The Big Boring Dual Wield Thread

I haven't read through the thread in its entirety so I might be re-stating a point but I've found that the -2 to hit penalty for the bonus attack has worked out the best for us. Compared to the alternative where you buff shields, slapping such a big penalty on a second weapon increases the value of halberds and other two-handed things. Two attacks at S3 beats one at S4, but if one of the two attacks will only hit on a 6 then it's not quite so certain.

MasterSpark wrote:

I haven't read through the thread in its entirety so I might be re-stating a point but I've found that the -2 to hit penalty for the bonus attack has worked out the best for us. Compared to the alternative where you buff shields, slapping such a big penalty on a second weapon increases the value of halberds and other two-handed things. Two attacks at S3 beats one at S4, but if one of the two attacks will only hit on a 6 then it's not quite so certain.

Also what I found and posted on p. 7 here!

Aipha wrote:

How about -2 on off-hands?

I was reading through this thread and surprised this suggestion was not there - hence why I am making this post. Credits for inspiring me to use this -2 modifier on the off-hand goes to TrueLancer.

I've made a calculation showing what this means for the average henchman.

All calculations are made using the following formula:
((Chance of succesful Hit * Chance of succesful Wound * Chance of opponent failing AS) / 216) * Attacks
Credits goes to: http://mathhammer.blogspot.dk/2009/01/super-simple-method-216.html

Henchman with 1 attack:

WS3, S3 vs. WS3, T3, 5+ AS
Halberd: 28%
Axe/Axe: 28%
Axe/Mace or Axe/Sword: 27%

WS4, S4 vs. WS3, T3, 5+ AS
Halberd: 56%
Axe/Axe: 66%
Axe/Mace or Axe/Sword: 63%

WS4, S3 vs. WS4, T4, 5+ AS
Halberd: 21%
Axe/Axe: 19%
Axe/Mace or Axe/Sword: 18%

WS4, S4 vs. WS3, T4, 5+ AS
Halberd: 44%
Axe/Axe: 50%
Axe/Mace or Axe/Sword: 47%

WS4, S4 vs. WS4, T4, 5+ AS
Halberd: 33%
Axe/Axe: 33%
Axe/Mace or Axe/Sword: 32%

Henchman with 2 attacks:

WS3, S4 vs. WS3, T3, 5+ AS
Halberd: 83%
Axe/Axe: 78%
Axe/Mace or Axe/Sword: 76%

WS4, S4 vs. WS3, T3, 5+ AS
Halberd: 111%
Axe/Axe: 111%
Axe/Mace or Axe/Sword: 107%

WS4, S4 vs. WS3, T4, 5+ AS
Halberd: 88%
Axe/Axe: 83%
Axe/Mace or Axe/Sword: 81%

WS4, S4 vs. WS4, T4, 5+ AS
Halberd: 66%
Axe/Axe: 58%
Axe/Mace or Axe/Sword: 57%

As we can see, a lot of the time the Halberd is on par with the Axe/Axe combo. With 2 attacks, a Halberd is usually better, but with 1, you might serve better with two weapons. Even though this is overall true, the main point is, that they're close to equal a lot of the time - at least closer than -1 to hit, and a lot closer than no modifiers. I've made a lot of other calculations with other stats as well, but they all show the same thing - this is fairly balanced.

Hope this inspires people to try it out, we use it in our house rules, and it seems to work wonders. It also brings extra joy, to roll a six, when it's all you can hit with - and it actually happens quite a lot ^_^

And I of course have a lot more calculations, which can be sent to anyone interested (chances here are to take an opponent OOA).

I play with the exact same rule Goglutin proposed a few pages back (-1 to all attacks when using two weapons, ambidextrous added to the combat skills). The only thing that I want to add, though, is that models have the option to attack with only one of their weapons, thereby negating the -1 modifier to their attacks. What that generally means is that dual-wielders will use both weapons when they need a 4+ or better to hit, but against more skilled (or fear-causing opponents) will attack with just one to increase their odds of hitting.

For those that use the -2 to off-hand attacks, does this require players to specify which weapon is in the off hand or do you allow them to switch at will? For example, if I have a warrior with a club and an axe, I'll use the club in my strong hand and the axe in the other for unarmoured opponents but would switch for those with armour. Also, do you have to use the sword in your strong hand to parry? If you don't, do you have a penalty?

Those questions are really why I prefer the blanket -1 to attacks.

