The Big Boring Dual Wield Thread

biscuit wrote:

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.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. You're scenario is unbalanced (aside from GC) and unrealistic. Few scenarios require direct assault of an entrenched force. If you can't get full cover at least some of the time, you're probably not using enough terrain. Furthermore, you've failed to analyze the later half wherein the DWers double team three of the shooters on the charge and decimate them. You haven't elaborated an argument for using Path's solution... I don't get it.

ts061282 wrote:

biscuit wrote:

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.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. You're scenario is unbalanced (aside from GC) and unrealistic. Few scenarios require direct assault of an entrenched force. If you can't get full cover at least some of the time, you're probably not using enough terrain. Furthermore, you've failed to analyze the later half wherein the DWers double team three of the shooters on the charge and decimate them. You haven't elaborated an argument for using Path's solution... I don't get it.

It was never my intention to get into an argument and I really don't want to but if you refuse to extrapolate from the broad terms I'm providing then so be it. 10 models are never going to achieve full cover as they advance resulting in the frankly minimal casualties I suggested and archers should be placed in elevated positions with the view to set up kill-zones to protect (and in turn be protected by) melee specialists.

Path's suggestion limits the attacker to his base attacks, barring the luck of skill rolls this remains at a base of one. Therefore your DW models with their club and dagger would roll two dice but could only choose one, this puts them on par with my Bow, shield & sword guys but at the disadvantage that I can a) parry the blow and b) make an AS against it at 6+ or 5+. Given that the archers will get the charge (pre-measure from the previous shooting phase) the DW's are at a distinct disadvantage.

Simple put Path's DW suggestion gives you a increased chance to hit but importantly NOT an increased chance to wound. Frankly it implements the necessary Nerf required without breaking the core principle of wielding two weapons.

I hate to use real life examples but as someone who has physically fought with sword, sword + shield and double-wielding I can tell you it takes no special skill to be able fight with an off-hand weapon, but similarly there is no way both weapons are going to strike simultaneously every time. What happens is that you create far more openings and opportunities for attack, but only one of the weapons is ever going to be used for the thrust unless you're delivering a movie-style coup de grace.

Additionally, you haven't made comment on my suggestion of replacing armour saves with a toughness bonus and seem to have dismissed it out of hand so I suspect you are merely trolling. If you want to convince me otherwise, please feel free to make comment and/or send me your data and the applicable scenario breakdowns.


Edit:
To provide clarification of how my suggestion works with axes, perfect killer, etc, any skill/weapon/strength that reduces AS would instead negate an equivalent amount of Toughness bonus against models wearing armour and Double-handed weapons would gain the ability of their one-handed version, i.e. a two-handed axe would gain 'cutting edge' and a hammer would gain 'concussion'. Conversely, daggers and unarmed would confer a +1 toughness bonus to the target.

Also forgot to say, critical hits would move from being 6 on a wound roll to being a 6 on the to hit roll.

I'll now provide an example using a blend of my and Path's suggestions based on henchmen at WS3 S3 T3 A1.

DW warrior (Club, Dagger) Profile amended to WS3 S3 T3 A1(+1)
Warrior (Sword, Shield, Dagger, Bow) Profile amended to WS3 S3 T3(4) A1

Let's use the double team scenario and say the DW warriors charge. This gives them both a 75% chance to hit but that's not important, you have the same chance with a model with base 2 attacks. What is important is which weapons have hit. DW1 rolls a 4 on the club and a 6 on the dagger and so must choose between the club that has a 33% chance of being parried or the dagger which causes a critical hit so ignores the shield but confers it's own +1T bonus so has a 33% chance of wounding.

He goes with the club as it has the same 33% chance of causing a wound but causes concussion. This is parried.

DW2 then attacks rolling a 3 on the club and a 5 on the dagger and so is limited to the dagger, fortunately his target has already used his parry so he can roll to wound, but the dagger grants a +1 T bonus taking the target up to T5 and the attack only has a 16.67% chance of causing a wound.

The target in comparison will be striking with a 50% chance to hit and 50% chance to wound.


Taking this to the extreme we'll pit our two DW's against a Dwarf Noble in Gromril Armour and a shield.
Dwarf Noble WS5 S3 T4[8] A1

Immediately we can see the DW's are going to need critical hits to in order to negate some of that Toughness bonus and take him down!


