Ts061282's Dual-wield >>> Shield Solution

Based on Paluke's feedback in this thread, I thought I'd put this in it's own topic, hoping to get some more community feedback before I play test on Sunday.

EDIT: Due Credit: Paluke had posted a similar solution a while ago here. This solution expands on his idea in a number of ways. Also, I am new to these forums, but have been thinking about this issue for a number of years.


Solution:

In main rulebook, change "Close Combat", "fighting with two weapons" from "A warrior armed with two one-handed weapons may make 1 extra Attack with the additional weapon. [Additional paragraph of rules.]" to "A warrior armed with two one-handed weapons may make his attacks at +1 WS with the special rules of both weapons applying to the attack. Special rules stack, so two axes provide -2 armor and two clubs auto-stun. Some weapons are designed to work as a pair and follow their own special rules. Likewise, pistols follow their own special rules for hand-to-hand combat."

In main rulebook, add to "Weapons & Equipment", "Shield", "SPECIAL RULE, Defensive Tool: A model that is equipped with a shield gains +1 WS when being attacked."

Comments:
The current +1 A is unbalanced because the value of the extra attack varies by a models WS (an extra die is worth more to a 3s hitting vampire than a 5s hitting gobo). Or even if it isn't, it's too good compared to shields such that no one uses shields. Making shields even close to as good results in unrealistically good shields. This change ensures that the most benefit from an off-hand weapon is +16%. Conversely a shield is now significantly better, a viable choice, giving up to -16% to opponents. This creates a 33% "probability range" in which to position your warriors offensively or defensively by equipment selection.

Take the specific example of two basic warriors, one offensive with club and axe and one defensive with sword and shield. The offensive warrior attacks: both are at +1 WS, total +0 AS from axe and shield, just parry vs clubbed. The defensive warrior attacks, both are at +0 WS, no other modifiers. This is an even fight with offense countered equally by defense. The only tilting the rules do then, is the respective cost of the items. Offense is always cheaper in mordheim, which seems appropriate doesn't it?

These rules changes leave plenty of room for new skills so you can still have those heroes that obliterate with two dwarf axes, or whatever.

EASY TO READ SUMMARY:

Off-hand:
No +1 A
+1 WS when attacking
Special Rules of both weapons apply to attack

Shield:
+1 WS when defending
6+ or +1 AS

Hmmm. a nice idea but your maths are a little flawed matey.

The extra point of WS will not give a +16% chance of hitting all the time.

Consider:
WS1 vs WS4 = 5+ to hit
WS2 vs WS4 = 4+ to hit
WS3 vs WS4 = 4+ to hit
WS4 vs WS4 = 4+ to hit
WS5 vs WS4 = 3+ to hit

Likewise the +1WS for a shield will only rarely effect the score needed:

WS4 vs WS1 = 3+ to hit
WS4 vs WS2 = 3+ to hit
WS4 vs WS3 = 3+ to hit
WS4 vs WS4 = 4+ to hit
WS4 vs WS5 = 4+ to hit
WS4 vs WS6 = 4+ to hit
WS4 vs WS7 = 4+ to hit
WS4 vs WS8 = 4+ to hit
WS4 vs WS9 = 5+ to hit

How about a slight modification: the second weapon gives no extra A, but adds +1 to hit?

Or a slightly more old-school variant: A second weapon still gives +1A but the first weapon is at -1 to hit and the second is at -2!

You're right, I was aware that the +1 WS wouldn't always translate to +16%. It just does when it matters, meaning when you needed that slight edge of having an extra weapon vs. an equally skilled opponent. An extra axe shouldn't do much if your opponent is significantly more skillful. Same applies to the shield.

Edit: having given your points some more thought, I think your suggestions warrant more discussion.

+1/-1 to hit for off-hand weapon/shield instead of +1/-1 WS would be less interesting (in my opinion), but would simplify it (less to hit chart, I'm an elegance whore).