CygnusMaximus wrote:

I play with the exact same rule Goglutin proposed a few pages back (-1 to all attacks when using two weapons, ambidextrous added to the combat skills).  The only thing that I want to add, though, is that models have the option to attack with only one of their weapons, thereby negating the -1 modifier to their attacks.  What that generally means is that dual-wielders will use both weapons when they need a 4+ or better to hit, but against more skilled (or fear-causing opponents) will attack with just one to increase their odds of hitting.

For those that use the -2 to off-hand attacks, does this require players to specify which weapon is in the off hand or do you allow them to switch at will?  For example, if I have a warrior with a club and an axe, I'll use the club in my strong hand and the axe in the other for unarmoured opponents but would switch for those with armour.  Also, do you have to use the sword in your strong hand to parry?   If you don't, do you have a penalty?

Those questions are really why I prefer the blanket -1 to attacks.

Good points on the offhand discussion. We prefered using the blanket -1 and created Ambidextrous Combat Skill.
Next to it we created "Shield Fighter" Combat Skill, allow you an extra attack with the shield at no penalty using User Strength and no special rules.

Has anybody tried to give dual-wield (only) the chance of a second attack?
An example: if I fight with two hand weapons, I flip a coin, if I win the flip my figure gets an extra attack. Otherwise he will only strike with one (the main) weapon. This gives dual-wield a 50% chance of getting an extra attack, representing the chance of striking an extra blow if there is a hole in the enemy defence.

This might aswell be increased or decreased, maybe 40-60%, but a coin flip doesn't take that much time, compared to rolling a die and counting the modifiers. (As the game is slow as it is).

What are your thoughts?

Speaking of trying out rules, has anyone tried using 8th edition's parry save for one-handed close combat weapons and shields in Mordheim?
I'm planning to start playing with a local Warhammer group and several people have expressed an interest in Mordheim. Dual-wielding vs. shields always was the great unresolved issue of the game, and the parry save struck me as the perfect solution, so I've been thinking about recommending we implement it to make the experience smoother for everyone.

Never tried that. Considered it, but the difficulty is how it stacks/combines with other weird 'ward-like but not quite' abilities.

I'm the TrueLancer mentioned earlier.

We're running our yearly Mordheim again, albeit under a different organizer this year.

But -2 to offhand attacks is still the best and easiest system for balance you could ever ask for when combined with a little change to Parry. For hitting on 3/4/5, it puts an extra attack that hits on 5/6/cannot hit, which helps to balance it against shields and parries.

Dual-wielding models are at a disadvantage with no WS and against Fear-causing models. They're also less capable of stacking critical hits.

Parry was changed from 'just roll higher' to 'roll an attack roll back as if it were an attack - hits succeed | You may pick and choose when you parry'.

I'm pretty sure something needs to be done to make armor a little bit better, but at least for the hands, this really solves lots of problems. It makes armor, multiple weapons, BIG weapons, shields, bucklers, swords, all of these have a different role without one being heads-and-shoulders better than the rest.

Concerning stacking special saves, I believe there is a rule somewhere in either Mordheim or WFB 5th edition which states that you may only use one additional save, and always the best one. I attempted to write a rule for parry saves in Mordheim, but I can't remember where exactly I got the wording on multiple saves from:

Parry Save
If a warrior is fighting with a shield and a close combat weapon not subject to the rule Two-handed, then he has an additional saving throw of +6 against any close combat attacks. This save is never modified and is taken after all other armour saves. If a model has more than one additional save, simply use the best one. Additionally, warriors subject to Frenzy and mounted models may not claim the parry save.


or


Parry Save
If a warrior is fighting with a shield and a close combat weapon not subject to the rules Unwieldy, Difficult to use, or Two-handed, then he has an additional saving throw of +6 against any close combat attacks. This save is never modified and is taken after all other armour saves. If a model has more than one additional save, simply use the best one. Additionally, warriors subject to Frenzy and mounted models may not claim the parry save.

That sounds very much like the 8th edition Parry Save rule.

In 7th (and possibly earlier editions - I didn't play those), a model with a hand weapon and shield gained an additional +1 to their save in hand-to-hand combat. 8th edition changed it so that a model with a hand weapon and shield was entitled to a 6++ so long as they were not mounted or Frenzied. It also acts as a Ward Save (and 8th had the 'use your best special save' rule, so no ward saving and regeneration saving, but these were used in addition to armor saves).

It is used entirely differently from the way Mordheim uses Parry (which is to discount specific hits in combat, a 'skill' save as opposed to 'armor').

It sounds like you might have gotten it from the 8th edition's book?

It's taken straight from WFB 8th Edition. I started to get back into Warhammer/Mordheim a couple of months back after a decade-long absence, and the Parry Save rule immediately struck me as the perfect way to make shields more viable in Mordheim. That's why I'm curious if anyone has tried using it.
The "Parry Save" rule would go under the Shield entry in the Weapons & Armour section.

