The Big Boring Dual Wield Thread

Breathing life into an old thread. Feels good man.

To be perfectly honest I see very little wrong with the way the core rules handle dual-wielding and armor. I have read through everyone's posts on this thread including all the variant rules and changes that are supposed to make it more balanced, and I see very little problem with the rules as they are laid out in the core rules. A few issues I have with some of the rule changes that may have not been considered:

- Battle Monks of Cathay are pretty much screwed in most of the alternate armor rules as the majority of their heavy hitters cannot wear armor and only fight unarmed (Albeit without penalties as listed in their entry) Later in the campaign their max str 4 is getting entirely negated by higher armor saves and their inability to wear said armor is all the more prevalent with the Double Handed Weapons getting used all over due to the other warbands' armor use. This also applies to those other warbands with units without the option to equip armor or better weapons (Carnival of Chaos Strongmen, Undead zombies and other non-experience gaining henchmen, etc.) The strongmen can use 2-handed weapons but no armor.

- The sheer amount of items in the game that already make it difficult to take units ooa is rather staggering and although I am quite aware that there are ways to negate pretty much everything I will list you have to pretty much tailor a hero to do that and there are complications there. I will use my Dwarf Clansmen (just recently made into a hero) as an example: just to hit you have to go through the lucky charm and the parry save, roll to would as normal (although the resilience skill and higher toughness can come into account), Step aside if applicable, then the armor save. Stunned? Try the helmet. Any of those rolls can be re-rolled once via a rabbit's foot. This level of defense can be achieved after only 2 or 3 games and can be done with most warbands. Equipment needed? Dwarf Axe (or your favorites parry weapon), shield, heavy or light armor depending on funds, helmet, Lucky Charm (10gc, rare 6), Rabbit's Foot (10gc, rare 6). Add a skill or two and things get better, and I didn't add in the dwarves "only ooa on a 6" thing to show that this can work for most other warbands.

- The cost of armor is a preventative measure so that swarms have a tougher time getting them on every member. Imagine if you will a horde of 22 skaven with 4+ armor saves running at you. Even dual wielding you would be hard pressed to stop something like that. You could outfit your entire army with double handed weapons, with all of them having the strongman skill so as to go in Initiative order, and the rats will kill you dead with str 3 and 4 attacks before you swing once. (Being dramatic here but you get the picture)

- Having the option to dual-wield without penalty is a viable strategy for some warbands, as is taking fewer members that are heavily armored. Starting warbands in our campaigns usually fall into 2 or 3 categories: The horde of low S, dual-wielding, un-armored peons with little ranged defense; the small band of heavily armed terror-machines with ungodly S and big weapons; and the bands that opt for something in-between, usually with more ranged attacks than CC options.

- Not to talk down about anyone's hobbies or anything but when people start talking about what 'works in real life' when it comes to games like this it causes the eyes to roll. The game rules are there entirely to give us a framework to roll dice in. If we were able to do everything in game that we can in real life the rulebook would be 2000 pages long and have a chart where you roll to see if your warrior can unravel the threads of his cloak to make rope to get out of the pit he fell in. Adding rules for things like the Shield Bash can be fun and I have nothing against going for a more cinematic feel, but the line must be drawn before you start playing D&D during your Mordheim league game.

Sorry for the lengthy post but I figured I'd get out as much as I can before something shiny distracts me.

tl;dr Game rules work fine as is.

I read a lot of good comments in this thread.

injust want bring in an new idea:

I would also play with -1to hit for dw. You can buy a skill to negate it ( nothing new yet).

Additional: warriors with Ws of 5 and higher do not suffer this malus.

To also strengthen the other options for highly skilled warriors:

shield and hand weapon: shield bash possible: 1 shield attack at half strength rounded up, -2 injury modifier

helbard: additional parry rule

dhw: additional parry rule

spear: additional +2I

I think Ws is to less important, so maybe such modifications for high skilled warriors wou
d be helpful.

I really would like to read what you think about it

SerialMom

There are a bunch of characters that cannot gain combat skills, thoes are Augur, Eshin sorcerer and Necromancer. Is this has been ever discussed?
they start all with WS3 (augur with 2) and cannot compensate the malus of double wielding.

