders turn to attack in the same manner. It was merely an Idea, I mean, it might be really crap... ^_^

Popmouth wrote:

No, not if you mean that whoever scores the highest gets the hit (?).
I meant that the warrior with highest initiative gets to strike first, he rolls and ads his WS, while the defender rolls and his. If the defenders total is higher its the defenders turn to attack in the same manner. It was merely an Idea, I mean, it might be really crap... ^_^

Oh oh I see what you're saying. Mmk, well as far as I can tell this is not really any different from the problem I posted earlier. Again suppose the youngblood is attacking his WS 6 vampire opponent. Well, with the "roll+WS" method, he will have to roll at minimum 4 higher than the Vampire (assuming ties go to the attacker) meaning either he has to roll a 5 and the vampire a 1, or he has to roll a 6 and the vampire a 1 or a 2. To me, that makes high-WS models way too hard to hit in the first place.

Instead, I would favor high-WS models being able to parry more easily, but not necessarily being more difficult to hit than they already are unless maybe shifting the "to hit" chart one column over, so that you need a 5+ to hit opponents with double or more your WS, rather than a 5+ to hit opponents with more than doubld your WS.

Parry:

A) Roll d6. If Attacker WS > Defender WS a +5 parries. If Attacker WS = Defender WS a +4 is required. If Attacker WS < Defender WS a 3+ is required. (Maybe shift each value up one so parrying isn't crazy good)

B) Roll to hit the attacker as normal. On a successful hit the model parries. (Conveniently takes WS into account in a time tested way)

So Hero is equating a parry to a 'wound' roll. In this case a difference of 4 would be unparryable. Now, that is something that would rarely happen, but could. It's rather simple, since most people already know the to wound chart. It does make it easier for a higher WS rating to block any hit that comes to him. A WS 3 would need a 3+ to block a WS 2 or less or a WS 5 to a WS 4 as well. Now, do you carry the chart on up like a regular wounding chart, or just compare your 'A' requirement as above? So any time a WS is higher it blocks on a 5+, equal to on a 4+, and less than on a 3+? The idea sounds good.

We just had a night of battling, 4 games total, and came across no issues of rolling to beat an opponents WS. Admittedly, we were using starting warbands for the examples. And just like before, if a member rolls a 6 on any of its to hits, then the attack is not parryable, to keep that rule the same. Otherwise, you just rolled to beat the WS of the attacker. We will continue practicing this for more results.

Chup

With the A method it's purely a comparison to see who has the higher WS. If you have higher WS you will parry on the lowest value (+3 for example). If you and your attacker have equal WS then a middle value would be used (+4). If your attacker has higher weapon skill then it is more difficult to parry and the highest roll is required (+5).

How much higher or lower doesn't change the roll required, but you could definitely just roll as if to wound, like you said, to allow larger WS gaps to matter. Might be a better way to go, it's a weaker parry ability than A.

If you're just rolling to beat the opponent's WS then swords become relatively worse and worse as advances are gained. I think most people would like to take bother models' WS values into account.

Actually I kind of like each player rolling and adding WS, defender beats attacker to parry. It seems like it'd be interesting because it isn't a common way to roll in mordheim and gets both players involved very personally (although interesting can be both a good or bad thing!).

Obviously what we need is for someone to write out huge spreadsheets of parry chances under various circumstances to figure out the true value of parry as written and then discuss options for changing the rules for page upon page.

I still like the simple "roll to hit the attacker with a -1 modifier" and additionaly -1 modifier if the attacker's to-hit roll was a 6 - that way you do take weapon skill into account, no-one is every parrying on better than a 4+, and your ability to parry isn't positively related to the difficulty with which your opponent scored a hit in the first place.

Warning: long post ahead, with number-crunching.

Weighing the results of two possible parrying alternatives to official parrying rules. Only considering one parry attempt, no special parrying skills, with WS varying between 1 and 8 for both attacker and defender.

Alternative 1: if attack hits, add WS of attacker to hit roll. Defender rolls D6 for parry and adds his WS. If defender's result is higher than attacker's, attack is parried.

Alternative 2: if attack hit, defender makes an attack roll back at a -1 to hit (further -1 if the attacker's hit roll was a 6): if defender's roll is successful, attack parried.

While the numbers are below, I'm putting the results I draw from these numbers here:

Alternative 1:
- Pro: does not alter base chance to hit through parry when attacker and defender WS is equal.
- Note: when attacker's WS is at least 3 higher than defender's WS, defender has 0% chance to parry.
- Note: for every WS defender has above attacker, there is a further advantage to the defender, resulting in 100% chance to parry in extreme cases with low attacker WS.