We are only just starting to play Mordheim, having played fantasy since 2nd -3rd ed.

We've decided on the following rules changes to stop certain spamming and increase model survivability,  and would appreciate some feedback before we start the campaign:

1. fighting with 2 weapons
-1 to hit for both weapons. new combat skill 'two-weapon fighting' to be added. Having this skill allows you to attack with both weapons without the -1

2. Shields
Give +1 armour as normal. If you have 'hand weapon' and shield (sword, axe, mace, hammer) then you can parry an extra CC attack per turn, or parry one ranged attack (not including gunpowder weapons)

3. Armour
All armour costs halved (light armour, Hvy armour, helmet). Except for starting warbands Gromril and Ilthimar cost doubled. People are likely to have more money as armour cheaper so stops everyone wearing 'special' armours.

4. Missile weapons
limited availability. No restriction on missile weapons with range 6" or less.
Up to 50% of heroes (rounding down) can have missile weapons with range greater than 6"
Up to 50% of henchmen (rounding up) can have missile weapons with range greater than 6"

5. Great weapons
Great weapons strike in initiative order when charging

6 lost gear
When a member dies roll a dice individually for their pieces of gear
On battle won item retained on a 4+
On a battle lost item retained on a 5+
For armour its retained on a 6+ always (its been stabbed, burned, clubbed, electrocuted etc)


Does anyone have any feedback as to how these changes might work/not work?

1. Sounds like a good fix to the dominance of dual-wielding.

2. Interesting, allowing the shield-user to parry a missile attack. Sounds cinematic & pretty cool, will be curious to hear how it works out.

3. Armour price is a matter of taste; I'm usually happy with the rarity of armour in Mordheim, but that's just me, & making armour cheaper does allow players to use more armoured models. But doubling the price of Gromril & Ithilmar armour seems excessive -- going off memory, doesn't that make Gromril armour 300 gc, or more? I'd just leave the price of those items as written, otherwise no-one will take them.

4. I'm fine with the principle of limiting the number of missile weapons, but I'd say simplify it to 50% of the entire warband, heroes & henchmen. I find heroes are usually loaded for hand-to-hand anyway, while henchmen provide fire-support; so a starting Mercenary warband might have five heroes with hth weapons & three marksmen with crossbows. Also, you might find (this experience varies) shooting is so ineffective you don't need to limit the number of missile weapons. That's for you to judge.

5. This might make Great Weapons too good. Try it out though, because they're a rather underpowered in the original rules (until the wielder takes Strongman). If they prove too good without penalties, maybe split the difference & impose a -1 Initiative on the wielder when determining combat order.

6. This sounds fine -- maybe also allow warbands to 'search' for special items, modifying the dice roll, to represent extra effort looking for particularly rare or specialist goods, at the expense of other things. So a warband could abandon two other items while trying to recover the dead leader's Ithilmar sword, & apply a +2 to their dice roll. Just a thought!

Overall, looks like a fair set of house rules, which will probably work to limit massive dual-wielding & sling-spamming -- the two classic complaints of Mordheim!

@Minion
We considered this rule too but decided to try and stick within the existing parry rules mechanic. Shields give +1 save and an additional parry chance, same as for swords. With sword and shield you can parry 2 attacks a turn (only 1 chance at each attack). The shield can also be used to parry non-black powder missile weapons.

@rhydderch
Thanks for that. We will have a couple of games and see how we go.
The idea was to try and limit sling spam and dual wielding, while promoting things that people rarely take (or that they say never to take on mordheim forums and guides), such as armour and great-weapons.

The more I read about this the more I realize that whatever house-rule we use, it must be simple AND effective.

Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that for our next campaign, we will have the following rule for Dual-wielding

"A warrior armed with two weapons will have -1 WS when using both weapons in hand-to-hand combat."

This will not only have situations where the warrior will be at a disadvantage when rolling to-hit, but they will also be easier to hit by an enemy, as they are more off-balance and therefore have a harder time coordinating attacks and parry attempts. This also removes the need for a "Dual wielding" skill, as there are plenty of skills, and items, that alter the ws and to-hit roll.

A youngblood with dual weapons will be WS 1, and therefore hit WS2 opponents on 4+, and WS3+ opponents on a 5+. They will in turn also themselves be hit on a 3+ pretty much all the time.

I am thinking about also debuffing it further by also giving the model -1I to determine order of attacks, but I think the -1 WS is sufficient.