How Fighting claws are treated? they suffer the malus?

wyldhunt wrote:

The option my group uses:

1. Armor Save roll of 1 always fails.

2. A shield plus weapon combination grants the wielder +1 Armor Save in HtH combat.

3. Offhand weapon attacks suffer a -1 Strength.

4. Dagger attacks suffer a -1 Strength (rather than granting an opponent +1 Armor Save).

5. Add a skill called Manic Warrior to the Combat Skill list and also grant it as a special rule to select models (those whose fluff mention Dual Wielding). Manic Warrior removes the -1 Strength penalty from offhand weapon attacks.

does that mean that a dagger offhand attack is at -2 Strength ?
wouldnt that be too weak ?

We're keeping things simple. Shields (and bucklers) give an additional +1 armour save in close combat. We've altered the equipment prices as well to make one-handed weapons more expensive and shields/light armour cheaper. In this way, a model with dual wielding axe/hammer is as expensive is a model with light armour, shield and axe.

Double wielding is still the norm, but some warriors have been built for survival with a 4+ arnmour save in close combat and helmet.

Our group has been doing this rule instead.

If you have a shield and a weapon that can parry (sword, dwarf axe etc) you will get a +1 to your parry roll. So you have a chance to parry a 6.

We felt that makes having a shield and weapon a bit more useful. Granted u still need to use a parrying weapon .

So do you allow a Buckler that bonus as well Siredge? In the Southlands project I am working on I want shields to be a big deal comparatively. But not unbalancing. I am debating between a 5+ save, or just the additional bonus in melee combat. Bucklers would give Parry and then a +1 in melee only I am thinking.

What a fantastic thread, some which give me ideas I had never thought of (such as your secondary weapon being at a -1 to hit or something)

When my friends and I ran games, because of how we would ALWAYS have dual-wielders due to assorted preferences (A friend would always play Beastman... dual wielding Beastman? Uh... no thank you), so we began to adopt that fighting with a hand-weapon and shield would confer an armor save. So if you only had the weapon/shield, you still got a 5+ armor save. This small change made a few of us fight with armor/smarter, as when fighting dual-wielding Beastmen with Axes, having Hvy Armor, Shield, Hand-Weapon gave us SOMETHING to counteract with.

A great discussion.

I've always felt that dual wield is a far to viable option and after reading through this thread, I must say that you all have some very nice ideas!
These are the ones I like the most:

Lord 0 wrote:

The full list of house rules we use are:

• Armour is half-price except shields, helms, and toughened leathers.
  
• Armour suits grant a base-save against physical serious injury.
  
• We use the optional crit tables but all 'and ignores armour saves' sections are removed. Results that are *only* 'ignores armour saves remain.
  
• Shields and bucklers grant an additional +1 armour save in close combat.
  
• Gromril counts as heavy armour, Ithilmar counts as light armour.
  
• Dual Wielding incurs a -1 to hit penalty on all attacks.
  
• New Combat skill: Dual Wielder: Removes penalty for dual wielding
  

I fear however, that this might make armour a bit too good against shooting. And I don't mean shooting as in a Shadow Warriors warband but as in a few bows on 3-4 guys in your average warband. They are almost always S3 and if you remove one of the "no armour save" critical hits, you will often get a 4+ save against any missile wound. Shooting being weaker than close combat already since it doesn't auto OOA on Stunned etc. What are your thoughts about this and what can be done to "fix" it?

Doesn't happen, or at least not in our games. Remember, the shield only grants a bonus +1 in melee - not against shooting. Initially, almost noone takes heavy armour and a shield because Mordheim seems to be all about mobility and noone wants to take the -1M hit you get if you take heavy armour and shield.

Dwarfs don't mind so much, but with their stumpy little legs you get more shots at them anyway, so it balances out in that respect.

Also, what happens is that you see more people getting handguns, pistols, and elf bows to punch through the armour and, frankly, anything that increases weapon variety on the field is a good thing .

That being said handguns are still purchased very rarely, but at least now when they are found they are used rather than just sold for the cash and a dwarf with a brace of handguns is pretty good at making people with armour keep their head down. So would anyone else, but it was my dwarf player friend that I first saw do it, so that is what I think of first . He found a handgun and couldn't decide whether to get Nimble or Hunter first, so he got nimble and actually bought another handgun.