Alternative 2:
- Con: harder to hit through parry with all WS combos except where attacker WS > 2x defender WS, thus making parry more powerful in the vast majority of cases.
- Pro: preserves usefulness of parry through with all WS combos.

My personal judgement:
- While the official parry still means that it is harder to land a hit on a higher-WS model, the fact is that a parry by a lesser-WS defender basically makes that model an equivalent WS to my attacker, regardless of any other factor. I do find that less than desirable.
- While a parry from a lesser-WS defender adds a solid 17% to his chance to avoid a hit, a parry from the most skilled defenders against the least skilled attackers adds a measly 2%. I do find this less than desirable as well.
- Swords are described: "...learning to use a sword is a long and difficult process. It takes years to truly master this weapon..." If that's the case, why in the world do low-WS models get the best benefit from a sword, and high-WS models get basically nothing?
- Alternative 1 is easier to remember and implement than Alternative 2; no reverse comparison of WS against the hit chart is needed; don't have to remember a special modifier if the hit roll is a 6.
- While Alternative 1 does have greater extremes of usefulness, it preserves the official chance of parry against even-WS opponents. The greater extremes actually do reflect the stated fluff of learning a sword, and I like that a lot.

Conclusion: Alternative 1 is best, and I am firmly recommending implementing this to my group.

Here are the numbers:

For reference, hit chances without parry: (Format: <WS Attacker>vs<WS Defender> <Chance to hit>)

1vs1 50%, 1vs2 50%, 1vs3 33%, 1vs4 33%, 1vs5 33%, 1vs6 33%, 1vs7 33%, 1vs8 33%
2vs1 67%, 2vs2 50%, 2vs3 50%, 2vs4 50%, 2vs5 33%, 2vs6 33%, 2vs7 33%, 2vs8 33%
3vs1 67%, 3vs2 67%, 3vs3 50%, 3vs4 50%, 3vs5 50%, 3vs6 50%, 3vs7 33%, 3vs8 33%
4vs1 67%, 4vs2 67%, 4vs3 67%, 4vs4 50%, 4vs5 50%, 4vs6 50%, 4vs7 50%, 4vs8 50%
5vs1 67%, 5vs2 67%, 5vs3 67%, 5vs4 67%, 5vs5 50%, 5vs6 50%, 5vs7 50%, 5vs8 50%
6vs1 67%, 6vs2 67%, 6vs3 67%, 6vs4 67%, 6vs5 67%, 6vs6 50%, 6vs7 50%, 6vs8 50%
7vs1 67%, 7vs2 67%, 7vs3 67%, 7vs4 67%, 7vs5 67%, 7vs6 67%, 7vs7 50%, 7vs8 50%
8vs1 67%, 8vs2 67%, 8vs3 67%, 8vs4 67%, 8vs5 67%, 8vs6 67%, 8vs7 67%, 8vs8 50%

Official chance to parry: (<WS Attacker>vs<WS Defender> <Chance to parry a hit>)

1vs1 17%, 1vs2 17%, 1vs3 08%, 1vs4 08%, 1vs5 08%, 1vs6 08%, 1vs7 08%, 1vs8 08%
2vs1 25%, 2vs2 17%, 2vs3 17%, 2vs4 17%, 2vs5 08%, 2vs6 08%, 2vs7 08%, 2vs8 08%
3vs1 25%, 3vs2 25%, 3vs3 17%, 3vs4 17%, 3vs5 17%, 3vs6 17%, 3vs7 08%, 3vs8 08%
4vs1 25%, 4vs2 25%, 4vs3 25%, 4vs4 17%, 4vs5 17%, 4vs6 17%, 4vs7 17%, 4vs8 17%
5vs1 25%, 5vs2 25%, 5vs3 25%, 5vs4 25%, 5vs5 17%, 5vs6 17%, 5vs7 17%, 5vs8 17%
6vs1 25%, 6vs2 25%, 6vs3 25%, 6vs4 25%, 6vs5 25%, 6vs6 17%, 6vs7 17%, 6vs8 17%
7vs1 25%, 7vs2 25%, 7vs3 25%, 7vs4 25%, 7vs5 25%, 7vs6 25%, 7vs7 17%, 7vs8 17%
8vs1 25%, 8vs2 25%, 8vs3 25%, 8vs4 25%, 8vs5 25%, 8vs6 25%, 8vs7 25%, 8vs8 17%