I want to give my feed to this old topic. After three years using it, the most simple, effective and balanced rule (at least in my group) is: "-1 modifier to impact when using dual weapons, unless the warrior has the combat skill Ambidextrous". Using it combined with +1 to AS on CC when using shield+hand weapon, and an slightly improved parry, results in not everyone using dual weapons and much more use of swords and shields (and axes to counter them).

In my experience, warriors use the extra dagger when facing lower WS, but single weapon with higher WS enemies, wich makes sense regarding realism. Ambidextrous becomes a must own skill for CC heroes unless +1A advance. Finding light armor isn't an auto sell anymore, combined with shield and hand weapon, the warrior becomes quite sturdy even against F4 enemies.

bitxo wrote:

...

In my experience, warriors use the extra dagger when facing lower WS, but single weapon with higher WS enemies, wich makes sense regarding realism.

It makes sense in regards to realism but not the numbers. If you have the option between dual-wielding OR just not using the off-hand weapon, you're always better off using the off-hand weapon. Whether the weapons have a high chance of hitting, a low chance of hitting, or even guaranteed to hit. If your goal is to get as many hits as possible against an opponent, it's better if the only penalty is a -1/-1 To Hit.

The only possible times it's worth not doing so is if the option is between dual-wielding and a third, two-handed weapon OR a special weapon (say, you have your two weapon limit so you get a club to go with your always-dagger and a 2H Great Weapon made of Gromril to tear open armor). You wouldn't give up an extra attack just so your main weapon is more likely to hit unless the -1 To Hit penalty makes it IMPOSSIBLE to hit ("rolling two dice that hit on 7+ instead of one die on a 6+") or the alternative weapon does something that makes it more important to hit with than getting more hits. Additionally, rolling more attacks increases your odds of a Critical Hit or scoring TWO hits, so the advantage gained from only using that first weapon would have to be pretty massive, in the area of "a 2-Handed weapon" at the least.

Not really, I was telling how dual wielding developed in my group over the last four years (20 people, usually 8-12 playing a campaign, all kind of bands), and it end up working. It isn't just about the numbers you think, because the combined house rules totally changed our equipment choices, and two important factors I believe you could be missing are AS and improved parry. People tend to find much more helpful than before other weapons, and we end up using shields quite a lot (h.rule: shield + hand weapon gives +1 to the AS) more axes and halberds to counter them, more swords since parry is improved and single attacks more common... You don't ever see gromril weapons since they are super expensive, and our campaigns aren't that long (sadly we are all +30 years old men and don't have much time for the hobby anymore). Since many warriors use shields for that 5+ AS, the +1 to AS daggers give, makes the cheap dagger attack specially bad, failing half the times you manage to wound a rival with shield. We have also changed how parry works, and a 5+ hit is easier to parry than a 4+ one, making again dual wielding less desirable. Also, critical requires the 6 followed by 4+ so, no that much armor breaks.
Popular choices for low skilled henchmen are now single axe, axe+shield, single club, club+shield, and dual clubs. Sometimes things like halberd, sword or dual axes, but that's much less common. Adding a shield to your single hand weapon group of hencmen is a common upgrade. Giving two good and expensive weapons to a low skilled henchment doesn't usually pay off. It's common to see other players using dual wielding with WS3 warriors, but not always, and almost never against warriors with parry or AS 5+ or better if your off hand weapon is the dagger.

For example, you have a guy with axe and shield, because many times will be better to have just 1 attack and 5+ AS for yourself. But if you face a foe with axe, then you forget about the shield and wield the off hand dagger... except the enemy has shield also, then you better go with a single attack at 4+, because it will do better than two 5+ attacks (one of them failing half the times you manage to wound), and you will loose the AS in case the rival decides to go with axe+dagger. There's is a certain mind game in situations like this, because you have to declare wich set of weapons you use when charging and stick with it for the rest of the combat, and take into consideration wich other warriors that may join the combat next turn.

You see, you have to take the new meta under consideration, not just what numbers say in theory. For example this changed even how rosters are made. I play dwarves a lot, and I've always used just beardlings as henchmen because they are more cost effective, but now I have reasons to hire also clansmen or thunderers since that WS4 makes them suitable to dual wield hammers or axe+hammer against most foes.
In my experience that -1 to hit when dual wielding didn't erase dual wielding from existence, that wasn't the objetive, but combined with all the other house-rules you don't see your typical cheap build club+dagger for everyone in my group anymore, not even with skaven. You still see henchmen with hand weapon + dagger, nothing bad about it, but it isn't the best choice always, not by any means. Our system isn't perfect, I believe we end up adding dice rolls and making the game slighly slower, but it worked regading weapon choices and equipement diversity, and made heroes a bit more valuable compared to henchmen during early campaign.