How about if you made it so that the only way a warrior could dual wield was with the skill mainiac? So every one starts of with the shield/hand weapon combo and gradually combat heroes start to gain two weapons as the campaign progresses.

Personally, *I* didn't like that solution for two reasons:
1/ It removes choices and choices tend to mean more fun. This is probably the most important reason.
2/ It doesn't make a lot of sense. *Anyone* can just pick up a second weapon and hit people with that too, and it makes a noticable improvement in your ability to score a strike on your opponent if they only have one weapon. Granted, it takes a bit of training to use it properly, but to be honest, anyone with WS 2 or 3 would have that training. After all, that *is* what it stands for - "Weapon Skill". Someone with points in WS *isn't* just some schmo off the street.

Well actually WS is a measure of weapon skill ranging from cannot hold a weapon to OMFG!!! so WS 2 is "just some schmo off the street" because isn't that the WS of the peasants mob from the empire in flames setting. WS 3 is a little training and then 4+ is actually skilled fighters. But that aside I see your point about removing choices but the whole point of this thread is that DW removes choices because it's ridiculously good so I think im going to start using the shield bash attack at half strength combined with the -1 to hit with dual wield that can be remedied by the maniac skill.

WS2 is indeed the weapon skill of the peasants from the peasant mob. Remember that back in the day, pretty much *everyone* was taught how to fight at least a little. Fathers would teach their sons how to wield (most commonly) a staff and a club because back then *everyone* needed to know how to defend themselves. It was not like it is today where very few people have any practical experience at all.

WS3 is more than just a little training because that is the level of skill that an experienced soldier in the State Armies have.

WS0 - Literally no skill or ability whatsoever. Cannot make any attacks at all, all attacks against will auto-hit. Possibly inanimate or unconscious or otherwise immobilised.
WS1 - Token ability. Can hold a weapon and swing it about a bit, but has no training at all. Probably heard about fighting though, or has seen it on television or something.
WS2 - Some training, but very little. Probably undergone either basic training in the military, a few months with a tutor (most likely either their father or a tutor) or has survived a several serious brawls on the street.
WS3 - Good training and some experience. Typical level of human military training.
WS4 - Either a *lot* of training and good experience or a *lot* of experience and good training, but not a lot of both.
WS5 - A *lot* of training and a *lot* of experience
WS6 - Normal human maximum. The peak of human ability.

Lord 0 wrote:

WS3 is more than just a little training because that is the level of skill that an experienced soldier in the State Armies have.

WS0 - Literally no skill or ability whatsoever. Cannot make any attacks at all, all attacks against will auto-hit. Possibly inanimate or unconscious or otherwise immobilised.
WS1 - Token ability. Can hold a weapon and swing it about a bit, but has no training at all. Probably heard about fighting though, or has seen it on television or something.
WS2 - Some training, but very little. Probably undergone either basic training in the military, a few months with a tutor (most likely either their father or a tutor) or has survived a several serious brawls on the street.
WS3 - Good training and some experience. Typical level of human military training.
WS4 - Either a *lot* of training and good experience or a *lot* of experience and good training, but not a lot of both.
WS5 - A *lot* of training and a *lot* of experience
WS6 - Normal human maximum. The peak of human ability.

Your chart is just slightly off. WS 0 represents non-living things. There is absolutely no living, mobile being in the entirety of any Warhammer-based product that I know of with such a stat.

WS 1 is likewise either non-existent or virtually so barring injury. I'm not certain even a lone Snotling has a WS of 1. Swarms and the like have a WS of 2. Maybe Zombies are here in the new Vampire book? I'm not certain.

WS 2 represents a completely untrained individual. They may have been in a fight or two, they may have even played around with wooden swords when they were little, but a WS model is not a fighter at all. Goblins, barely-capable Undead, and untrained peasants all have WS 2.

WS 3 is more like what happens when you take a peasant and throw them through two weeks of training. They can stab a straw dummy pretty darned well, and maybe even fight in some semblance of formation, but they are more "levy" and less "soldier." Alternatively, this could also represent an individual with a natural knack for fighting but absolutely no training.

WS 4 is where you get into the professional soldier category.