Chance to hit through Official parry: (<WS Attacker>vs<WS Defender> <Chance to hit through parry>)

1vs1 42%, 1vs2 42%, 1vs3 31%, 1vs4 31%, 1vs5 31%, 1vs6 31%, 1vs7 31%, 1vs8 31%
2vs1 50%, 2vs2 42%, 2vs3 42%, 2vs4 42%, 2vs5 31%, 2vs6 31%, 2vs7 31%, 2vs8 31%
3vs1 50%, 3vs2 50%, 3vs3 42%, 3vs4 42%, 3vs5 42%, 3vs6 42%, 3vs7 31%, 3vs8 31%
4vs1 50%, 4vs2 50%, 4vs3 50%, 4vs4 42%, 4vs5 42%, 4vs6 42%, 4vs7 42%, 4vs8 42%
5vs1 50%, 5vs2 50%, 5vs3 50%, 5vs4 50%, 5vs5 42%, 5vs6 42%, 5vs7 42%, 5vs8 42%
6vs1 50%, 6vs2 50%, 6vs3 50%, 6vs4 50%, 6vs5 50%, 6vs6 42%, 6vs7 42%, 6vs8 42%
7vs1 50%, 7vs2 50%, 7vs3 50%, 7vs4 50%, 7vs5 50%, 7vs6 50%, 7vs7 42%, 7vs8 42%
8vs1 50%, 8vs2 50%, 8vs3 50%, 8vs4 50%, 8vs5 50%, 8vs6 50%, 8vs7 50%, 8vs8 42%

Alternative 1 chance to parry: (<WS Attacker>vs<WS Defender> <Chance to parry a hit>)

1vs1 17%, 1vs2 33%, 1vs3 42%, 1vs4 58%, 1vs5 75%, 1vs6 92%, 1vs7 100%, 1vs8 100%
2vs1 13%, 2vs2 17%, 2vs3 33%, 2vs4 50%, 2vs5 58%, 2vs6 75%, 2vs7 92%, 2vs8 100%
3vs1 04%, 3vs2 13%, 3vs3 17%, 3vs4 33%, 3vs5 50%, 3vs6 67%, 3vs7 75%, 3vs8 92%
4vs1 00%, 4vs2 04%, 4vs3 13%, 4vs4 17%, 4vs5 33%, 4vs6 50%, 4vs7 67%, 4vs8 83%
5vs1 00%, 5vs2 00%, 5vs3 04%, 5vs4 13%, 5vs5 17%, 5vs6 33%, 5vs7 50%, 5vs8 67%
6vs1 00%, 6vs2 00%, 6vs3 00%, 6vs4 04%, 6vs5 13%, 6vs6 17%, 6vs7 33%, 6vs8 50%
7vs1 00%, 7vs2 00%, 7vs3 00%, 7vs4 00%, 7vs5 04%, 7vs6 13%, 7vs7 17%, 7vs8 33%
8vs1 00%, 8vs2 00%, 8vs3 00%, 8vs4 00%, 8vs5 00%, 8vs6 04%, 8vs7 13%, 8vs8 17%

Chance to hit through Alternative 1 parry: (<WS Attacker>vs<WS Defender> <Chance to hit through parry>)

1vs1 42%, 1vs2 33%, 1vs3 19%, 1vs4 14%, 1vs5 08%, 1vs6 03%, 1vs7 00%, 1vs8 00%
2vs1 58%, 2vs2 42%, 2vs3 33%, 2vs4 33%, 2vs5 14%, 2vs6 08%, 2vs7 03%, 2vs8 00%
3vs1 64%, 3vs2 58%, 3vs3 42%, 3vs4 33%, 3vs5 33%, 3vs6 17%, 3vs7 08%, 3vs8 03%
4vs1 67%, 4vs2 64%, 4vs3 58%, 4vs4 42%, 4vs5 33%, 4vs6 33%, 4vs7 17%, 4vs8 17%
5vs1 67%, 5vs2 67%, 5vs3 64%, 5vs4 58%, 5vs5 42%, 5vs6 33%, 5vs7 33%, 5vs8 17%
6vs1 67%, 6vs2 67%, 6vs3 67%, 6vs4 64%, 6vs5 58%, 6vs6 42%, 6vs7 33%, 6vs8 33%
7vs1 67%, 7vs2 67%, 7vs3 67%, 7vs4 67%, 7vs5 64%, 7vs6 58%, 7vs7 42%, 7vs8 33%
8vs1 67%, 8vs2 67%, 8vs3 67%, 8vs4 67%, 8vs5 67%, 8vs6 64%, 8vs7 58%, 8vs8 42%