What you point out, an effect I didn't intend, is that low WS models benefit more often from a shield and high WS models benefit more often from an off-hand weapon. Appropriate? Arbitrary? This is interesting (in my opinion).

Taking your suggestion, +1 to hit makes more sense for an off-hand weapon but +1 WS defending makes more sense for a shield, I'd rather these were exact inverses (again, elegance whore), but maybe spliting it up would be ideal?

Ah, fair enough. That's actually quite a good system. hmmmm...

BTW: What do you think of my suggestion of a"to hit" penalty to balance the extra attack?

WarbossKurgan wrote:

BTW: What do you think of my suggestion of a"to hit" penalty to balance the extra attack?

I've done a campaign with off-hand attacks at -1 and shield + hand weapon at 5+ save. These kind of addenda address the issue, but by building onto a broken system resulting in an overly complicated system. Declaring die is cumbersome. Speaking of which, I havn't thought too much about the implications of combining two weapon special rules and multiple attacks. Now an axe/club vampire has three attacks with both effects? I don't know how to value that... and then what about frenzy? What's the point of two dwarf axes vs an axe and a sword? Does wielding two axes give -2 armor save? Holly crap... I'm going outside.

Edit: So axes have to stack for everything to work out. Multiple profile attacks are strengthened with combined special rules, but I don't think this is broken; have to play test with that intention to be sure though. Also, parry is strengthened with fewer attacks overall.

Edit 2: Axes do not have to stack. I was on crack. Parry doesn't stack, clubs wouldn't stack. Axes don't stack then. Good. There would be no advantage to two dwarf axes over sword/axe combo except you could swap one dwarf axe for a shield.

One remaining issue is crits which would necessitate declaring primary weapon each attack round or randomizing on a crit.

Yeah, lots of possible combos there: they would all have to be thought out and checked. Have fun with that!

this is a very good and ingenious idea, i liked it already when paluke proposed it

---

my proposed solution is still quite a bit better though

I just played four games of mordheim to try out the simple rule of a second weapon simply adding +1 attack, ignoring weapon abilities in the off hand. It had the unintended cpnsequence of making daggers way better. The second attack with them no longer granted an armor save bonus for the defender. We played primarily with one band dual-wielding and one band with hand weapon/ shield. The shiled band got slaughtered every time simply due to the increased number of attacks (something I am sure you are all aware of).

At the end of the game session I wondered if perhaps the off-hand weapon would grant a re-roll with the primary weapon instead of +1 Attack? There are then no extra dice in play, it just lets your average warrior have a better chance at hitting.

Asp wrote:

this is a very good and ingenious idea, i liked it already when paluke proposed it

---

my proposed solution is still quite a bit better though

Having now given some credit to Paluke in the first post in this topic, I'd like to point out there are substantial differences between the proposals. If you're referring to your solution in Paluke's topic, while effective, it's cumbersome (especially the modified AS negation table.) If you're referring to the modified rules your group uses, those are better but don't take the off-hand nerf far enough (in my opinion).

canonpenitentiary wrote:

I just played four games of mordheim to try
out the simple rule of a second weapon simply adding +1 attack,
ignoring weapon abilities in the off hand. It had the unintended
cpnsequence of making daggers way better. The second attack with them
no longer granted an armor save bonus for the defender. We played
primarily with one band dual-wielding and one band with hand weapon/
shield. The shiled band got slaughtered every time simply due to the
increased number of attacks (something I am sure you are all aware of).


At the end of the game session I wondered if perhaps the
off-hand weapon would grant a re-roll with the primary weapon instead
of +1 Attack? There are then no extra dice in play, it just lets your
average warrior have a better chance at hitting.