NB Thinking about it more, my suggestion would require the introduction of "Any roll of a natural 6 to hit causes a critical hit that ignores armour" and the current critical hit to be termed "Critical wound".

The basic Critical wound chart would be:
1-2 causes 2 wounds
3-4 causes 2 wounds and +1 on injury rolls
5=6 causes 2 wounds and +2 on injury rolls

biscuit, I just want to make sure I'm reading what your saying right.

off hand weapon gives you a 2 attacks but you can only chose to keep one of the two hits (or the only hit that landed obviously). Your choice.

Armor adds to Toughness instead of an armor change.

Crit hits are scored on the "to hit" not "to wound" and as such the Crits alter the "to wound" results +1/+2 and # of wounds.

Over all I think it's a simple system. It seams vastly diffrent in the aspect of what I am used to for armor; but thats because I am not a WH Quest player. I think because it is so simple though and would not take huge rule changes would be easy to work with.

Question: would you still lower the cost of armor? I rather like the remade armor list made earlier.

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)

With those; I would think if I understand what your saying right all the +x saves would become +x toughness.

Not sure if i read the above posts correct but I do kind of like the idea that an off hand weapon gives you an extra attack still, but you can only inflict a number of wounds equal to your A stat. Thoughts?

thats the way i'm reading biscuit's idea also and why i like it.

You are correct, an off-hand weapon grants you an extra attack but you can only cause a number of wounds equal to your A stat. I don't want credit for this idea it was purely Path's and I too was struck by it's simplicity, it just seemed to have be overlooked in the steam-roll of -1 to hit.

With the amendment of armour saves becoming a toughness bonus, being able to ignore armour isn't just important it's a necessity. I think I confused matters by using the term Critical earlier, I posted this over on our club forum and it covers all the amendments I currently have planned.


1. Unless a roll of a 6 is needed 'to hit', rolls of a natural 6 ignore armour. Critical wounds will still only occur on a 6 'to wound' when the required 'to wound' value is less than 6. Revised critical wound chart would be 1-2 = 2 wounds, 3-4= 2 wounds and +1 on injury rolls, 5-6= 2 wounds and +2 on injury rolls.

2. Armour becomes a Toughness bonus. Light Armour +1T, Heavy Armour +2T, Ithilmar Armour +2T, Gromril Armour +3T. Shields confer +1T and can be combined with any other armour but cause -1 movement if combined with a Heavy or Gromril Armour. Ithilmar and Gromril armour are never fully negated by "ignore armour" and merely suffer a -1 to their bonus becoming +1T and +2T respectively. Weapons/Skills and strength modifiers that negate/add to Armour saves continue to do so and effect the toughness bonus provided by the armour.

3. Dual Weapon wielding - Additional hand weapons roll an extra dice to hit but you may only make a maximum number of attacks equal to your Attack profile. i.e. with A1 and two weapons - roll 2 dice and choose the best. This is to limit the number of wounds caused and prolong the game slightly.

4. Shields will continue to offer the +1 armour bonus against shooting in the forward 180 degree arc.

5. Parry can be used to negate any attack instead of just the highest, subject to the normal rules.

6. Double-handed weapons will gain appropriate traits - i.e. DH hammers/maces gain Concussion, DH Axes gain the Cutting Edge trait, DH swords can parry.


@Pervavita I do like the revised list and appreciate the hard work that has gone into it, but I think its unsuitable under the armour = toughness rules, as it may be that armour prices need to increase even above the original costs. Under A=T I would suggest:

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 armour bonus of +2T against close combat attacks and shooting attacks from within the forward 180 degree arc of the model, models shot in the back receive no save from shields. 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 may add +1T against attacks in close combat."

iv. Replace the existing cost, movement penalty, rarity and armour saves with the following:
- Light Armour: +1T, no -1M with shield, common, (20GC)
- Medium Armour: +2T, -1M with shield, common, (50GC)
- Full Armour: +3T save, -1M without Shield and -2M with shield, rare 8, (80GC)
Models in full armour and shield may charge with only a -1Mv modifier
- Ithilmar: +2T, no -1M with shield, rare 11 (90GC)
- Gromril: +3T, -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: +1T, Warhorse only, Rare 11, (50 GC)
- Warhorse: +1T, Ridden by Humans only, Rare 11, (80 GC)
- Horse: Ridden by Humans only, Rare 8, (40 GC)

p.84 Add the following to the Strongman skill,
"In addition, the movement penalty for wearing armour is reduced by 1"

I've run out of time so I'll have to explain my reasoning later.

