The Big Boring Dual Wield Thread

Aipha: the reason we made the dual weapon thread a sticky is so we don't have more than one thread dedicated to this discussion. Ergo I merge your thread with the ongoing boring discussion thread. LET THE DEBATE CONTINUE!

Coppermind wrote:

Fear says you need a 6 to hit, if you compare WS, the chart says you need a 3-5+ to hit. Any to hit modifiers are applied to the rolled dice. The rule doesn't say natural 6s will hit.

I see, so if a Plaguebearer charges someone, and they fail their fear test, they can't hit it.
I've always read it as a natural, but you're probably right, that the rule just says a 6 to hit before modifiers - anyway, that's another discussion, but thanks for pointing it out :-)

Coppermind wrote:

I think you just have to point out, what suits your gaming group best or what you see as the worst problem and buff/nerf accordingly.

Agreed! Which is also why I made the suggestion. My gaming group was unaware of the possibility of doing the -2 to hit, and I haven't read it anywhere else, including here, so I just wanted to add some more to the debate, since I find this option most suitable.

DeafNala, I am sorry, I only thought this thread was to discuss the 3 options provided in the first post!

Aipha wrote:

DeafNala, I am sorry, I only thought this thread was to discuss the 3 options provided in the first post!

No problem at all. In fact I rarely have occasion to merge threads, SO this was a fine opportunity to keep in practice...thanks for that & your understanding.

I've been wrestling with the dual wield problem, and have read most of both dual wield threads but did not feel that any of the solutions met all the requirements I feel need to be met.

The rock paper scissors should go: Dual Wield > 2 Hander > Shield (circular). This leaves a place for all weapon combinations.

Buffing armor alone does not do this. Dual axes or dwarven axes or just high strength will cancel it out and dual wield will be the best again. Nerfing dual wield severely as many suggestions do, does not create this RPS relationship. Nerfing it heavily simply makes it worse than a 2 hander at killing most things, without making it that much worse against a shield.

My suggestion:

Shields negate the free attack granted by an off hand weapon.


Now the shield + weapon guys will be straight up better vs dual wielders. They have a 5+ save, and same number of attacks.

Dual wielders will chop down 2 hander guys thanks to their multiple attacks and not striking last.

2 Handers will chop down hard targets as they always have.

A place for all weapons with one extremely simple rule.

Thoughts?

Very interesting idea and so simple.
Speaking of a 5+ save - did you buff shields in close combat or is this in combination with light armour?

The only problem I can think of: pistols. Using a pistol in close combat is always the offhand, so you couldn't use pistols vs shield-bearing warriors anymore.

Coppermind wrote:

The only problem I can think of: pistols. Using a pistol in close combat is always the offhand, so you couldn't use pistols vs shield-bearing warriors anymore.

False. With a brace of pistols you can use both in close combat, so one in each hand.
With this adjustment it would simply mean you could only fire a pistol in close combat if you had a brace, or house rule it so that you may use a pistol in your main hand.

I meant one pistol - should have written 'a single pistol' - but you're right on the brace.

Unfortunately I realized a fatal flaw in my suggestion which is obvious in hind-sight.

You can't address the dual wield problem through shields, as there are a ton of things that simply can't use shields, or equipment in general.

Quote :

You can't address the dual wield problem through shields, as there are a ton of things that simply can't use shields, or equipment in general.

I have been baffled by the whole dual wield thing for years, but I thought that one of the goals was to increase the use of shields by making dual wielding less of a universal choice.  I don't see why the existence of warriors that don't use equipment bares on dual wielding?  

I like the proposal, although I would be concerned about the impact of your rule on the use of pistols.

I agree with Von Kurst, just because some models can't use shields should not mean that this is broken. A Ghoul can't use any weapons but is good as is a wardog.
part of the players stratagy will have to be to work around this in there over all warband set up.

For pistols or any weapon for that mater why not just have the shield (and buckler?) negate 1 attack only (to a minimum 1) like the tentical for possessed and it be the attackers choice or highest inititives choice?

Here is what we've done after careful consideration of all proposed changes on this forum (I think I caught them all) and other sites.

As I've compiled a campaign of 160+ scenarios with 12 warbands, all culled from every printed piece of Mordheim and inserted Border Town Burning, Relics, Empire, Town Cryer & Fanatic magazine (--thank you random Russian player) we decided to nip the dual-wield/armor-save in the bud.

1. We retooled the Strength Armor Save Modifiers
1-4 no save, 5-6 -1AS, 7-8 -2AS, 9+ -3AS

2. We allowed Steel Cloth to be a regular item to be worn under Light Armor only
+1 AS

3. We didn't touch Shooting except to add a -1BS to the off-hand missile weapon
We may strike this one dead as shooting rules are rather decent in our opinions.