Soldiers that have been in the Empire State leveys for years have WS3. *Veterans* that have been and seen and done *a lot* and are promoted to Greatswords have WS4. I think you are underestimating what the numbers represent.

WS1 is non-existent because in such a war-torn society pretty much noone has it. Everyone gets at least a *little* training from birth. Either that, or they die. The only people I can think of likely to have WS1 are women, girls with families, and possibly old men with MS or something and such characters are simply not called for.

Lord 0 wrote:

Soldiers that have been in the Empire State leveys for years have WS3. *Veterans* that have been and seen and done *a lot* and are promoted to Greatswords have WS4. I think you are underestimating what the numbers represent.

Soldiers who have just been inducted into a levy also have WS 3.

A rookie Dwarf who is marching with a Throng for the first time has WS 4.

Heck, give an Empire recruit a sword and shield and he suddenly jumps to WS 4.

I think you are overestimating what the numbers represent.

Lord 0 wrote:

WS1 is non-existent because in such a war-torn society pretty much noone has it. Everyone gets at least a *little* training from birth. Either that, or they die. The only people I can think of likely to have WS1 are women, girls with families, and possibly old men with MS or something and such characters are simply not called for.

WS 1 actually is represented, in 8th Edition, as soldiers who failed their fear test. So I suppose the truth would be that a character with WS 1 does not fight so much as try randomly flailing while screaming, whereas something with WS 2 is completely untrained, but is able to focus somewhat.

Simplish fix, sort of. Or, at least, part of one:

Remove the free dagger. When you hire someone, you get that person with just his or her fists.

Sure, it still makes dual wielding "better" than sword and board, but it also means that if you want to use a dagger and club, you're paying 5 gcs instead of 3. It wouldn't be effective in the long run, but it'd help at first, a little.

Alternatively, you can also adapt the 8th edition shield "parry." Give it +1 armor and a 6+ save that can't be negated against anything attacking in the front. I also like allowing shields to parry, period.

Another idea would be to allow any one-handed weapon (within reason) to be wielded in both hands, allowing rerolls to hit and/or to wound. While this wouldn't help with shields at all, it'd be a nice way of narrowing the bridge between two weapons and one. After all, just about any axe, sword, or club could be held in a double-handed grip.

I think, ultimately, what the league we're talking about starting up will use is a mix of the following:

-Shields can parry.
-6+ "ward" for shields in the front (melee only).
-Body armor allows you to negate serious injuries.
-Negatives to hit and strength for off-hand weapons.
-Probably some sort of "negate penalties" skill.
-If using the skill, it would likely come as standard for Troll Slayers, Assassins/Black Skaven, and others as appropriate.

We recently began playing Mordheim, and are using the standard rules, because that's what we have. I think we will probably stick with them, but I have some suggestions for balancing armor out with Dual Wield.

The trouble with armor is that it's too easily negated. Strength, certain weapons, and the ever present critical hits all make Armor just not worth the trouble. a lot of this is addressed in the coreheim rules (eliminating the "ignore armor" rules on crits, for example), but my group *likes* the random nature of Mordheim.

Anywho, this is what I suggest -

A weapon in the offhand does not increase the number of attacks you gain per turn. In a given turn, you may choose to re-roll either one failed attack roll or one failed parry role with an offhand weapon. If your main hand weapon does not have the Parry quality, you may make one normal Parry roll per turn with an offhand weapon. Daggers do not grant this benefit. You could add a more expensive "main gauche" weapon (5gc cost) if you wanted.

Shields add +1 to any parry roll, and armor saves as normal. If the character's weapon does not have the Parry special quality, the character may make a normal parry roll with their shield.

As for Armor -

Armor saves are not modified by Strength. This would lead to an increase in weapon diversity, and would not make the armor basically meaningless to anyone with a S4 or better.

OR

Remove all modifiers to armor saves, except for black powder weapons, which would have their modifiers max out at -1. A successful armor save will reduce the result of a wound by one step. Being taken OOA becomes Stunned, Stunned becomes Knocked Down, Knocked Down is negated.

Not sure if these options would work, but if you geared a character with a helmet, the wound severity reduction might be enough to make it work well.

Having armor not reduced by S could be very interesting. Axes and guns etc would suddenly become much more useful and Lizardmen's Scaly Skin would feel much more balanced. Not sure if I would go for the change to the two weapon rule though as I think the armor benefit alone would encourage shields enough to be worthwhile.

