The Big Boring Dual Wield Thread

It is quite neat, still though don't you think most will continue with DW, even within these limits?

My idea to limit dual wield is to have a -1 WS penalty on the attack for dual-wielders. This is a much weaker restriction than having -1 to-Hit all the time, but it still penalizes clumsy warriors, like the halflings and youngbloods.

Another thing to note is that shields and armour are affective at protecting against missile fire, which is mostly S3. A strictly close-combat analysis should favour dual weird against shield use for this reason. (ie you shouldn't be aiming for a 0 delta in my opinion)

-1 WS is far to weak a restriction. My main bother is really that DW is too good and far too available. Somehow I still like a special cost for dual wield, I mean, if each warrior had to say pay an extra 15 gold to be able to equip off hand weapon (this representing the special training that one needs) this would fix some.

Maybe this is an idea (?):
DW is only allowed for warriors with at least WS4, and then it gives you a -1 penalty to hit. This can be override by the skill "maniac warrior".

How do you guys address the Skaven weapons 'Fighting Claws' and 'Weeping Blades'? These only come in pairs. Do you add the -1 to their weapon description or allow them no penalty due to the specific nature of the weapons. I'm leaning towards no penalty for the claws, but -1 for the blades. Also, what about Art of the Silent Death, which also grants an extra attack? Just getting a feel for other options before this blows up in the campaign.

-SHazle

I would treat it all the same, fighting claws are 2 weapons used as pair like weeping blades, and AotSD points out to be similar to wielding two weapons, so -1 to hit modifer would affect all of them.
Especialy on skaven (wich i play by my self) i would hate an advantage in attacks as they are one of the bands with higest attack roll potential anyway.

For anyone's sake I'm postin what my group has decided about Skaven issues and why.

Fighting Claws - no penalty: Claws cost 35gc and two swords cost 20gc and allow you to use other (missle) weapons, so for 15gc you get +1 climbing. Skaven already haave a high Initiative so +1 climbing is not very useful.

Weeping Blades - -1 penalty when dual wielded: These are swords that cost 25gc each and are permanently poisoned. Normal Sword 10gc, poison 11-16gc, total 21-26gc. Weeping Blades are better, no need to make them extravagently so.

Art of the Silent Death - no penalty: This is a complex skill and rebalancing it with any weapon combinations as well as fists isn't useful.

Tail Fighting - not yet accessed, but leaning towards -1 if not the only HtH attac made that round. Ex. one hand and one tail attack -1 each, two hand and one tail attack -1 each, one hand or one tail attack no penalty. (Str penalty also an idea).

Possibly more later as issues arise.
SHazle

Sounds fair
---
I still find it quite disturbing that DW is so a viable.
I mean, as soon as you equip a club/sword/axe or such, you can DW with your dagger. It just doesn't seem right, not game wise, nor fluff wise.
For example, I have some marksmen with a bow, and through a club at them, they can use the knife. I mean, even with the -1 to hit on both A or whatever it's really to a viable.

I agree Popmouth, even with -1 to hit dual-wielding is a good (the best?) choice. Maybe the problem isn't dual-wielding per se, but the very cheap weapon options (dagger, club, maybe axe)?

Yeah, well I tried to pitch an idea earlier that DW would have cost – slightly like a skill but aviable to everyone, so you would pay say 15gc (per model) to get the DW training, which allows you to use DW.

If you want to be able to buy it off how about a Weapon Quailty.
Dual Weild Weapon - Weapon cost x 2 - eliminates -1 dual weild penalty for this weapon only. and maybe Rare 9.

Hmm well, works technically, though not really fluff wise (as I see it).

Well I wasn't really going for fluff on that idea. If you want fluff you can make up a new material that weapons are made out of that makes them easier to fight with dually, or just an expert craftsmanship type of some sort.

Well, I think it's nice if any rules work both fluff wise and game technically.
So I still think the "By DW skill" idea might work. Though it is yet to be tested!

In my gaming group things are pretty much equal in terms of what is taken. For us the key was (somewhat counter-intuitively) making armour cheaper. Once more armour was available people started taking more shields and bucklers for the +1 in melee. With more armour saves around more people take double-handed weapons. Heck, you even see the occasional halberd on heroes.

Oh, yeah - we also took away half the 'ignores armour saves' crit results too (we use the optional tables).

Granted, for the first game or two pretty much everyone dual-wields (mostly with club and dagger), but once everyone gets a 2-3 games under their belt and people can start affording the armour then you start seeing greater and greater variation.

Just by-the-by, in RL dual-wielding is not that hard so don't bother trying to find a realistic penalty for dual wielding - there isn't one. Attacking with either weapon with equal proficiency takes a lot of skill, but attacking mainly with one and using the other for attacks of opportunity is not so hard and already modeled in the current rules.

How is it already modeled in the current rules? You don't get any penalty what so ever for using two weapons? It's just a free extra attack!

I'd say, striking well with both weapons is quite difficult.