4. Weapons purchased in pairs are exempt from dual wielding except for braces of pistols.
Yes, Skaven have a slight advantage in the beginning, but that's about it.

5. Weapons Expert and Weapons training remove the off-hand penalty.

6. Heroes randomly roll for skills but get to choose which characteristic to increase; henchmen cannot. --we're all over 30 and don't have time for the fates to settle everything.



Thus far, we've enjoyed this nerfing in playtests. Thoughts or anything I may have missed that off-sets balance that we've neglected?

I don't think the last point is such a good idea. It will make heroes too strong in comparison to henchmen (even more than is already the case in regular Mordheim).

Captain, thanks for the input.

After mentioning your post and looking over the advancement table in question--especially after noting the ability to choose between WS and BS already embedded therein--we've decided to strike that and just keep it simple(; stupid to over-tweak).

Hello all, I just wanted to emphasize a point that I feel has been understated in this thread. Many people seem to believe that DW is unbalanced because a model that dual wields has a significant advantage over a shield-using model in a duel (i.e., a one-on-one fight where neither model counts as charging). The point I want to emphasize is that a game of Mordheim is more than just a series of duels. This means that a model is not necessarily underpowered just because it's not the optimal choice for winning one-on-one fights. My group currently plays with the official Mordheim rules, and even in that DW-friendly environment there is still a role for models that use shields. For example, I use a group of shield-bearing henchmen as a screen for my dual-wielding models, the idea being that when I'm in a situation where I have to advance into an enemy's charge range, the defensively optimized shield-users will absorb the charge instead of my more vulnerable dual wielders. I don't care if the shield-users never produce an enemy casualty; I just want enough of them to survive the enemy charge that I don't have to take a rout test when my turn starts, at which point I can counter-charge with my dual wielders and kill the enemy.

That said, I do think that shield-bearers need a bit of a boost, not because they lose to dual-wielders, but because they don't have the kind of survivability that I'd expect a defensively optimized model to have. Increasing the armor save bonus from +1 to +2 sounds reasonable to me, possibly along with bumping the strength that grants an armor penalty from 4 to 5. I like playing a game where equipment choices give a model a tactical niche, I don't want to play a game where all equipment choices are roughly equal to one another.

On a side note, I have a question for people who already use the +2 armor save from shields rule. How do you handle a model that has a 1+ or better save (say, a model with heavy armor and a shield on a barded warhorse)? Do you rule that natural 1s always fail, or do you say that the model is immune to attacks without save modifiers?

zmorin,
Welcome to the forum.

The group I game with doesn't use an DW rules, but we do bump the AS of shields in melee to 5+. We use the 6th edition Warhammer rule that 1+ saves still fail on a roll of a 1.

Hey all,

Has anyone crunched some numbers on the various weapon combinations? I have started to do so using Mathhammer's Super Simple Method 216, comparing various Weapons Skills, Number of Attacks, dual wield, shield, -1 on off hand, etc, and I'm about half way through. But it came to mind to ask if anyone here has already made statistical comparisons so I can save myself some tedious work!

If not, I'll finish what I've started and share it with the forum to check my math.

Cheers

Hey Thespian!

Haven't seen this before, but yes, I have indeed used the Mathhammer method, which has lead me to the conclusion, that -2 to dual-wieling leads to a more fair result than -1 to dual-wielding. Have made several calculations with different types of Heroes and henchmen.

Send me a PM and we can talk further if you want

I want to limit dual wielding as no matter what I try, 2 weapons fighters are still too popular for my taste.

I came up with two options :

1 - Limit dual-wielding to a skill (combat)

or

2 - Limit dual wielding to heroes only (still applying -1 to hit if you do not have the ambidexterity combat skill).




I'm surely not the first to think about this and wonder what effect it on in your games?

There are a few words on the subject. You can find it here .

Personally I favour a -1 penalty to offhand attacks combined with buffing shields and making toughened leathers armour instead of equipment.

Using Mathhammer (http://mathhammer.blogspot.dk/2009/01/super-simple-method-216.html) I have made a few statistical charts to compare various Duel Wield house rules to RAW in order to help find a solution to this age old problem (if there is a solution). Please feel free to check my math! Freshman year at university was the last time I had any education in mathematics and while I think my calculations are sound, I would not bet my flat on them (or even my gaming books…my television perhaps).