This is an intractable problem. Here is the original, 20-page thread. I have done extensive statistical analysis on this problem.

My post in the concluding page of that thread gives the modifiers that most equilibrate DW/Shields:

Quote :

Balanced DW/Sh:

Off-hand: -1 to hit, -1 to wound, first round of HTH only
Sh: 4+ AS that does not combine with other armor

Because this is obviously extreme/different, it was decided no one will ever adopt it.

Did anyone ever do the Math on Path's very elegant and, more over, simple idea of limiting the number of hits you can cause to the number of attacks you're model has?

I'd be more than happy to adopt this system as its quick and doesn't require a massive overhaul of the core rules.

e.g. Stikum Gud is an Assassin Adept and though he's been gaining lots of skills he's still on 1 Attack basic.

At present he has a pair of Weeping Blades and a sword coated in Black Lotus as his tail fighting blade so; 1 attack basic +1 for off-hand +1 for tail-fighting. All weapons are identical so at present I roll 3 dice and roll to wound on anything that hits.

Path's idea would mean I roll 2 dice of one colour for the pair of weeping blades and 1 die of another colour for the tail blade. I would then only count the tail blade and the best roll on the weeping blades.

If he where armed differently, say with a sword and dagger, then different coloured dice again and the option of choosing which weapon to go with if both hit.

The main rules state that the model must make 1 attack with one weapon and all other attacks with the other so I think this is the simplest solution.

To give a second example:

Your guy has 2 attacks sword + shield, mine has 2 attacks sword and dagger. Both are WS3 S3.

You have the opportunity to cause 2 hits and a 6+ AS,
I have the same opportunity to cause 2 hits but roll an extra die to hit.

Statistically I have a better chance of hitting you, whereas you have the chance to negate all damage and that's before we bring in Parry. If I hit with all 3 dice but my 6 to hit was on the dagger I'd be compelled to choose that attack just so I could guarantee I'd be rolling two wounds both of which you have a chance to block one at 6+ and the other at 5+.

Flip that around and you're attacking me, you also hit with both attacks and I can only parry one blow so that's one definitely going through to wound. (It would be the same if it were Stikum with his Weeping Blades)

As always it depends on who gets the charge, though the DW needs it far more than the S+S guy.

biscuit wrote:

Did anyone ever do the Math on Path's very elegant and, more over, simple idea of limiting the number of hits you can cause to the number of attacks you're model has?

It's a non-starter. My calculations never differentiated multiple wounds, so could be read as "percent chance of causing at least one wound", the same stats as Path's modification would produce.

Using a skill system based solution to DW'ing, as I suggest at the end of the prior thread, is the best of all possible solutions. Again, DW'ing is so advantageous, no plausible solution is practical.

Here is my take on reading all of this.

DW is too good, no question asked.
There is more here to talk about then just restricting DWing though as it effects the whole combat system so it must be looked at as a whole.
On the 2nd post of this thread there is posted Options A/B/C. These I think are a fine place to start but to not do enough alone.
So I say we start with combining them all and taking the best of them all.

OPTION D

i. Page 35, "Fighting with two weapons". Add the line "Due to the difficulty in fighting with more than one weapon, any warrior attempting to do so suffers a -1 penalty to hit with both weapons. A warrior using a pistol in hand-to-hand combat is exempt from this penalty."
I think a -2 penalty to the off hand would be good though here. Maybe also a -1 to wound for the off hand.

ii. Page 122, New Combat Skill "Maniac Warrior: The Warrior is adept at fighting with a weapon in each hand. He may ignore the -1 to hit penalty that such practice normally incurs." Johann The Knife, Bertha Bestraufung and Veskit should all be granted the "Maniac Warrior" skill.
if a -2 were given to the off hand above I would have this still only remove the -1 to the off hand giving it still a small draw back.

iii. Page 51, under Shield. Add the line. "In addition to this save, a warrior armed with a shield and a hand-weapon has a basic save of 5+ (or may add +2 to his armor save if other armor is worn). Mounted models may not gain this benefit. Hand weapons are defined as hammers, staffs, maces, clubs, axes, swords, morning stars and spears. Variants such as rapiers or Dwarf axes are
also included.