Alternative 2 chance to parry: (<WS Attacker>vs<WS Defender> <Chance to parry a hit>)

1vs1 28%, 1vs2 44%, 1vs3 42%, 1vs4 42%, 1vs5 42%, 1vs6 42%, 1vs7 42%, 1vs8 42%
2vs1 29%, 2vs2 28%, 2vs3 44%, 2vs4 44%, 2vs5 42%, 2vs6 42%, 2vs7 42%, 2vs8 42%
3vs1 13%, 3vs2 29%, 3vs3 28%, 3vs4 44%, 3vs5 44%, 3vs6 44%, 3vs7 42%, 3vs8 42%
4vs1 13%, 4vs2 29%, 4vs3 29%, 4vs4 28%, 4vs5 44%, 4vs6 44%, 4vs7 44%, 4vs8 44%
5vs1 13%, 5vs2 13%, 5vs3 29%, 5vs4 29%, 5vs5 28%, 5vs6 44%, 5vs7 44%, 5vs8 44%
6vs1 13%, 6vs2 13%, 6vs3 29%, 6vs4 29%, 6vs5 29%, 6vs6 28%, 6vs7 44%, 6vs8 44%
7vs1 13%, 7vs2 13%, 7vs3 13%, 7vs4 29%, 7vs5 29%, 7vs6 29%, 7vs7 28%, 7vs8 44%
8vs1 13%, 8vs2 13%, 8vs3 13%, 8vs4 29%, 8vs5 29%, 8vs6 29%, 8vs7 29%, 8vs8 28%

Chance to hit through Alternative 2 parry: (<WS Attacker>vs<WS Defender> <Chance to hit through parry>)

1vs1 36%, 1vs2 28%, 1vs3 19%, 1vs4 19%, 1vs5 19%, 1vs6 19%, 1vs7 19%, 1vs8 19%
2vs1 47%, 2vs2 36%, 2vs3 28%, 2vs4 28%, 2vs5 19%, 2vs6 19%, 2vs7 19%, 2vs8 19%
3vs1 58%, 3vs2 47%, 3vs3 36%, 3vs4 28%, 3vs5 28%, 3vs6 28%, 3vs7 19%, 3vs8 19%
4vs1 58%, 4vs2 47%, 4vs3 47%, 4vs4 36%, 4vs5 28%, 4vs6 28%, 4vs7 28%, 4vs8 28%
5vs1 58%, 5vs2 58%, 5vs3 47%, 5vs4 47%, 5vs5 36%, 5vs6 28%, 5vs7 28%, 5vs8 28%
6vs1 58%, 6vs2 58%, 6vs3 47%, 6vs4 47%, 6vs5 47%, 6vs6 36%, 6vs7 28%, 6vs8 28%
7vs1 58%, 7vs2 58%, 7vs3 58%, 7vs4 47%, 7vs5 47%, 7vs6 47%, 7vs7 36%, 7vs8 28%
8vs1 58%, 8vs2 58%, 8vs3 58%, 8vs4 47%, 8vs5 47%, 8vs6 47%, 8vs7 47%, 8vs8 36%

We housruled the parry yet another way. It comes out from required To hit rolls. Simply if attacker needs 4 to hit defender, then defender parry on 5+, if 3 to hit, then parry on 6, if attacker needs 5 to hit, then defender parry on 4+. 6 to hit cannot be parried. Cannot parry attacks with doubble or higher S, then defender's S is.

Haha, I was kind of joking but that's awesome. I'm pretty sold on alternative one I guess.

Awesome job, Wyldhunt!!!
But I have to say one thing, if I'm not wrong in reading your tables.

The Alt2 tables are much more similar to the Official tables than the Alt1 tables, in terms of % range and distribution... I'm convinced that this should tell us all something.
After a long time I've been using Alt1, I must say it gets boring soon. No hero with a starting WS of 4 or higher was easily equipped with lowly axes or maces or any other weapon than a sword (even when using improved armour and shields) AND no lowly WS2 fighter was easily equipped with an expensive sword...
This was no absolute law in our games, but imho this sucked enough as it got to min/max immediately and killed variety, colour and character...

