The Big Boring Dual Wield Thread

I'm only asking because, yes I do believe it goes without saying as well, but I have a member in my gaming group that sees it another way, and unless I can prove it to him, he won't play that way. In particular he thinks a Buckler could be strapped onto one's wrist in order to carry two weapons while still parrying blows.... Sorry to get nit picky... Just trying to clarify as much as possible, don't mean to be frustrating anyone. I'll try to keep the bad questions to myself as much as possible...

LOL. I feel sorry for you for having such a guy in your group then.

You are 200% on the safe side to assume that they require a hand to be used. We can try to get DaBank to include this in the new official FAQ but I am afraid that it's so .... erm... obvious.. that it might warrant inclusion. Well, it's in good company with the ladder-walking dogs there..

cianty wrote:

LOL. I feel sorry for you for having such a guy in your group then.

You are 200% on the safe side to assume that they require a hand to be used. We can try to get DaBank to include this in the new official FAQ but I am afraid that it's so .... erm... obvious.. that it might warrant inclusion. Well, it's in good company with the ladder-walking dogs there..

HAHA, thanks for your sympathy! This game, while absolutely wonderful, sure does leave a lot to the imagination and interpretation!

Oh and the ladder-walking dogs would be really cool HAHAHA!! Maybe a dog skill list??

Thanks for your help as we feel our way through this dark city of the damned!

Yeah, a lot of the rules were written based on the assumption that you were having relaxed games between mature gamers. Big mistake!

I have asked Andy to inlude this in the FAQ to get this... "loophole" fixed.

Hey, Burn, maybe you could include this item to satisfy the weapon+buckler your other player so craves: https://boringmordheimforum.forumieren.com/rules-and-gameplay-f1/a-true-oddity-in-armament-the-lantern-shield-t2503.htm!

HAHAHA!!! Thanks Wyldhunt! That thing is absolutely hilarious and AMAZING!!! I want one!

That is one amazing thing about this game, if you can think it up, you can make something for it!

Okay, so I've cobbled together a spreadsheet to crunch a variety of odds. You can find it here on Google Docs.I might have flubbed some of the calculations, as I'm a philosopher and not much with quantification anymore. If so, I'm sorry.

These stats assume two average models fighting each other. They fail to take into account armour (which is another kettle of fish) and I couldn't be bothered to crunch the numbers taking critical hits into account. Given the existence of critical hits, the data is skewed such that it slightly under-represents the strength of dual-wield (but admittedly not by much). I also omit bucklers, taking as an assumption (possibly false) that bucklers and shields are roughly equal in utility.

I take it as a postulate that the goal is to have a regime where duel-wield is roughly on a par with one weapon and a shield. Given this, the column we care about is the delta, in other words, how much more or less lethal dual-wield is against a shield when compared with two single-weapon models without shields fighting each other. We want a small delta in the shield columns.

It turns out that having -1 to hit on both weapons has the same absolute delta regardless of whether the shields are at 6 + save or at 5 + save; the difference being that at 6 + it's a positive delta (slightly more effective than desired) and at 5 + it's a negative delta (slightly less effective than desired). Another contender for smallest tied absolute delta is -1 strength (or hit, but strength makes more sense due to my preferences) for offhand hit against stronger shield, for which I have an irrational preference because it would a) preclude the perceived need for a pistol exception (pistols are always str 4, regardless), and b) make weeping blades closer to being worth their cost. Poor reasoning, I know, but I did say it was irrational.

IN SHORT (whew), there are two candidates from amongst those evaluated that have the smallest delta; -1 hit to both weapons (regardless of which shield rules you use), and -1 strength to offhand weapon with stronger (5 +) shields.

I take is as a given that I've messed up in my reasoning somewhere. Sorry for being so long-winded. Thoughts?

Interesting bit of research Gyges and if nothing else it helps to narrow down a choice on how to houserule it.

Explain "delta" please.