Maybe one could grant the extra attack in the first round of combat only? This would reflect that it is slightly more difficult to use an extra weapon with an of hand, and still not make it as powerful as it is?

Though I still like giving it a price...

Popmouth wrote:

How is it already modeled in the current rules?

The number of attacks your warrior has represents his ability to create and take advantage of attack opportunities when in close combat. So if you have, say, three attacks you are pretty good at spotting/creating/utilising those opportunities. If you are armed with, say, an axe then you get to roll three dice to represent those opportunities. If you are armed with, say, an axe and a dagger then you get three dice to represent your main talent and one extra attack to represent the extra opportunity you utilised by having an additional weapon.

If the rules were trying to model the warrior attack with both weapons with equal proficiency then you would be able to split your attacks as you wished and, for example, do two attacks with the axe and two attacks with the dagger, but this is not allowed.

Popmouth wrote:

It's just a free extra attack!

Well, yeah - that is pretty much how it is in RL. What can I say? *Shrug* RL isn't balanced.

Popmouth wrote:

I'd say, striking well with both weapons is
quite difficult.

Depends on what you mean by "striking well with both weapons". If you mean "Attacking with equal proficiency with either hand" then yes, that is difficult. If, however, you mean "Attacking to the best of your ability with your main hand and taking an attack-of-opportunity with your off-hand" (which is what I think the rules are modelling) then no, it is not so hard.

I mean, sure, when you are first learning a new weapon you learn with one weapon at a time, but every time you go onto the field the only time you are not dual-wielding is when you are using a weapon that needs two hands. The only people that should get a penalty for dual wielding are those with WS 1 or less. By the time you are trained up to WS 2 and 3 and more you should have trained away that penalty as a standard part of training.

If you were going to introduce more realism then you would need something like "Models with WS1 attack at -1 to hit with their off-hand" and then "Models WS2+ attack normally" followed by "Combat Skill - Dual Wielder: The warrior is highly skilled at attacking with two weapons. Instead of a single off-hand attack the warrior may make an additional half of his attacks (rounding up) as offhand attacks. Must have WS5 or more to take this skill". That would be more realistic, but rather more harder to balance, I fear .

Well first of, that nerf is not near enough what it should be. That nerf doesn't even kick in untill you have 3A, which is pretty late in game.
Secondly you claim that RL isn't balanced, which I partly agree on – the problem here is that DW is way better, for any unexperienced warrior than say, Sword and Shield – in "RL" I don't see the same unbalance.
Oh my experience in Kendo, where some people use the style "nito" (one normal sword, one small) is that fighting with two weapons screws up quite a lot, and it takes years of experience to master it. Also you don't generally start it with it until third or fourth dan.
I think your missing the main problem with DW in Mordheim. It's just to bloody good. It needs some kind of extra nerf, I mean, if you look at the "fighting individual battle"-section in the rule book, it states that +1A costs 20g. Now, that attack doesn't occupy a weapon-slot like DW, still you get the DW at 3g (if you by club) just like that.
I don't see good reasons for fluff or game play why it should stay like that.

I agree that your suggestion is hard to practice. Therefore I think simple nerfs such as: -1 to hit when DW, or 15g to teach your warrior "the art of DW".

Popmouth wrote:

That nerf doesn't even kick in untill you have 3A, which is pretty late
in game.

You know what? You are right. I hadn't really done the math - it was little more than an off-the-cuff suggestion. After thinking about it properly, I realised that those that have truely mastered dual-wielding are *very* good at creating attack opportunities so really they should get their offhand attack *and* the bonus 50%.

Popmouth wrote:

it takes years of experience to master [fighting with two weapons].

Being a master of fighting with two weapons and able to attack with equal proficiency with both of them = hard.
Having a weapon in your off-hand and hitting them when you get the chance = not very hard.

Of those two scenarios I think the rules model the latter much more accurately than they do the former.

To be honest, I really think that the problem with dual wielding isn't that dual wielding is too good, it is that the other options aren't good *enough*.

For example, one of the best single weapons to use is a spear, but what does it give you in Mordheim? A paltry "'strikes first' in the first round of combat". If your opponent has a spear and you do not, you are in trouble. A spear should have something like "Make an I check for each round of combat. If you pass, you strike first" although to properly model it more you would need some sort of I penalty for the more things there were around you that you might run into (spears need a reasonable amount of room to move). Oh, and the 'Parry' ability if used two-handed would not be inappropriate at all.

Another example is hand weapon and shield. A shield takes a *lot* of work to get around and what do you get in Mordheim? A paltry 6+ armour save; 5+ in close combat if you are using the house-rules. Really, it should be something like 5+ save, +1 in close combat, +1 if you are against one opponent attacking with one weapon, -1 if you are against multiple opponents. That is getting a bit close to critical on the complexometer though. Historically, shields were generally disposable, but I am not sure if that needs a rule. After all, you don't have to pay any extra to buy more arrows or bolts or anything, so that can probably be left as it is.

The halberd, I dunno. I don't really have any experience with a halberd, nor have I seen it in use. I am sure it could be made better then a mere +1 strength though. Just based on what I have read about its use possibly +1 S, armour piercing, and something else. No idea what though.

