Wizards Staff?

Hey Lord 0 I agree that it shouldn't cost 8 gc but I reckon it should cost 6 or 7 gc instead of the same price of a buckler. We have the same house rule of the +1AS for shields and bucklers in close combat so in that context 5 gc does make more sense.

I agree with PP308 that the staff should not be able to be used single handed but then ite gets tricky again because should the price be dropped to 4 gc to represent that severe limitation?

Lord O - Your forgetting the golden rule of game designing: design it for ALL groups, THEN adjust it for yours.

I agree with the "two-hand only" ruling, as it makes it simpler. Before you drop the price, however, remember that it is still two-hands worth of items stapled together (a 2 for 1 sale, really), and that most of the people using it are hired swords that can't get a second weapon ANYWAY.

No, I designed *and* priced it for everyone's group - that is why it is as cheap as it is. I even specifically said I *didn't* factor in the house rules we are using into the cost. It is a club and a buckler stapled together and then given a discount because you lose the flexability and gain *nothing*.

As far as I know, the only Hired Swords that have a staff rather than a hammer are casters and it doesn't bother me at all that a caster (generally very weak in melee) gets a minor melee upgrade. Going from pathetic to trivial doesn't make a lot of difference to me.

For those that it bothers then just leave 'staff' with its current rules and make a new item 'longstaff' or 'quarterstaff' or 'walking stick' or something, whatever makes you happiest .

Oh, just by-the-by, I would imagine you fight with a staff one-handed the same way you fight with a spear one-handed - with the shaft tucked under your arm and thrust at the enemy. It is definitely sub-optimal, but an end of a staff to the face or the throat or (depending on how much armour you were wearing) your solar plexus or knees would be pretty darn damaging. Possibly weak enough to warrant either being -1S or +1 AS if used one-handed, but that is starting to edge too close to simulation and away from game for my tastes. In any case, it would be better than a fist (-1S *and* +1 AS).

It would also help you knock aside your opponent's weapon. Certainly better than one's bare hand anyway.

I haven't fought with a staff one-handed, but I *have* fought with a spear one-handed so the afore-mentioned imagining is not *pure* conjecture, but I haven't actually experienced it.

One handed a staff is basically used as a club. At least the type of staff they are talking about. I would not give it a penalty as you said, but rather only 1 attack a turn may be made with it one handed? So good off hand weapon, but akward for anyone with real skill to use?

Lord 0

The spear is used one handed when used with a shield. The defense offered by a sheild offsets the difficulty in handling the spear one-handed. Otheerrwise, the spear is much deadlier used two-handed.

More importantly, the spear is designed to be a piercing weapon, while the staff is a striking weapon. Sure you can jab with it, but that jab is going to be *weak* with one hand, much weaker than even a one handed club. It's just not effective for weapon that large.

In the real world, a greatsword can also be used one-handed, but it's a bad idea because your accuracy, power, and speed suffer greatly. I don't see how requiring a staff to be used two-handed is any more restrictive than requiring a greatsword to be two-handed.

A thrust with a one-handed staff would be no weaker than a one-handed club the disadvantage is that you can't alter the direction of the strike as fast as you could with a one handed club so your strikes are somewhat telegraphed. It should be something like -1 to hit would certainly be appropriate, but hits that landed from it would be just as strong as those from a club and just as likely to do damage through armour also. Although probably not as likely as a hammer.

No, I think I have to remind myself it is just a game and not a simulation and simplify it down to just "Staff: two handed, parry, concussion" as you suggest.

A thrust with a one-handed staff would be no weaker than a one-handed club

Um, no.

A club generates incredible force on a swing. A staff thrust might poke painfully, might even break some bones, but it does not have anywhere near the devastating power of a good club. Especially if it's a one-handed staff thrust.

Blunt weapons are designed for swinging because that's the best way to do damage with them. Sure, they can thrust, but it won't do the same damage, and is usually used the same way a boxer would use a jab; to wear the opponent down, and create openings for a more powerful attack.

I think we are thinking of different things when we say 'club'. I am not thinking of a hammer, maul, mace, or any other purpose-designed concussive armour-defeater. If you get a stick or a chair leg or a bit of lumber then you have a club. Clubs. Maces. I know 'mace' and 'club' are often used interchangeably, but I think the difference between weighted and non-weighted is significant enough to distinguish between for game purposes.

Also, I was comparing a one-handed thrust with a staff with a one-handed thrust with a club. Of course a swing will generate more force than a thrust, that is a basic property of leverage. That being said, I think a swing with a staff will have much the same strength as a swing with a club, *neither* of which would have the same strength (as you rightly point out) as a swing with a mace. The thing is though, in the base rules there are no separate rules for either staffs or hammers or maces (and I suspect you are thinking of 'mace' when you say 'club').

So there we go. It was a design decision of GW to make the rules for a club and then just lump in staffs and hammers and maces and so forth. Or maybe they averaged them? Certainly the rules as they are don't seem to reflect the devastation you can inflict with a mace.

If I were making the game I probably would have made clubs the 2 gold weapon that increases armour that everyone gets for free; daggers 3 gold, but -1I (to reflect the shorter range); maces and hammers would be 5 gold and would have concussion and armour piercing; axes would also be 5 gold and would be armour piercing and +1 injury vs unarmoured or something. Swords would be 10 gold, parry, and +1 injury vs unarmoured. Spears would be 5 gold and two handed, Strikes first, and +1I. I probably would have made DHW something you buy for a sword, axe, or hammer to grant it strikes last, +2s, two handed. Flails and morning stars would be similarly reduced in price and heavy would be replaced with 'cannot be parried' and 'dangerous to user' (1's to hit means you hit yourself at base strength).