Sorry, I ought to have been a little more clear on my underlying assumptions.
I take it that a goal of balancing dual wield is to have a system whereby a dual-wield model fighting a weapon-and-shield model are roughly equal. Since the baseline has been established at .25 wounds per round of combat (i.e., what a "normal" model can inflict against a "normal" target), we want to look at the "delta" or difference.
It is also ideal that the absolute value delta for a dual-wield attacker against a normal target ought to be as close as possible as that of a normal attacker against a shielded target--i.e., the increased deadliness of a second weapon be roughly equal with the defensive properties of a shield.

In the next few days, I'll pull out and post the short form of the statistics I'd previously done on the changes we're using now and compare to the 25% wound target - if I remember correctly, DW still had a slight advantage over shield on a single hit. But through play, we've found that this does not tell the whole story, and have found the changes we're using very balanced, encouraging warband development along the way as well.

Please, has anybody tried on the field to mod DW so that the additional weapon grants an attack roll only when the primary weapon missed or got parried? (as dicscussed before here on the boring boards)
Also, a skill should grant that the additional weapon provides an additional attack as per the current rules.

I like this version much better in my mind, but had not the chance to try it on the field, yet.

Your tests, thoughts, and eventual insults would be very much appreciated!

Cheers!!!

As for insults, what if I quoted Stephen Colbert and called you a Godless killing machine?
I don't play enough Mordheim (sadly) to field-test much, so I'm limiting myself to those candidates that strike me as coming out well under probabilistic analysis. Sorry.
Just for you, though, I added your suggestion to the spreadsheet under "Dual Bear." It has very high deltas across the board; in particular, it is especially high compared to no shield and normal shield, and only marginally better when playing with stronger shields. In my estimation, it would not be a sufficient nerf for dual-wield--though tastes may vary.

Have anyone thought of combining the -1 to hit and the -1S on the off-hand with dual wield?
Double-negating it would perhaps even it out a tad more.

Still I think the idea of giving Dual Wield a price has an interesting advantage‚ you can't just stick a 3g club on your Marksmen to pump up an extra attack, I mean, even if it is at -1S or what ever it gives you 1 extra attack that CAN wound.

Though I must say a part of me favors the idea of allowing DW only to heroes who have picked a certain skill. Thus it is limited to fewer warriors, also DW will compete with all other skills as well, even if it's a really good skill you might not always want to pick it!

I take it as a challenge from our earlier monster discussion to allow DW, in some form, to all weapon-wielders. Popmouth's suggestion of a gc cost for the DW advantage neatly takes care of that, and is easier to balance and remember than most of the other suggestions we've seen.

If we allow DW to be limited by models, I vastly prefer Da Bank's method, where only models who have an Attack profile of at least 2 can use one of their attacks with an off-hand weapon. This has the added benefit of severely restricting DW's advantage to only differing weapon effects rather than granting an additional attack.

However, if we don't use either Popmouth's nor Da Bank's method, I like best the method our group is still playtesting to great satisfaction:
1. Armor Save always fail on a roll of 1.
2. Any shield+weapon combo grants a +1AS in HtH.
3. Offhand attacks suffer -1S.
4. Dagger attacks are at -1S (rather than granting an opponent +1AS).

Gyges, in comparing delta advantages for shields and DW, I find it interesting to compare:
1. (advantage of DW over single weapon against non-shielded opponent) to (advantage of shield over no shield against single weapon), along with
2. advantage of DW against shielded opponent over single weapon against non-shielded opponent.
These two sets of comparisons yield different results in some WS and SvsT combinations.

Also, Critical Wound results (especially bypassing Armor Saves) must be considered in these calculations. ts061282 proved that to me, and not including them skews the numbers in a perceivable way.

I'm still working and re-verifying the data I produced last night before posting a comparison of official DW/shield versus our group's house rules within the delta comparison framework above.