Page 51, under Buckler. Add the line "In addition to this, a warrior armed with a buckler and a hand-weapon has a basic save of 6+ (or may add +1 to his armor save if other armor is worn).

iv. Replace the existing cost, movement penalty, rarity and armor saves with the following:
- Light Armor: 6+ save , no -1M with shield, common, (10GC)
- Medium Armor: 5+ save, no -1M with shield, common, (20GC)
- Full Armor: 4+ save, -1M with shield, rare 8, (50GC)
- Ithilmar: 4+, no -1M with shield, rare 11 (90GC)
- Gromril: 4+, no -1M with shield, rare 11, Special Rule: "Death Defying: A warrior that is wearing Gromril armor gains a 4+ save against Serious Injury during the post-battle phase. Treat a successful save exactly as if the warrior had received the "Full Recovery" result (150GC).
Medium, Full, Ithilmar & Gromril Armor are all types of Heavy Armor.
-Barding: 6+ save, no, Warhorse only, Rare 11, (20 GC)
- Warhorse: 6+ Save, Ridden by Humans only, Rare 11, (50 GC)
- Horse: 6+ Save, Ridden by Humans only, Rare 8, (25 GC)

v. Page 32 & p.167. Critical Hits Chart. Under result 5-6 "Master Strike!" remove the line "The attack ignores all armor saves"

Page 160. Optional Missile Critical Hits Chart. Under result 5-6 "Master Shot"
remove the line "There is no armor save"

Page 161. Optional Bladed Weapon Critical Hits Chart. Under result 5-6
"Sliced!" remove the words "ignores armor saves"


This is combining all of the above with removing the “after battle” stuff as the cost of armor has come down.

There are a few “other” things I want to add.

Manic Warrior skill would become for selected henchmen an “option” to by for 15c each henchmen and can only be purchased at the start of a campaign. Some heroes may also have this option… It would be for those that the fluff fits for, so for example Merc Swordsmen I could see having this option.
I don’t like it being something that just any henchmen can get (like Merc Warriors) as DW at skill takes long training and some time to develop, hence why also only purchased at the start of the campaign.

Now this all leads us to armor becoming a “better” option, also a shield and buckler in the 2nd hand are more viable.
But we still have too much armor negating in the game so here is the fix for that.

Armor starts negating at 5+ instead of 4+. The small shift won’t have major effects I don’t think; though will help those in armor. Maybe give those ranged weapons with a – x armor mod to also get another +1 to it though.

I also say add another new skill:
Shield Bash (strength skill): Armed with a Shield the model gets an extra attack on the charge that strikes first. This attack is at a +1 strength and +1 to hit. On rolls to wound 1-2 is treated as a “knock down” well 3-6 are treated as “stunned”. No Critical Hits can happen.

The last short fall in all of this I see is now 2 handed weapons fall rather short, there was talk of earlier having 2 handed weapons have a price drop to 10 GC and then have them take a +x price based on type that would also conferee the said weapons bonus for price hike. So a 2 handed sword would be 20 GC but allow Perry, a 2 handed Hammer would be 13 GC, and an Axe 15 GC… It would need to specify that it is only those 3 weapons or else you might have some guys saying “Hey I got me a 2 handed dagger!”; as stupid as it sounds we all know that stuff happens.


I read all previous post before posting and then also read the first few pages of another thread about this (that 20 page one) with all the formulas and that lead me to many of these opinions and small alterations to some of your ideas.
I have not play tested this; I came here in a search for an answer to this question and some others on how to balance a few warbands (have not found that here yet… but I want my Amazons balanced and my son’s Shadow Warriors balanced). With no consensus found here but many good ideas I thought I would formulate ideas on it and see what could come of it.
At the end of the day we all (ok most) can agree DWing is unbalanced to other options (I want my Bretonnians when I play them to go into battle in shinning armor and all!) for armament and the first real step we can take as a community is to find the best, most balance, and simplest (ie not major game mechanics re writes) way to balance the rules the more likely it is that they become more universally accepted and that is the best thing for the game so you can play games with other people easier with universal rules.