Thanks for your feedback guys, I appreciate it. Sorry for going on the defensive early.

Pervavita wrote:

Crit hits are scored on the "to hit" not "to wound" and as such the Crits alter the "to wound" results +1/+2 wounds

Simple solutions, you've hit the nail on the head. Switching critical hits from 'to wound' to 'to hit' rolls would solve the entire problem without the need to change any tables . A 3+ on the vanilla critical hit chart would be needed to ignore armour.

"If a natural 6 is rolled 'to hit' the blow causes a critical hit, roll on the relevant table. The blow cannot cause a critical hit if a 6 is needed 'to hit'."

This should balance the Dw nerf.

To give an example;

Black Skaven, fighting claws and Art of Silent Death.

1 attack base +1 for fighting claws and +1 for AoSD. Causing critical hits on 5-6 if the 'to hit' required is less than 5. He rolls 3 attacks but may only choose one, the likelihood is he will cause a critical hit then he has a 66% chance of ignoring armour.

This is balanced by the fact he is limited to light armour and therefore extremely vulnerable to shooting.

Would someone mind doing the stats comparison on that? Vanilla vs using 4+ to hit as the standard.

Thanks

biscuit wrote:

Would someone mind doing the stats comparison on that? Vanilla vs using 4+ to hit as the standard.

Thanks

I'll provide a spreadsheet detailing any 1-on-1 scenario you describe for $50.

ts061282 wrote:

biscuit wrote:

Would someone mind doing the stats comparison on that? Vanilla vs using 4+ to hit as the standard.

Thanks

I'll provide a spreadsheet detailing any 1-on-1 scenario you describe for $50.

Seriously? I can think of plenty of better things to spend £25 on than dice statistics for a game I play once a month. I can do it myself in an hour, but with two young children that ain't going to happen any time soon.

Look, I know we've gotten off on the wrong foot, that was my fault and I tried to apologise for my initial response and make amends only for you to repeatedly goad me by making criticisms instead of offering rational argument. I've read through your previous posts and you've contributed a lot to this forum, I like a lot of you're ideas, but this is something different. It's not attack on your previous work it's an opportunity to work on something new.

All I want is for you to offer something constructive and to not feel like i'm being attacked because I'm the new boy.

biscuit wrote:

Seriously? I can think of plenty of better things to spend £25 on than dice statistics for a game I play once a month. I can do it myself in an hour, but with two young children that ain't going to happen any time soon.

...

All I want is for you to offer something constructive and to not feel like i'm being attacked because I'm the new boy.

My criticism shouldn't be taken as personal, you can see there are already 20 pages of suggested solutions and analysis. I'm skeptical, and I'm not about to invest my time in what I think is a wild goose chase. One can derive a certain amount of fun from the analysis, but I'm burned out. You seem intelligent. You should work the data.

ts061282 wrote:

biscuit wrote:

Seriously? I can think of plenty of better things to spend £25 on than dice statistics for a game I play once a month. I can do it myself in an hour, but with two young children that ain't going to happen any time soon.

...

All I want is for you to offer something constructive and to not feel like i'm being attacked because I'm the new boy.

My criticism shouldn't be taken as personal, you can see there are already 20 pages of suggested solutions and analysis. I'm skeptical, and I'm not about to invest my time in what I think is a wild goose chase. One can derive a certain amount of fun from the analysis, but I'm burned out. You seem intelligent. You should work the data.

I'm a teacher of 11-16 year olds, so take that as you will

I only asked as I presumed someone would have the framework already set up, if that's not the case I'll compile something.

I'm not expecting it to be the solution, but its a novel approach and I'd like to see where it goes. To quote your good self: "Einstein's Razor- make it as simple as possible but no simpler"

I like the idea of armor adding toughness. It makes things simpler, and really does make armor worth the cost. I'm not sure how this would work out, but I'd personally want to have anything wound on at least a 6. This would make critical hits be great, but at the same time if you don't roll a 6 the first time around, you still have a 16% chance of wounding that T10 knight.