Double-handed weapons. Historically, these mostly starting appearing when full-plate became more common and you needed something beefier just to punch through the armour. To be honest, in the campaigns I play in, that is when you start seeing more of them i.e. when the suits of gromril and full-plate start increasing, so too do the DH weapons so I would be tempted to leave them how they are. Possibly make them strike first or at I on the round you charge though.

TL;DR: Dual-wielding is about right - make the other options (weapon+shield, spear, halberd, etc) more appealing. Especially shields.

Well I do partly agree with you. Though I still think DW is far to good.
You say you don't have to master it to use it, well this I agree on, though however, not being a master should lead to some penalty don't you think?
So therefore I feel it is quite natural to give some kind of penalty.
I agree that some weapons are not good enough. You mention the spear, yes in rank and file these would be better, in street brawl – I don't know really if they would be that good. I mean, I'm no expert though that is my hypothesis.
So I still think Dual Wield is to good – like I said before, an extra attack for a mere 3g?
Still there is this problem with nerf that it usually effects game length to last longer. Though I do agree that for example armour is to bad, and better armour would generate more DHW for example.

You are right, the difference should be bigger, but to me, the way things are with dual-wielding reasonably accurately models how dual-wielding works for the average* user. Really, for anyone even fairly competent with a weapon (say, WS 2 and up) the choice between a one-handed weapon and two one-handed weapons *should* be a no-brainer - go for the second weapon, even if it is just a dagger.

What it does *not* reflect well is just how awesome dual-wielding is to someone that *has* mastered it. I think that rather than penalise average dual-wielders, masters should be given a bigger bonus.

Just thought of something: "Dual-wield Master: Instead of 1 offhand attack, the DW Master gains offhand attacks equal to half his WS, rounding down."


In a street brawl spears would be just fine so long as you have a certain minimum amount of space to move around in. On the street would be fine, in a room would be fine, but in an alley could become bothersome. Once your opponent is past the pointy bit at the front (much harder than it sounds ) you have to retreat until he is in front of it again, but once he *is* in front of it again it is relatively easy to drive him back where he was and get yourself more room to move again.

Just thought of something else:
Spear: Str: as user; Special Rules: Two hands, Support Attack, Swift.
Two Hands: The spear requires two hands to use.
Support Attack: If the warrior is in BtB contact with a friendly model and has no enemy in BtB contact with him then he may attack enemy models in BtB with the friendly model. Support attacks are half the attack stat of the warrior rounding up. Support attacks are at normal I order.
Swift: Attacks with a spear against models in BtB contact Strike First in the first round of combat. The warrior must pass a Movement Test in order to retain Strikes first in subsequent rounds of combat.

I haven't seen a halberd in action, so I don't know if it is appropriate or not, but a halberd *looks* like it might be light enough to get Support Attack as well. I will have to investigate.

*The average I am talking about is, of course, average user in a sample of medieval post-apocalyptic adventurers, locked in a daily struggle for survival. The average citizen of, say, a 21st century gaming forum would likely get torn apart in short order :p.

I've recently started playing Mordheim again, with the Coreheim rules. My group is only 3 games into a campaign, but all (6) of us have agreed that the changes in Coreheim make for a much more balanced game. Specifically, the new "to-hit" chart, -1 WS penalty for DW, armor changes (reduced costs and 5+ save for shield and hand weapon) all add up to make DW more balanced. By balanced I mean, if you have a more defensive strategy, buy shield and hand weapon. If you have a more offensive strategy, buy two hand weapons and take a penalty to hit. Both are equally viable options and are equally seen throughout our group. At least for the first 3 games, DW is no longer the obvious choice. I recognize that as the campaign continues, this may change.
Further, our group discussed giving the offhand a -1 S as well. We decided against it simply to streamline the game, rather than having to allocating die for each attack and doing two different S/T comparisons.
I feel that of all the tweaks to DW mentioned in this thread, the Coreheim changes make the most sense. I do like some of the additional fluff rules, specifically, the spear rules mentioned above. We might be adding those to our group for the next campaign.

glad to hear it

-1 to WS doesn't make that much of a change though? I mean, you will still hit most on a 4+...
Oh, but your using another chart right? Well, no point in discussing that then

I'm getting more and more convinced that a price for Dual Wield is the solution to favour; mainly because DW gives you such an upper-hand early in the campaign, and also that other penalties don't prevent 15 skaven dual wielding at the first battle; even with the -1 to hit or whatever it is quite a drag.

raising the price of dagger, club/axe, sword to 5gc, 10gc, 12gc would fix a lot of things but it would still leave DW as the most powerful choice, necessitating that players have twice as many models as they will upgrade to DW once they get the money

Well, yes that helps slightly. Still what is your thoughts of having a special cost for DW?
The concept is that any warrior (who can carry a close combat weapon) can be "trained" in the art of Dual Wield for a cost of (say) 15g. Once purchased this lasts through the whole campaign.