Absolutely,
it's the +1 A that's >>> shields. The maximum benefit from off-hand needs to be nerfed hard. This is where kurgan's +1 to hit
suggestion or Paluke's +1 WS makes sense. Even in these cases, shields are still notably worse than an off-hand weapons. Shields need a buff, hence my special rule suggestion and the slight modification of paluke's off-hand suggestion. I'm thinking now, however, that the
off-hand special rule applying to the attack is going to be a problem.

Possibilites that have come to mind:

Off-hand bonus: +1 to hit (no daggers), or +1 WS attacking and special ability applies (no daggers)
Shield: +5 AS (w/ hand weapon, as fantasy) or +1 WS defending and +6 AS

At first +1 to hit seems great until you realize how often 2 to hit is going to arise.

My attraction to the +1 WS attacking/defending off-hand/shield simmulacrum is that it explodes when you apply game theory. How you and your opponent are geared is going to effect the game fundamentaly.

Just curious, but would then...

Dualing Pistol + Club be...

+2 to hit, 2-4 stun, str 4, -2 save? Autohit against lower WS?

Dualing Pistol + Dualing Pistol...

+3 to hit?

rain9441 wrote:

Just curious, but would then...

Dualing Pistol + Club be...

+2 to hit, 2-4 stun, str 4, -2 save? Autohit against lower WS?

Dualing Pistol + Dualing Pistol...

+3 to hit?

Good example. This is why +1 to hit from off-hand should not be coupled with off-hand weapon special rules applying. As I mentioned just above, +1 to hit is probably a little too good. Also, the "Hand-to-Hand" special rule for dueling pistols could address this issue.

What about if you are wielding two of the same weapon you get +1 A, otherwise +1 WS and special rule applies (or doesn't)?

My head is starting to hurt a bit!

WarbossKurgan wrote:

My head is starting to hurt a bit!

You forgot to carry the 1....

In order to help my head too...

Okay, so the proposals for second weapon are to offer:

+1 WS when attacking with two weapons, no extra attack

or

+1 to hit with a second weapon, but no extra attack

or

+1 Attack with a -1 to hit penalty

or

a re-roll on a miss

It seems that off-hand weapon abilities (in some circumstances) overcomplicate or provide too great a bonus and should be disregarded in favor of the weapon in the primary hand.

Likewise, Shield offerings are:

+1 save when in close combat for a 5+ by itself as in WHFB

or

+1 WS when defending

or

add special rules for different kinds of shields/upgrades (from other dual-wield post)

or

change Armor piercing chart to make all armor more effective.

or

any combination of these.

Regardless, I would think that warriors with two weapons should indeed be better at offense than normal and a warrior with sword and shield should be better at defense. But, in a game where offense is the best defense, can we ever really get balance? Should the change be drastic or minimal? How close does it need to stay to regular warhammer conventions?

I hope I am not diluting the thread topic too much, but here is one more idea for shields:

New Skill: Shield Master.
A warrior trained in the use of the shield is adept at blocking incoming attacks.
A warrior equipped with a shield reduces his opponents number of attacks by one, to a minimum of one. In the event of an attacker with different kinds of attacks, the defender chooses which attack is lost.

I have updated the main entry to reflect the discussion. Summary:

Off-hand bonus: +1 WS attacking, special rules of both weapons apply, but do not stack, "Pair" weapons and pistols follow their own special rules
Shield bonus: +1 WS defending, +6 AS

I'd like to offer for debate special rules not stacking. This would mean -2 AS with axes, auto-stun w/ clubs/hammers (all attacks, ).

EDIT: Observation: this means daggers start to be attractive as off-hand weapons only at ST 4 and higher.

I don't think stacking would be all that bad. It would be more fun. Clubs should be repriced at 5 GC maybe, but helmets keep them from becoming excessive perhaps.

canonpenitentiary wrote:

I hope I am not diluting the thread topic too much, but here is one more idea for shields:

New Skill: Shield Master.
A warrior trained in the use of the shield is adept at blocking incoming attacks.
A
warrior equipped with a shield reduces his opponents number of attacks
by one, to a minimum of one. In the event of an attacker with different
kinds of attacks, the defender chooses which attack is lost.