So as I see it, the knight is T10. You have str 4 and a great weapon. You hit him, but don't get a critical hit. You need a 6 to wound. Without this addition, it would be impossible to wound him. Turn 2, you hit him again, but get a critical hit and ignore armor. You need a 2+ to wound.

Hi Grumbaki,

I set up another thread to discuss this further. Playtesting is going pretty well but I'll elaborate over there.

I was going to set up a thread to ask this question but this looks like the place to put it.

Please don't anyone kill me or carry out a character assassination, its just an idea that my gaming group is thinking about enforcing and I wanted to get some help from those in the know.

The general take on our thinking is that if Mordheim is like the films or any literature regarding heroic individuals, then it should concentrate on them. Apart from Arkhan the Black (oh and King Harold) it is always another famous hero or vilian who slays another.

Ive played against gamers who let all their henchmen do the fighting and let their hero's hide all day thinking about what they're going to spend their warpstone on after the battle. Yes we all want our hero's to survive and our warbands to progress but come on they have pride and should really be doing all the Heroics/dirty work (depending on point of view).

So to tie this in with the age old discussion of extra attacks we are thinking of doing this.....

DAGGERS: Can not be used as additional weapons, the only time a warrior uses this is if they have been disarmed of main armament or are only armed with the sole dagger.

HENCHMEN: Can never be armed with two weapons simple as that. (these guys are the people who always get killed in films anyway. If they want an additional attack they need to role for it.

NEW COMBAT SKILL - DUAL WIELD: Heroes may take this skill as an advancement and it allows them to use two hand weapons. However due to the difficulty in doing this properly both attack are at -1 WS (based on the Warhammer -1 for multiple shots rule and also saving the hassle of declaring which hand weapons are in).

ARMOUR AND SHIELDS: see option A at start of this thread

EXCEPTIONAL CASES: We discussed Wardancers and other elite henchmen and are in discussion whether to allow them the dual wield skill at an additional 20gc. You can tell our gaming group has a bloody wood elf player in it

Hopefully this will get the Hero's back into action and give them a little advantage over the henchmen (of which I have got nothing against by the way).

This is just something we have recently thought of and I am wondering if anyone can spot any glaringly bad ideas or have done something similar and could give us some feedback.

P.S: This probably wont make that much difference to me as I always get my Hero's killed running after lost causes and treasure chests anyway... Come back with that you Bastards that's bloody well mine you thieving.... (BANG, BANG, SH-THMM, SH-THMM.... SPLAT!!!)

The Yak wrote:

I was going to set up a thread to ask this question but this looks like the place to put it.

Please don't anyone kill me or carry out a character assassination, its just an idea that my gaming group is thinking about enforcing and I wanted to get some help from those in the know.

The general take on our thinking is that if Mordheim is like the films or any literature regarding heroic individuals, then it should concentrate on them. Apart from Arkhan the Black (oh and King Harold) it is always another famous hero or vilian who slays another.

Ive played against gamers who let all their henchmen do the fighting and let their hero's hide all day thinking about what they're going to spend their warpstone on after the battle. Yes we all want our hero's to survive and our warbands to progress but come on they have pride and should really be doing all the Heroics/dirty work (depending on point of view).

So to tie this in with the age old discussion of extra attacks we are thinking of doing this.....

DAGGERS: Can not be used as additional weapons, the only time a warrior uses this is if they have been disarmed of main armament or are only armed with the sole dagger.

HENCHMEN: Can never be armed with two weapons simple as that. (these guys are the people who always get killed in films anyway. If they want an additional attack they need to role for it.

NEW COMBAT SKILL - DUAL WIELD: Heroes may take this skill as an advancement and it allows them to use two hand weapons. However due to the difficulty in doing this properly both attack are at -1 WS (based on the Warhammer -1 for multiple shots rule and also saving the hassle of declaring which hand weapons are in).

ARMOUR AND SHIELDS: see option A at start of this thread

EXCEPTIONAL CASES: We discussed Wardancers and other elite henchmen and are in discussion whether to allow them the dual wield skill at an additional 20gc. You can tell our gaming group has a bloody wood elf player in it

Hopefully this will get the Hero's back into action and give them a little advantage over the henchmen (of which I have got nothing against by the way).

This is just something we have recently thought of and I am wondering if anyone can spot any glaringly bad ideas or have done something similar and could give us some feedback.