However, unfortunately, there are more nuances to the DW beast:
1. As a model's Attack profile increases, DW provides less benefit to causing at least one wound.
2. DW maintains some benefit in causing multiple wounds, which is desired in some cases.
3. DW maintains some benefit in bypassing Armor Saves due to Critical Wound results, which should also be compared to the benefit of using 2h weapons against heavily-armored opponents.
4. DW maintains some benefit in helping to cause Stuns/OOAs, not just wounds, viable up to a certain number of attacks.
5. Shields combined with extreme body armor can provide enough protection to make them statistically viable, especially against an increased number of incoming attacks.

I will admit to having another dog in this race; many (if not most) of GW's metal minis came wielding two weapons. I thus have a personal bias against limiting dual-wield to heroes and/or prohibiting dual-wield at warband inception, due largely to my very small mini collection that is dominated by GW Mordheim figs. My Possessed, in particular, would require significant and difficult conversion should the henchmen (all of them) be disallowed dual-wield.
Petty and particular, sure, but there you go.

It's a fair point really. How about the adding a prize for dual wield solution?

DW Analysis

By the official rules (including basic Critical Wounds), DW provides a better benefit than shields at all times.

1. The minimum benefit from DW (club/dagger) over single weapon (club) in causing at least one wound is 5% (when attacker's WS < 1/2 defender's WS and the attack's S is 2 or 3 less than defender's T), increasing to 25% when attacker's WS > defender's WS and the attack's S is at least 1 greater than defender's T.

2. The maximum benefit from shield over single weapon (club) in preventing all wounds is 9% when attacker's WS > defender's WS with attack at S3 and defender at T1. This benefit drops off with every defender Toughness increase or attack Strength decrease, and disappears as soon as an attack reaches S4 (of course).

3. Even when comparing DW (club/dagger) directly to defending shield, DW provides the advantage over single weapon versus no shield, ranging from 3% to 25% benefit to DW.

By our group's house rules, DW (club/dagger) does not always fare so well.

1. An offhand dagger is completely ineffective in the hands of a S2 or less attacker (such as halflings), as the offhand dagger attack falls to S0.

2. When the defender's Toughness is at least equal to the attacks Strength, the offhand dagger can no longer cause a Critical Wound (since the attacker needs to roll a 6 for the offhand dagger to Wound at all). This helps preserve the shield's AS benefit.

3. Since shields are effectively at AS 5+ (due to the +1AS HtH benefit), along with a total -2S for offhand dagger, shields can preserve their benefit up to an attacker's S6 (rather than the official rules effective cap of S4).

4. When comparing DW (club/dagger) against shield with single weapon against no shield:
...A. Shields grant a benefit more often against S3 attackers, and a greater maximum benefit (4%) than DW (1%).
...B. DW grants a benefit more often against S4 attackers, but shield provides a minimal benefit in some WS and SvsT combos even then.

5. Even so:
...A. DW is still cheaper to achieve than shields (3gc for a club vs 5gc for a shield).
...B. DW's penalties can be removed by:
...C. Dagger penalty removed by buying a second club.
...D. Offhand penalty removed by learning the Combat Skill: Manic Warrior.
...E. Shield's extra +1 AS will always remain, meaning shields will always provide some benefit even against S4 warriors, unless they buy Axes or get Strength-improving weapons.

Verdict:

1. DW is still statistically better in most cases (especially for A1 warriors), but only just barely.

2. It takes a few golds to help DW improve a bit, and henchmen cannot get DW back to its official glory (unless the Manic Warrior special rule is added to the model).

3. It takes a few golds and a skill pick for heroes to return DW back to its official glory, but then shield grants that +1 AS now...

4. Shields are increased to the point, especially against DW, where they are a viable basis for adding other armor (especially for Well 'Ard Orcs!), and not just for adding to Gromril any more.

Observed Results from Playtesting:

1. Beginning warbands still use club/dagger, since it's cheap and gets another attack going.

2. Heroes and prime henchmen get shields once the golds allow, especially after they get an Attack advance.

3. Most warbands don't worry about purchasing an offhand weapon unless:
...A. It's part of a pair, like Fighting Claws.
...B. The models cannot use shields nor 2h weapons.