But then I was a role-player before I was a toy-soldierer so I have a tendency towards making things more complex than they perhaps should be when making a skirmish game. Those ideas were kinda off the top of my head, they would need some work before they became playable. I am least happy with the axe in particular.

Technically a mace or warhammer should be a weapon to fight plate armor. The blunt trauma could cause injury to an armored warrior without actually breaking through the armor, including stunning through a helmet. Also with so much weight at the striking end, and with the force concentrated into the smaller striking surface of a hammerhead or flang on a mace, they might be capable of caving in or punching holes in armor, no doubt to the extreme detriment of the wearer. And clearly chainmail and other flexible armors offer no meaningful protection against a hammer or mace.

Now this is sort of the opposite of the way Mordheim does it, where maces and hammers are grouped with clubs and do nothing special against armor and have a stunning bonus that is countered by wearing a helmet.

Honestly it's more accurate to group warhammers and maces with axes, as they function about the same (weight balanced toward a small striking surface at the end of a torque generating shaft).

A basic wooden club, or a staff crudely wielded, might have properties like the Mordheim rules for clubs, or may be accurately represented as a weapon without special rules at all.

So now that I actually finish reading Lord 0's post I see that I'm just repeating a lot of what he said. Harhar.

Also none of this historical weapon functionality really stands up in Mordheim land by itself. Armor in Mordheim is defeated by so many commonly occurring factors, which doesn't reflect that you basically could not hurt a enemy in full gothic plate with an attack from a typical cut and thrust sword. So there's no reason to necessarily follow the dynamic of these things.

Similarly, shields were super serious business. Attacking a shielded model should probably earn you a -1 to hit on top of the current AS or even the +2 AS, and maybe greater bonuses than that.

If there aren't rules that reflect these things accurately, there don't really have to be rules that reflect other things accurately either. It really becomes an almost entirely new game. And it is something I've been working on for the past couple weeks

Anyway, Mordheim probably wouldn't be a better game if it was changed this way. It would certainly be a slower game.

Man, thread mega derailed.

So how 'bout them wizard staffs?

I think we are thinking of different things when we say 'club'. I am not thinking of a hammer, maul, mace, or any other purpose-designed concussive armour-defeater. If you get a stick or a chair leg or a bit of lumber then you have a club. I know 'mace' and 'club' are often used interchangeably, but I think the difference between weighted and non-weighted is significant enough to distinguish between for game purposes.

Also, I was comparing a one-handed thrust with a staff with a one-handed thrust with a club. Of course a swing will generate more force than a thrust, that is a basic property of leverage. That being said, I think a swing with a staff will have much the same strength as a swing with a club, *neither* of which would have the same strength (as you rightly point out) as a swing with a mace. The thing is though, in the base rules there are no separate rules for either staffs or hammers or maces (and I suspect you are thinking of 'mace' when you say 'club').

So there we go. It was a design decision of GW to make the rules for a club and then just lump in staffs and hammers and maces and so forth. Or maybe they averaged them? Certainly the rules as they are don't seem to reflect the devastation you can inflict with a mace.

Okay... so it's just a matter of terminology.

When I speak of clubs, I'm thinking of something with a weighted end, like the trench clubs used in WWI. These were about 15 inches long or so, built like a short fat baseball bat, and often had short nails pounded into the wood to add weight and harden the surface.

I'm not talking about a lightweight stick, like a police baton, but something designed to cave a skull in.

I'm working on my own set of house rules, and I've separated clubs from hammers/maces and staves. The club is now a cheap weapon, that only causes concussion on helmetless foes, while the mace is more powerful but more expensive. The staff is a two handed weapon with concussion and parry.

If I were making the game I probably would have made clubs the 2 gold weapon that increases armour that everyone gets for free; daggers 3 gold, but -1I (to reflect the shorter range); maces and hammers would be 5 gold and would have concussion and armour piercing; axes would also be 5 gold and would be armour piercing and +1 injury vs unarmoured or something. Swords would be 10 gold, parry, and +1 injury vs unarmoured. Spears would be 5 gold and two handed, Strikes first, and +1I. I probably would have made DHW something you buy for a sword, axe, or hammer to grant it strikes last, +2s, two handed. Flails and morning stars would be similarly reduced in price and heavy would be replaced with 'cannot be parried' and 'dangerous to user' (1's to hit means you hit yourself at base strength).

Those ideas were kinda off the top of my head, they would need some work before they became playable. I am least happy with the axe in particular.

Your thinking is similar to mine in a lot of areas, but I think I've streamlined things a bit by thinking outside the box, as it were. I think you'll like a lot of the changes I've made.

For one thing, I've abolished the phrase "Double handed weapon". It's way too clunky when "great weapon" conveys the same thing with half the syllables.

But there are a lot of things that give me fits, and the axe is one of them.


Man, thread mega derailed.

Oh, don't be so dramatic. This is a slight deviation from the topic, but the subject of clubs vs staves is relavant to Mordheim. Thread derailment would something totally off topic like a discussion about Scarlett Johansen's boobs.