Two handed weapons, proposed rule change.

I was reading the long booring dual wield thread and got to thinking about some other weapons that in my mind is too weak.
So Im proposing that 2h weapons should be able to attack as written (ie. +2S always strike last) or make a "normal" attack as armed with a hand weapon (ie. attack at S value and use normal initiative rules, strike first when charging etc.). You can view this as the warrior hits a weaker but quicker attack or uses a sidearm (which is not dagger and not as good as a sword)

Benefits:
1: You wount see 2h sword armed warriors charging and sriking with their dagger (which is silly)
2: You dont have to "cheese up" your 2h warrior with a club or other side arm in the start of a campaign.

Regards/ Kalle

This is something we have been discussing lately, well the disussion started a long time ago, and was brought up again, while discussing the dual-drama thread.

I agree with the greatsword, even though I am actually thinking that they should have their full strength and still be able to hit first in close combat, as they do for real, however, this can be a, in the name of good gaming balance, preferable middle way to go.

I think the rules for 2 handed weapons are balanced as written. in the early stages of a game the +2 Strength is a great bonus for the attacker, it all but wipes out armor use. If it's wielded by a Middenheimer (in our group they most often are ) it will be double the strength most likely and also negate the parry ability. So even with the bump to armor we just implemented a 2 handed weapon charge means you are going to be hurting, and we have lost the usefulness of armor once more. Strongman skill lets you deal with the strike last rule.

As stated in another thread, most of our group plays more to story/fluff feel but we do have those that would go for the most devastating combinations. Fast movers/chargers with 2 handed weapons would be their norm.

Of course if its what your group likes it is the best option! I am faced with making the final calls on house rules or interpretations for our group, and there is always someone who has an opposing position. Debating rules merits is fun.

We have no problems wish double handed weapons in our group as written. They popped up occasionally (not too often though) when we played standard rules. They are being used slightly more now that we have slightly buffed armour.

I think the rules for 2 handed weapons are balanced.

I think it is better to make dual wielding less effective.

Additionally there are so many weapons which are worse than 2 handed weapons. Spear or morning star for example. To push the 2 handed weapon would mean to only see them more in the beginning not to see more of any other combination of weapon, buckler and shields.

Both me and Kalle had the opportunity to meet with some Games Workshop brass a few years ago (well almost 10 years ago actually :-P) and where able to demonstrate how 2-handed swords (along with shortsword/dagger as side arm) helbard and sword and buckler combinations.
First of all, they where seriously surprised, we started with a short history lesson, regarding the period that the Warhammer world essentially is taking place in, the 1500-1570 era of Imperial Germany, and then gave them a good show with real weaponry and armour.
What surprised them the most, was how history had developed consering the use of weapons, and then how it worked in reality, they dropped their yaws when they saw the speed of a two-handed sword, and how it is used in combat agaist sword/shield, two swords, sword and buckler and helbard. We demonstrated the reason WHY a great weapon ALLWAYS strike first. Simply the reach along with the technique.
This is not something that is open for discussion, I am a expert greatsword fighter and have over 20 years experience with these kinds of weapons, that and studying history at the university. I have also been fighting in the SCA for about the same amount of time. So when I say that I will not disuss it, I mean that I have all the knowledege I need, and will not be peruaded to think differently, what ever comes out of this discussion.
So, with that in mind, the rules are really not related to how a great weapon work.
It is also so that some weapon types/combinations/techniques are superior to others, wich in this case, along with no knowledge of how weapons behave in reality, and that they had to be implemented in the game system to allow for a working game mechanics, naturally yields issues.
One issue is that great weapons are slower than others, and another issue are two weapons. There is another guy that have allready tried to explain how it works, and he is, on all accounts naturally totally right on, he knows what he is talking about (Lord 0).
So what to do? Keep funky rules or change them. Most of you state that you want RAW rules when it comes to two-handed swords, but are all over the opportunities to change the two weapon rules?
Normally, as stated else where, I prefere to play the game as RAW, but I am also willing to try out new stuff, whole new games if needed, but, I also love Mordheim, for what it is, the only game GW have released that actually is a truely great (with all its flaws and imperfections) and fantastic game.

I would love to see a updated and modern Mordheim, with some changes to the rules every here and there, but it have to be done without the overly emotional input, and perhaps a few persons with some actuall knowledge of weapons and armour should be involved. Still, it have to be a game that goes along with the GW tradition game system and flavour, and it also have to be a working game with some sort of balance.
What people tend to forget, is that the Empire in the Warhammer world, actually is depicted from a world where sword and shield was obselete, where pike and guns where the ruling weapon forms, and totally, and utterly superior. So think about that before screaming that "everyone" will use a greatsword. I know I would, if it had been 1525.

If I were to houserule anything in the 2-hand department, I'd merge Strongman with Bulging Muscles- So anyone with Strongman gets +2S each turn with a double-handed weapon or a flail, or +1S each turn with a morning star.

That is interesting, thanks for your coment.

I like a variety within my model range and i am not so interested, if the weapon rules are realistic or not.

If the greatsword was the only suitable weapon, Mordheim and the modeling hobby around it would be much more boring.

But if you are able to adjust the rules to a be a little more realistic and also allow some variety you are fery wellcome.

SerialMoM wrote:

I like a variety within my model range and i am not so interested, if the weapon rules are realistic or not.

If the greatsword was the only suitable weapon, Mordheim and the modeling hobby around it would be much more boring.

I never have understood why some people care so much about 'weapon balance' for weapons available to most/all warbands. This is because it doesn't affect the overall balance of the game. You have given me insight to one valid reason at least: modelling opportunities. Thank you!

you are welcome

I had been considering developing rules for various 2h versions of the various weapons. I think I saw some concepts around before, but no idea where/when/who.

Greatsword would strike at normal speeds and be able to parry, but would also be 25 gold or such, greataxe would be cheap but have cutting edge as well as current rules, a maul/greatclub could be similar but with concussion. Halberd from what I know historically is a very fast effective weapon so i was going to have it count as a +1 strength weapon that strikes first then wins ties for initiative (or simply +1 init).

I also support the combining of strongman and bugling muscles.

An idea to encourage morning stars and flails could also be to force a S test to get a parry against them (when they have their bonus only) or maybe just make them unable to be parried while they have the S bonus. Makes them very good against some things. Although parry is usually not that commonly helpful.

Well, i was all on fire for an campaign that didnt started and we had the same idea for houseruling the game as you Balrog.

Further more, our grup were supposed to remove the Strongman skill. (and a whole bunch of other houserules..)
That came up after we wanted to make the armor more attractive to the players..

(Well, in theory it worked but as i said, never got more than that..=)

I think the rules for two-handed weapons are balanced.

Allowing them to function as two-handed weapons or make regular attacks would make them overpowered, in my opinion.