4. Light Armor is still rarely purchased, but when found, it is used rather than sold.

5. We wondered whether hero DW would make a return towards the end game, but after three campaigns to 10 games each, we haven't seen this. Maybe around game 15 or so we might.

6. Most telling: shields have blocked more blows than offhand weapons have caused Wounds.

How does this effect the length of your games?

Wyldhunt:

I was thinking about your system and started thinking that dual wielding a sword and an offhand pistol would be a pretty good deal. You get parry, and the pistol negates the offhand strength penalty. Also with the better and more common shields, the armour penetration of the pistol is more useful. The combination is still pretty expensive at 25 GC. Has this combo come more common place in your group?

Also does yor group use hardened leathers?

@Popmouth: we have seen our scenario length increase by 1-3 turns due to this change. However, I like that increase, as before, with everyone DWing and no armor, our scenarios never lasted beyond the initial HtH clash + 1 turn, which is waaayyy too short for us after all the terrain setup.

@VilleVicious: offhand Duelling Pistol is always good, for its flexibility. Offhand pistol would be useful as well, though we haven't pursued it - there has always seemed to be other items to pursue instead. The higher cost, along with only one off-hand shot per HtH combat are a good balance to its benefit.

During this playtesting, we've allowed Toughened Leathers in its official form (except that it's available to all armor-weaing models as part of their initial equipment list): 5gc, 6+ AS, cannot be combined with AS from shield. No-one ever purchased it - one player found some sets during a scenario, and gave it to some of his Verminkin, and it blocked one incoming blow during that campaign, but that's it. In the complete Mordheim revision I'm working on now, we're actually going to:
1. Remove "any shield+weapon combo grants a +1AS in HtH"
2. Rename "Toughened Leathers" to "Leather Armor"
3. Keep Leather Armor's cost at 5gc.
4. Keep Leather Armor in almost all Equipment Lists that currently have Light Armor.
5. Keep Leather Armor's AS at 6+, but allow it to stack with other items.
6. Bump all other body armor's AS up one value (Light Armor 5+, Heavy/Ithilmar Armor 4+, Gromril Armor 3+).
7. Reduce shield cost to 3gc.
This is very, very similar to the armor bump others already use. I'm aware that this will increase the gc required to get a 5+ AS to 8gc, but it's a less-complicated rules set which allows some greater flexibility. Like many others, we've also wanted to increase the effectiveness of body armor, and I feel this is the best way to do so.

I read in history books shields and bucklers usually flew around the person who equiped it, so that it continuously protected him, giving him the opportunity to still use two hand-to-hand weapons.

I had to respond b/c my lantern shield made a return!

Not to drag this discussion on and on...

But has anyone tried limiting the number of hits to a model's attack stat? So a model with one attack can only ever score one hit in CC, additional weapons only add to the chance of hitting. You roll 2 dice, but can only score one hit. So if you roll two hits, simply choose which weapon actually hits. The other one was used to help get that strike in it can be assumed, rather than a wild flurry of swings.

I wonder how that would impact the chance of wounding.

There would be a wierd interation between this and how parry is done by some house rules, but I would say that the parry would have to be done against the higher hit roll of these two (which is in line with official parry rules).

How would this work against Lucky Charms? I guess since it only counts as one hit, they would work as normal.

What if a model had a higher Attack stat? I guess the model would get to choose which one of these multiple attacks would have the DW extra die.

The primary benefit from two strikes is the additional hit/wound chance - your change would eliminate the additional wound chance, which is cool. I'd have to run numbers to see how this compares to the original, and will at some point.

Da Bank said that his group does tie the number of hits to the Attack stat - they don't allow Dual Wield until a model gains Attack 2.

Hey!!!
Pathfinder's idea looks quite neat and simple... of course the proper numbers are needed for some real speculation, but to me we got something interesting there...
Good thinking, Path!!!

Cheers!!!