I do like how you nullify the off-hand bonus here. Unfortunately any solution should apply equally to henchmen and heroes.

Just ran a simple playtest of these rules for the first time...

Posessed owns with 2 Attacks on profile. Took two, one with scorpion tail, one with great claw, totaly rolled up a dwarf warbands flank. Ridiculous. Should probably be large targets now. Hopefully have some better details tomorrow night.

The play test went well. Off-hand weapons are no longer a necessity. Models with two profile attacks may need to be more expensive as a result. Between the fact that no one who has played the game is going to want to give up attacks and the fact that the game is basically dead, this will be my last post on this topic. The rules I've proposed are at least worth a try, or perhaps worth just keeping a copy around in case someone with a 12-verminkin-with-two-daggers warband shows up.

ts061282 wrote:

...no one who has played the game is going to want to give up attacks...

That is my sentiments exactly. Trying to suggest improvements to this game to people who have played it since release is difficult to say the least.

This anti-nerf mentality is shared by me as well though, in a GW game it just feels right that another weapon grants an extra attack! Thanks for the ideas anyway, although i doubt we will ever agree on what to do to fix the issue... or if one even exists!

Yes, I agree with the extra attack – though I think the -1 to (both) hit(s) kind of evens it out a bit. I mean, you should have greater chance to hit if you have to weapons, though it shouldn't be superior.
Oh and for fluff, believe me, I train Kendo and using two weapons instead of one makes quite the different, even if your good with one hand... so I think the -1 to both is justified (and the change has both greater playability and makes a fairer difference).

Idea; you need a skill to dual wield any weapons that don't make up some form of historical match in either our world or the warhammer world. For instance, you may duel wield a rapier and dagger, or two sigmarite warhammers, I remember something about how they like to have two of them because it's like the twin tailed comet, fighting claws and weeping blades, etc. This wouldn't punish people for dual wielding, but it would cut down on its overuse. I also always thought that people should have some reason to use weapons that were traditionally paired, because I think its fluffy and interesting. That being said, I like the OP’s dual wield solution and if I can get my opponent to agree, I plan on giving it a try.

In the current edition of 40k some special close combat weapons don't get the extra attack for a second weapon unless they are paired, so that seems a logical fantasy extension of that.

Warriors armed with 2 clubs really don't appear in any real-world or Warhammer histories I can think of!

I have edited the main entry to reflect changes in thinking about whether weapon special rules should stack. There is no huge benefit if they do stack, whereas otherwise there is no reason to take two of the same weapon. If they don't stack, there would be an in-built equipment preference (don't take two of the same thing), which these rules changes are trying to eliminate to begin with. I would also like to suggest two swords allows parrying at equal to or above the attack roll, so there would be some benefit to two swords (two swords would guarantee a parry chance every time you are hit!)

I don't know about every time you are hit. For example:
1 sword: parry if rolling higher than the attack. Cannot parry blows at double or more strength.
2 swords: parry on equal or higher. May parry any strength hth attack.

Although, if you're nerfing the second hand attack, I don't see what's wrong with the secondary weapon being restricted to 'dagger only'.

It would definitely make shield in the off-hand worth taking against dagger-heavy warbands, as they're more likely to get +1 to their save.

(Special exceptions allowed, of course... weeping blades, fighting claws. I can also see this opening up the category to special 'one-use' off-hand weapons, like steel whips and pistols... when used off hand, they give +1 attack for the first round {with the special whip/pistol rules}, but for the rest of the combat, the warrior only the gains the main attacks.)

StyrofoamKing wrote:

May parry any strength hth attack.

Hmmm, hadn't considered the high str case. I meant you can parry a six, but you shouldn't be able to parry high str still. The rest of your post is best put in the other DW thread. In any case, I agree that a shield should more or less directly counter a second hand weapon.