There are other weapons and such out there that need some balance (maybe clubs a price hike, spears/halberds a price droop/added rule) and those are related of course but for now simply getting the game to the point where 2 hand weapons is not the only viable option but rather 2 hand weapons vs 1 hand weapon w/ shield vs GW is balanced would make things a large leap in the right direction. From there we can tackle other less important details of balance.

ts061282 wrote:

biscuit wrote:

And 20 pages of number crunching has bored me to tears

If you don't work within the numbers, how can you assert credibility in this argument?

biscuit wrote:

In all seriousness the DW vs Shield argument comes down to who gets the charge, DW guy has a better chance of taking down his opponent on the charge, Shield guy has a better chance of surviving if he doesn't.

This is only one of many possible factors/modifications.

biscuit wrote:

A Sword and Shield model with lightning reflexes, a decent initiative and a missile weapon will put down a dual wielder before he has chance to attack and stands a good chance of making it to the second round of combat if he doesn't.

Certainly, a model with skills and more expensive equipment will stand a better chance. This is introducing too many variables to make an overall argument. Let's say the henchman costs 15 gc and you've introduce 30 gc of equipment/skillls. I've still won by numbers of my club/dagger DW'ers.

biscuit wrote:

We've added a +1 AS to shields against shooting in the forward arc for our campaign and left it at that. I am considering implementing Path's idea for the Aftermath as I stated on the other thread but that's all it needs.

Define "forward arc" or "forward arc of our campaign" (ambiguous). I've responded to the suggestion of Path's solution in the other thread. Please respond in the other thread with relevant quotes (as this thread is a.) not stickied, and therefore b.) dead.).

Apologies for that post, I've just read it back and I sound like a complete ass! That's what I get for posting at gone midnight.

The point I was trying to make was that the number crunching is moot if the Strikes First rule for charging isn't taken into account. That's the crux of Mordheim isn't it, sneaking around in the shadows trying to get the jump on your opponent?

In my example I was referencing Heroes, henchmen are a different kettle of fish but to say DW's are overpowered / "will own" is focusing to much on just one aspect of the Mordheim game.

A few obvious examples with 300gc to spend on a starting warband.;

Human mercenery warrior- Dagger, Sword, Shield and Bow 50gc each so x6 = 300gc
Human Merc warrior- Mace, Dagger 28gc x10 = 280gc.

DW outnumber by 4 but the mercs with bows are engaging from 24" and potentially causing OOA. By the time the DW are approaching charge range they will be close to having to make Rout tests, especially if you opt for Reikland Marksmen for the same cost. To add insult to injury I know your charge range as I've been shooting at you and I know if I need to fall back slightly to deny you the charge.

So that's 4 turns of shooting (giving you the benefit of the doubt and saying you hugged cover all the way). Two turns @ 6+ to hit, one turn @ 4+ to hit and one turn @ 5+ to hit. Theoretically that's two hits at long range (turn 1+2), three hits on turn 3 and two hits on turn 4. Seven hits is potentially 4 wounds and of those 1 OAA, two stunned and a knock-down. This means your initial combat force is 6 while waiting for your fallen models catch up, you've got to face another round of shooting and are potentially just out of range for the charge after that. When you do charge you're facing models that can parry and get a AS.

To summarise; Yes you get more DW's for your money and in a straight fight I'd agree with the logic, but Mordheim, like all wargames, is a game of tactics and given that I'd take Path's idea as an effective way to discourage DW. I mean it's not as though it's not a combat option for the sword and shield guy anyway, as he can choose his weaponry before the combat and take sword & dagger to DW himself.

As for the question about the "facing arc" in our campaign, i was referring to the front 180 degrees of the model.


Thanks for reading my mad ramblings and I'll apologise in advance as it's gone midnight again.


P.S. I think the main issue with DW is Critical Hits and crap armour, try playing a game where critical hits just ignore armour instead of causing 2 wounds + extras and use armour as it was in Warhammer Quest i.e. it provides a toughness bonus.

Shield +1T
Light +1T,
Heavy +2T but -1Mv if combined with a shield
Ithilmar +2T
Gromril +3T but -1Mv if combined with a shield

Shields can be combined with any armour type to increase the bonus by one.
Critical hits to models wearing Gromril or Ithilmar armour reduce the toughness bonus by one and ignore the bonus provided by shields.