Quote :

Alternative 1:
- Pro: does not alter base chance to hit through parry when attacker and defender WS is equal.
- Note: when attacker's WS is at least 3 higher than defender's WS, defender has 0% chance to parry.
- Note: for every WS defender has above attacker, there is a further advantage to the defender, resulting in 100% chance to parry in extreme cases with low attacker WS.

For the above said reason and balance-wise, imho here your 2 Notes should be listed as Cons (to me relevant ones).

Quote :

Alternative 2:
- Con: harder to hit through parry with all WS combos except where attacker WS > 2x defender WS, thus making parry more powerful in the vast majority of cases.
- Pro: preserves usefulness of parry through with all WS combos.

Here I think the Con is to be well pondered, as looking again at your tables I think the difference is not that big, while indeed existing. But while heroes (and all high WS models) still get a benefit in defending themselves with a sword, this benefit is equally true (relatively) to all WS scores with Alt2.
The Pro you state is indeed to me the "breaking point", leading people to choose between swords or other weapons depending to what they want their fighter to do (or look like), not because the rule asset favors a combination instead of another (hey, I think many weapons should be tweaked in some ways, but that's a different matter!).

All considered, I think Alt2 is way better than Alt1 as it's more or less a "to hit" roll (easier to assimilate) and in line with original rules, but I guess playtesting is to be called in (still, parry is generally easier with Alt2, let's see how it affects the game).

Cheers!!!

P.S.: I apologize for those that might have read this post in a different version, but while I was writing it (as usual, piece by piece and correcting the organization and bad english "on the fly") some server maintenance occurred and for a while it appeared unfinished.

I'm with Matumaros,

I think that the notes to the first alternative are major downsides - I don't think a parry should ever be impossible or automatic based solely on opposing weapon skills.

Additionally, for alternative 2 what you listed as the con is what I see as one of the major upsides to that variant - isn't one of the primary complaints with swords that parry isn't as useful as the special rules of other melee weapons even though the price on a sword is two times or more that of the other weapons? It seems to me that making parry rolls more effective, and also more evenly distributing the spread of parrying ability (as opposed to alt. 1, where the ability to parry is very heavily skewed towards higher WS models) but while still taking comparative WS into account, would be ideal.

I haven't playtested either yet, so I can't say for sure, but on paper alt. 2 looks a lot better to me in most cases. Parrying provides better protection overall, but does not favor low WS models the same way it used to, and slightly favors high WS models instead.

huh, now I see, that our houserule option it pretty much the same as Alt2
I'm bit slower today... Nevertheless for our group I can say this works fine with no problems. We've been using it for about a year.

Very valid points.

For Alt2: since by official rules parry only affects one affect, it's of limited usefulness anyways, especially later in the campaign. However, when parry rerolls (bucklers) and skills (Master of Blades and Cutlass Master) are added, does this increase the parry bump in Alt2 too much? Well, at least the parries are never automatic and never impossible, so bucklers will help in the beginning, and Troll Slayers may still miss a parry later on. As pointed out, this also helps justify the value of the sword itself across the board.

For Alt1: it preserves the "fluff" of the sword being difficult to learn, and more valuable as WS increases. It'll keep swords out of the hands of most Youngbloods and other WS2 models, and in the hands of Captains and Swordsmen. I'm not sure it would be de-facto king for high-WS models (only blocks one attack per turn), but it would be a definite inclusion in any DW combo (along with mace/club/hammer). While this result is not really more varied than the current 2x club trend in official-rules with advanced-crit-chart games, at least it is more expensive. Yuck. That was a weak ending to that argument. (Even worse - Alt1 helps Elves be more broken.)

Playtest through a full campaign is needed! Yeah, like I need another excuse to play more... I'll make sure my group reads this thread before we decide which to adopt in our next campaign series.

Hmm, verrrry interesting. I hadn't thought of the repurcussions of alt. 2 with regards to skills and other advanced equipment - it could definitely unbalance those get-ups and a dwarf with two dwarf axes and master of blades is a pain enough as it is. I think late-campaign playtesting of this alternative would be particularly valuable in determining how balanced it is. Good call.

wyldhunt wrote:

Playtest through a full campaign is needed! Yeah, like I need another excuse to play more... I'll make sure my group reads this thread before we decide which to adopt in our next campaign series.

Haha, since joining this forum I've build up a huge list of houserules that I need to playtest for our next campaign! Have to add these to the list.