I focus on warrior stats for the most common henchmen: WS 3 or 4, S 3 or 4, A 1 or 2. I feel if we can find a good balance in the weapons and armour rules for henchmen, this lays a solid close combat foundation for the rest of the game. Heroes are always going to be exceptional, as they should be, but without the basic rules being balanced we lack a point of reference for our heroes, and some "super hero" outliers often result from tweaking Skills and other rules specific to heroes.

The charts are as follows:

- Rules as written (the baseline from which to make comparisons)
- Double Handed Weapons (another baseline)
- Duel Wield Odds if Off Hand Weapon is -1 to Hit
- Duel Wield Odds if All Attacks are -1 to Hit
- Duel Wield Odds if Off Hand Dagger is -1 to Hit
- All Attacks Are +1 to Hit (due to some special rule: like Diving Charge, for example)

Here is the Dropbox link to the files, please feel free to share them: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/v1y8ss3hjgv4osq/AAAD-2V4aWMetXwWx2aToUz7a

The charts do not take in to account critical hits (which are the same odds for all henchmen) nor parries. As I would like to balance not only the duel wield problem but all weapons and armour as much as possible, parries are an issue. I am next working on a statistical analysis which will take parries into account.

Cheers!

Now I'm playing necromancer and add something to this thread: I don't know if this has been mentioned before, and, of course, the following is just a stupid idea which spontaniously came to my mind and i do not have thought about consequences BUT:

What would happen if the offhand shield modifies an attribute like the offhand weapon? In this case this would be +1 T?

On the defensive end of this issue I think it's always good to compare what advantage the effect you wish to add gives to the Dwarf Treasure Hunters over other warbands. If if gives them a huge advantage the house rule is probably a bit too much. In this case, the dwarves, who already get great armour saves and have above average toughness, will be a bit too tough I believe. Add beastmen and orcs into the mix and you have a few warbands that really become over powerful as the average S3 warrior will need a 6 to wound (no criticals then either, hello gromril armour!). But good out of the box thinking!

At one point I was considering giving shields a "shield sacrifice" special rule. Once per game you could opt to automatically pass an armour save, but your shield would be destroyed in the process. You could opt to make the sacrifice even after a failed armour save, but you could not make the sacrifice if you had no armour save (your opponent's strength modifier cancelled your save, for example). I am now favoring the -1 to hit for dual wield with the added +1 armour save to shields, but if someone does not like penalties for to hit rolls (which I'm not overly pleased with either) the shield sacrifice might be an option to make shields more interesting and not overly powerful.

Coppermind wrote:

Fear says you need a 6 to hit, if you compare WS, the chart says you need a 3-5+ to hit. Any to hit modifiers are applied to the rolled dice. The rule doesn't say natural 6s will hit.

So, with -1 to hit for example WS3 vs. WS3 needs normally a 4+, but if you roll a natural 4, it's just a 3 with the modifier. Similiar with fear - you need a 6, roll a 6 and the modifier says: nope, that's just a 5, you miss.

Actually, this is not how -1 modifiers work. You do not apply the -1 to the result of the rolled die. You apply it before you roll. The only place I could find that the rulebook states this is under the armour save modifiers section.

Rulebook p.32 wrote:

Example: Dieter wears heavy armour and carries a shield. His armour save is 4+. He is it by a crossbow (strength 4) and therefore he will save on a D6 roll of 5+ (ie, 4+-1=5+)

Take a missile shot for example. A model with BS 4 needs 3+ to hit (You can find base value required to hit by subtracting the models BS from 7). So, going by the rulebook, the model at BS 4 who has not moved will need a 4+ to hit a model at long range that is not in cover. (3+-1=4+)

If a +1 modifier decreases the roll needed to succeed (such as increasing armour save), then a -1 modifier increases the roll needed to succeed. (Decreases the chance of success, that is what a -1 modifier does before the roll, determines what you need to succeed)

The same rules would then apply to close combat. For example, say we implement a -2 to off-hand weapons as a house rule when dual wielding. A model with WS 4 who is striking another model with WS 4 with his off-hand weapon will need a 6 to hit after the -2 modifier has been applied.

Now, if this house rule was established let's look at how fear might effect this.

Rulebook p. 39 wrote:

... If the test is passed the model may fight as normal. If it is failed the model must roll 6's to score hits on the first round of combat.

Since the -2 modifier would make this model need a 6 to hit anyway with his off-hand weapon, this doesn't effect it in any way. He will simply need 6's to hit with all of his attacks now, instead of just the 1.