P.S: This probably wont make that much difference to me as I always get my Hero's killed running after lost causes and treasure chests anyway... Come back with that you Bastards that's bloody well mine you thieving.... (BANG, BANG, SH-THMM, SH-THMM.... SPLAT!!!)

Not saying your rule mods are bad but...

First, their is a long history of both villains and heroes, especially villains, sending others to fight for them. I do like to send my heroes in first but I believe that choice should be left to the player and not forced by the rules.

Now just look at the rules as they are, there are already a few reasons to get your heroes into the battle.
1. Their serious injury chart is way better. They can even get good stuff from getting wounded and have a lower chance of dying.
2. They earn way more XP when they are doing the killing. A few XP can quickly make up for a missing arm.
3. They are often tougher, stronger, more skilled, and just better at killing stuff than henchmen.
4. In many cases, henchmen are almost as expensive to lose as heroes. In some cases more so.

Now of course they don't get to search if they get knocked OOA but it really isn't that bad. You often will only get one or two knocked out and on average each guy only finds 0.5 wierdstone, so you only loose about 5 GC on average.

Of course some warband lists don't favor putting one or two of your heroes on the front line but the majority of them do. In almost all cases, hiding away your heroes is not an effective strategy. It totally wastes at least half your warband's fighting potential.

There is still that psychological barrier many players have. To counter act this, my group has decided to give all models with heavy armor equivalent or better a re-roll on the serious injury chart. We also allow players to replace a Hero when it dies with one that has as many XP as games we have played (still have to pay for him of course). These were simple changes that didn't really affect the game balance very much but made a huge difference in how people play.

The campaign I'm running uses a number of different rules, some of which are listed in this long boring thread, but some are new so I thought I'd post them.

First, the biggest change, is moving shields from wound roll saves to hit roll saves. This breaks from all GW stuff, but it makes more sense that your hand items deal with hits (attacks and parries already do this) and your armour deals with protection from successful hits. Also, this gives some freedom to make other changes that become more balancing. Shield saves are never modified.

Second, Armour is changed like some armour changes mentioned earlier, with Leather Armour (5 gc) at 6+, Light Armour (20 gc) at 5+, Heavy Armour (50 gc) at 4+, Ithilmar (and Chaos) Armour (90 gc) at 3+ and Gromril Armour (150 gc) at 3+ with a 4+ save from Serious Injuries. Armour never modifies movement, and is basically just at the old shield+armour value anyway.

Third, dual wield has an off-hand penalty of -1 to hit (countered by combat skill).

Fourth, some weapons confer a bonus to destroy shields if their save roll is a 1. These weapons are either the heavy weapons (flails, morning stars) during their first turn strength bonus, halberds, double-handed weapons, handguns and hunting rifles. This is to balance out weapon choices and to balance out the much more powerful shields (saving hits is way more common than saving wounds).

Fifth, crit charts were changed so each die number has a different result, often incrementally increasing in - save modifiers and giving the interesting fluffy crits on 1 and 6.

Sixth, parries were altered so a higher WS can roll equal to or under the hit roll, allowing parries of 6s, as well as choosing which attack per turn to parry.

Lastly, shields are given 2 skills, one to avoid breaking (heroes get better shields), and another to make a -1 strength -1 hit (for dual wielding) attack with a shield.

All together, these changes balanced so many things and made combat more 'realistic' imho. One, weapon and shield choice matters more, as your 'to hit' combat looks at balancing defense and attack with parries, first strikes, saves and number of attacks. Then your armour saves are simplified to just strength vs armour with the only modifiers being axes or crits. Also, shooting is compensated for as well with moving shield saves to hits because bows, crossbows and handguns now have more balance, with handguns getting through shields easier, bows being the weakest. We did modify the quick shot skill to exclude crossbows though.

With those rule mods what is the point of the buckler? In general wouldn't it be better to just have a shield?