Thanks for the support, Myntokk!!!
Wyldhunt, just a (not so) quick reply, in hope to add something to the point.

Quote :

For Alt2: since by official rules parry only affects one affect, it's of limited usefulness anyways, especially later in the campaign.

Hum... I couldn't get the point here... What do you mean? If I got it right you mean that a chance of removing (that is) one enemy attack is not extremely important? Having played a lot with my beasties (=lots of CC) and a lot too with less CC bands I think I can say that said chance is there to make the difference.

Quote :

However, when parry rerolls (bucklers) and skills (Master of Blades and Cutlass Master) are added, does this increase the parry bump in Alt2 too much?

From previous discussion I thought it was implicit that adding a second weapon with parry means to just remove the -1 to the parry roll, as well as master of blades (which is way too broken as is, imho). Still, this is the field where playtest is called in.

Quote :

For Alt1: it preserves the "fluff" of the sword being difficult to learn, and more valuable as WS increases.

This is also true with Alt2, as the parry chance increases with WS, but with Alt1 it simply means that until you have WS4 or higher you simply wouldn't be using that sword... plus it depends on what you're facing (no way all the less to use a sword when you're facing that 6 beastmen heroes with an average WS5...).

Quote :

It'll keep swords out of the hands of most Youngbloods and other WS2 models, and in the hands of Captains and Swordsmen.

That's not a good thing, imho. I don't want to (i.e.) restrain to equip my youngblood with his father's sword (insert cool fluff behind this...) because of a rule assett that's disencouraging this.

Quote :

I'm not sure it would be de-facto king for high-WS models (only blocks one attack per turn), but it would be a definite inclusion in any DW combo (along with mace/club/hammer).

Personally, with armour being so expensive and volatile and lower WS mostly hitting on a 4+, anything that helps me preserve my heroes on the table and let them deal their pain around longer is more than welcome. Of course parry is no insurance.
In one of my latest campaigns I had those 5 beastie heroes with an average WS5 and that quickly became a pain in my mates ass, resulting in very little fun... Also, a friend had besties too and his band was wayyy better than mine (got all Attacks and paindealing advances and his heroes had more experience) with the difference he insisted with lower weapons. Sword helped my heroes to hold ground and even lead to many an unexpected victory. I guess this serves as a playtesting experience on Alt1 that went on for more or less a year, and it's where I come from in viewing Alt2 as a good solution (as long as playtest is not there to shed proper light). But this is just me...
Anyway, the real point to me is not disencouraging high WS models to use a sword (which is fluffy and realistic and useful), but instead not having it as the "broken" assett, not to say having lower WS models benefit from a sword too and not feeling dumb for chosing it instead of maces.

All in all and aside from our different perspectives, Wyldhunt, you did a wonderful job with all the tables and bringing on the discussion to that point, you have my gratitude!!! Of course the same goes to all the others participating in this topic. I wish I could be more present and not just pop out only when I see something I think is near the line...

Cheers!!!

What are the values for Alternative 2 if the parry roll is made at -2 to hit instead of -1?

hero wrote:

What are the values for Alternative 2 if the parry roll is made at -2 to hit instead of -1?

I think this would make parrying really, really difficult. When defending against someone with more than double your WS you will not be able to parry, when defending against someone of equal to double your WS you will need a 6 to parry, and when defending against someone with lower WS you'll need a 5 to parry.

Hum... after a little pondering I think Hero's proposal has some value.
Parry needs to be somehow difficult, or at least not easy, otherwise as soon as people gets money other weapons would suddenly disappear, while weapons should be chosen for what they do, more than for their price. But we need the numbers...

Wyldhunt (or any other brave forumite), wouldn't you do the tables with the -2 penalty?
Pleaseeeee!!!
I really suck at that...

Cheers!!!

EDIT: Hum, maybe I have to better explain what I mean...
Myntokk, I think having to roll a 6 to parry is still quite worth, in the current assett of things:

1) With current rules, you often get that parry chance, more or less...
2) A succesfull parry means no more rolls, and that attack missed you, period. Quite good and way better than armour (which is affected by high S and weapons, but goes for all attacks).
3) 6+ = light armour, which is at double price (or same price, if using improved armour options) than a sword and at four times a buckler (or double, again).
4) It all also depends on what way 2 parrying tools (like sword and buckler, and I'd say 2 swords, also) are going to interact. Plus eventual skills.

In the end, I think it's worth checking numbers, even if we may have some premonition about that.