The interesting thing to note from a -2 penalty is when the modifier would increase the required die roll above 6. Like if a WS 2 model were to attack a WS 5 model with his off-hand weapon. With the -2 modifier he would need a 7 to hit. Should we rule that it is therefore impossible for a WS 2 model in this instance to land a hit? OR say that a roll of 6 is always a hit? Since when looking at the WS chart, a 6 is never present. I have yet to decide what would be best. I do think fluff wise, however, that a lowly model with WS 2 trying to dual wield against a WS 5 model would be disastrous. I just realized, with rules as written, if this situation occurs where a WS 2 model fails a fear test against a WS 5 model, he will be eligible to roll 6's to hit with his off-hand weapon. More to think about. I think I'm leaning towards a to hit roll of 6 always being a hit, or else I'd have to re-write the Fear rules to account for this scenario. But it's hard to tell which is best, I also like the idea of a WS 2 model not being able to hit a WS 5 model with their off-hand weapon.

Coppermind wrote:

-2 to offhand makes 2-handed weapons more viable, but doesn't help the shield problem
-1 to offhand and better shields doesn't help halberds
-1 to all attacks is for A1-henchmen same as with a -2 offhand, for more Attacks you need to create a new skill for dual-wielding, otherwise it hurts heroes too much
-2 to offhand & shield buff would make dual-wielding too bad

I think you just have to point out, what suits your gaming group best or what you see as the worst problem and buff/nerf accordingly.  

I agree with most of your points, but I disagree with the last one. -2 to offhand & a +2 armour save to shields in close combat would not make dual wielding too bad.

It's hard to calculate this due to the chance of critical hits increasing with dual wielding. But I believe they are at least closer to equal with this variation. You are right that a dual wielding skill is necessary with a -2 modifier implemented, and this further balances things out.

I'd like to contribute my idea on how to fix the dual wielding issue. It's still a work in progress but I think I'm on the right track.

Under "Fighting With Two Weapons" (p. 35) change to

"Fighting with two weapons efficiently is a skillful task mastered by few warriors. A warrior armed with two one-handed weapons may make 1 extra Attack with the additional weapon, however they will suffer a -2 to hit penalty with this extra Attack. Note that this Attack is added to the total of the warrior's attacks and after other modifiers, such as frenzy, have been applied. The player must declare which weapon is his main-hand weapon, and which one is his off-hand weapon. The main-hand weapon will be rolled for separately, and use the models Attack attribute. The extra attack with the off-hand weapon will be at a -2 to hit modifier. There is a skill that Heroes may learn under Combat skills that removes the -2 to hit penalty with the off-hand attack. Starting warbands may choose one hero to start with this skill. If at any point the warband wishes to hire a new hero: If there are currently no members of the warband (including hired swords and Dramatis Personae) with the dual wielding skill, then the new hired hero may start with it. Any future Heroes recruited will not start with this skill, unless those conditions are met. This does not apply to Hired Swords or Dramatis Personae, since by definition they are not Heroes (no rolls for exploration). Note: Any Hired Sword or Dramatis Personae that wields a weapon in each hand has the dual wielding skill."

I tried to be as thorough as possible, I still need to work on the issue with WS2 vs WS 5 models (including the fear thing). Let me know if anything is unclear and if I can improve the wording. I also need to come up with a name for this Dual Wielding skill. I'm thinking of calling it Ambidextrous Fighter. All comments and suggestions welcome

I am also in favour of increasing the shield save to +2 in close combat, and decreasing the price of Ithilmar and Gromril armour (not light or heavy, and starting Gromril and Ithilmar prices for Dwarves/Elves would stay the same).

We just have 'Ambidextrous' as a skill.

Also, I do not see the issue with fear, if the -2 is applied after. I think this is just the simple solution.

Wow, this thread has really some good points and some rather odd rules. As we as gaming group encountered the same problems I thought I give you our conclusions which worked out rather fine in about 50 games since last fall. It tackles both dual wield and armour with three short rules.

Models with anything better than light armour get +1 on their saving throw. Called Armoured.
Models with shield and helmet get +1 on their saving throw. Called Best Combination.
Models with a saving throw of 3+ deduct 1 from their movement (ie move 4 becomes 3, dwarfs don't suffer from this).

With those three rules dual wielding is only an option at the start of any campaign when folks cannot buy armour and everybody only has one attack. As the campaign proceeds armour gets affordable and henchmen get their second attack. You have to decide if you want to be the armoured dude (helmet, shield, light armour/thoughend leather, sword/axe/spear) or the damage dealing guy (flail, double handed). For some models double wield is still an option but these are mostly none fighters or specialists (bowmen with two daggers for those crits, S4 heroes with mighty blow but few attacks).
This has proven to be fair in most cases except against very shooty warbands with only S3 shoots (elves against dwarfs was a really bad match, although in all other warbands those elves found some damage dealer to shoot at an did quite well)