Bucklers give a parry re-roll and can never be destroyed so sword and buckler is best defense for one on one combat, whereas a shield may be better for multiple attackers, but then you also have multiple chances for shield breakers. Flails, lances, morning stars, double handers, halberds, handguns and hunting rifles can all take away your shield permanently if you roll 1 to save. A buckler never goes away, and having a permanent reroll is quite powerful for 5gc. That said, yeah, probably a shitty option but how many warriors typically use bucklers at the expense of shields or weapons in real life? Just ones that can make it work for them.

brokenv wrote:

Bucklers give a parry re-roll and can never be destroyed so sword and buckler is best defense for one on one combat, whereas a shield may be better for multiple attackers, but then you also have multiple chances for shield breakers. Flails, lances, morning stars, double handers, halberds, handguns and hunting rifles can all take away your shield permanently if you roll 1 to save. A buckler never goes away, and having a permanent reroll is quite powerful for 5gc. That said, yeah, probably a shitty option but how many warriors typically use bucklers at the expense of shields or weapons in real life? Just ones that can make it work for them.

I don't think real life has anything to do with this game.

I also think that taking the bonus shield save away from armor nerfs armor. Much of the time my guys with heavy armor are being fought by guys with high strength and or weapons with strength bonuses. That can easily take 2 or 3 points off the armor save. This means a guy with heavy armor is only going to get a save of 6 or none at all. Even with the 4 up save against arrows (5 up vs crossbow and 6 up against black-powder) it doesn't seam worth the 50GP which can easily be as much as the cost of the unit plus his other equipment. Combining armor with the shield is what really makes it worth the money.

For Dwarves it takes away one of the big balances to their slower movement which is that they can use heavy armor and shield without an additional movement penalty

aviphysics wrote:

I also think that taking the bonus shield save away from armor nerfs armor.

That is why all the armour is set at the shield+ value

Leather = 5gc 6+ save
Light = 20 gc 5+ save
Heavy = 50 gc 4+ save, can't run
Ithilmar = 90 gc 3+ save
Gromril = 150 gc 3+ save, 4+ serious injury save, can't run

and not to mention you get an ADDITIONAL save on the hit roll that is unmodified at 6+

so, you get your same save value as with shield from before, AND you get another, better save on hit rolls. This is quite an armour buff. I don't see how you could see this as a nerf in any form.

brokenv wrote:

aviphysics wrote:

I also think that taking the bonus shield save away from armor nerfs armor.

That is why all the armour is set at the shield+ value

Leather = 5gc 6+ save
Light = 20 gc 5+ save
Heavy = 50 gc 4+ save, can't run
Ithilmar = 90 gc 3+ save
Gromril = 150 gc 3+ save, 4+ serious injury save, can't run

and not to mention you get an ADDITIONAL save on the hit roll that is unmodified at 6+

so, you get your same save value as with shield from before, AND you get another, better save on hit rolls. This is quite an armour buff. I don't see how you could see this as a nerf in any form.

In our game we buffed armor and shields (same armor save as you as shields give another +2). It has worked out pretty well. Adding a 6+ save on the to hit is not nearly as powerful as putting the bonus on the armor. It also adds a lot more rolling. With an armor save you only have to roll when someone actually scores a wound witch is about half as often as someone hitting. You basically multiplied the number of rolls by 3.

The higher armor save has really gotten people adding a lot wider variety of weapons than before. It also made armor actually worth buying.

aviphysics wrote:

You basically multiplied the number of rolls by 3.

Not really, since you don't even roll wounds or armour saves or anything else that brings 17% of the time.
Also, it makes it simpler for knowing save rolls, as you don't need to do math to figure your save, especially if you have the option for a shield or a weapon in the off-hand, but hey, in the end it's different strokes for different folks.

This is late in the discussion, but I wanted to know your opinions on this: What do you think of the idea of incorporating the 8th ed. WFB rule of the "parry save" for a HW+ Shield in melee combat. Essentially, instead of the +1AS that a shield provides, instead it has a 6+ ward save taken after the armor save, much like the "Step aside" rule's 5+ Save. We've started incorporating this into our campaigns, and it seems to balance out the whole DW vs. Shields issue. DW for offense, and having a chance for 2 saves from a shield makes them a lot more attractive than before. That way, even lowly henchmen can have the chance for an armor save for a mere 5 gc.

Hello all,

in our campaign we are sad with armours. High cost, and low protect because al people can add -1, -2 with high strong or a lucky critical hit.

We use shield give +2 in close combat (if you have a hand weapon or lance, no dagger) and +1 to shot save.

We are thinking to use the save or the armour to save the injuries of post battle too, then the armoured will have more sense to buy.