Houserules - Feedback Wanted

Greetings, first post here. I had played Mordheim some years ago, and am getting back into it with a small group of friends that has no experience with it (or tabletop wargames in general). I was hoping to get some feedback on some houserules I had compiled based on my previous experience with the game and reading the forums in general. The goal is to make as small and simple of a change as possible, while addressing some of the larger issues.


1.) No more than 50% of the warband can be equipped with ranged weapons.
- Previous group experiences with warbands just filled to the brim with missile weapons and not engaging made for a pretty lackluster time. Lack of terrain contributed to this, although my collection has grown since then (Malifaux Terraclips are amazing).

2.) Dual Wielding weapons imposes a flat -1 WS penalty (extra arms with weapons on Mutants/tail fighting still triggers this).
- Probably not enough of a nerf, but -2 to the offhand or flat -1 across the board just don't mesh as well as I'd like. WS2 needing a 5+ to hit WS5 might happen more than you think. Having a lower WS makes you easier to hit. Coupled with Parry modification, better armor options and higher weapon prices, its not longer a slam dunk easy choice to just load up on double clubs and go to town. Most of all, it is simple and can just be marked down on the roster.

3.) Parry only has to match your opponents roll if you have a higher WS.
- Makes the situation where lower WS opponents benefited from Parry more than high WS creatures less jarring.

4.) +1 AS increase from Shield and Buckler, price increase to 10gc.
- Making armor a more competitive option.

5.) Sling 5gc, Daggers 5gc, Axes/Maces 10gc.
- No dirt cheap dual wielding or sling barrage.

6.) No free daggers!
- Pay for your weapons, seems easy enough.

7.) No hero can select the same skill as another hero in the Warband
- Just making the game more narrative and diverse. Find an amazing combination of abilities for a Hero? Great! Only on the one though. Try new things!

Hopeful net result:
-More mixed tactics
-Dual Wielding less amazing due to WS penalty and price increase of weapons.
-Parry and Armor more competitive (making high strength weapons that can bypass both more attractive)
-Less rocket tag (defensive choices not negated as easily)
-Less cookie cutter in general.

Would love any feedback you guys have to offer. Aiming for a more narrative campaign with my group of friends, and being able to lay down some quick houserules that encourage this seems better than hoping they can self-police (moreso since they are new to the system!). Thanks!

Rathyr wrote:

Greetings, first post here. I had played Mordheim some years ago, and am getting back into it with a small group of friends that has no experience with it (or tabletop wargames in general). I was hoping to get some feedback on some houserules I had compiled based on my previous experience with the game and reading the forums in general. The goal is to make as small and simple of a change as possible, while addressing some of the larger issues.

Welcome back then! I hope my feedback will be useful to you!

Rathyr wrote:

1.) No more than 50% of the warband can be equipped with ranged weapons.
- Previous group experiences with warbands just filled to the brim with missile weapons and not engaging made for a pretty lackluster time. Lack of terrain contributed to this, although my collection has grown since then (Malifaux Terraclips are amazing).

With hiding and lots of terrain, I rarely find ranged weapons dangerous. Especially since they can max have a 50% chance of taking you OOA. Also, a lot of the scenarios we play in our group, you'll have to move forward to some objective. The way I'd 'counter' this rule, would just be to go ranged with my Heroes still, and drop the Bow/Crossbow I usually give to my henchmen in ranged warbands - don't want them to take kills anyway!

Rathyr wrote:

2.) Dual Wielding weapons imposes a flat -1 WS penalty (extra arms with weapons on Mutants/tail fighting still triggers this).
- Probably not enough of a nerf, but -2 to the offhand or flat -1 across the board just don't mesh as well as I'd like. WS2 needing a 5+ to hit WS5 might happen more than you think. Having a lower WS makes you easier to hit. Coupled with Parry modification, better armor options and higher weapon prices, its not longer a slam dunk easy choice to just load up on double clubs and go to town. Most of all, it is simple and can just be marked down on the roster.

I like this, but you're right - it's not enough of a nerf. I could send you some calculations, showing how much dual-wielding is just better with the current rules, and how a WS decrease wouldn't affect much, if you just dual-wield on the right henchmen. I understand that it might also be a matter of taste and a matter of noting things down easily, and for those reasons, I could go with it. Balancewise, I wouldn't.

Rathyr wrote:

3.) Parry only has to match your opponents roll if you have a higher WS.
- Makes the situation where lower WS opponents benefited from Parry more than high WS creatures less jarring.

Cool rule, could go with that. Already have house rules that says 'pick your parry attempt', but this is a fine way of doing it as well.

Rathyr wrote:

4.) +1 AS increase from Shield and Buckler, price increase to 10gc.
- Making armor a more competitive option.

Not unfair imo. I'm not into the whole +2 AS from Shields, but I know a lot is, and it works for them. Price increase also makes sense to me.

Rathyr wrote:

5.) Sling 5gc, Daggers 5gc, Axes/Maces 10gc.
- No dirt cheap dual wielding or sling barrage.

Slings - agree. Daggers, hrmm... They're not even half as good as Axes or Maces imo., so I'd stay on the 2gc, or maybe 3gc. But I wouldn't chance Axe/Mace price either. I suppose it's from a dual-wielding standpoint and in combination with the Shields, but it's suddenly getting a lot more expensive to equip units, and I don't know how that would work in the long run. Again, with the dual-wielding rules you'd want, this might be fine with the increase in Shield/Buckler prices.

Rathyr wrote:

6.) No free daggers!
- Pay for your weapons, seems easy enough.

Seems easy enough, but again, getting even more expensive. The major problem with this though, is if you can afford a henchman, but not any equipment for him. Then he would have to use his fists ofc., but that's still quite a nerf!

Rathyr wrote:

7.) No hero can select the same skill as another hero in the Warband
- Just making the game more narrative and diverse. Find an amazing combination of abilities for a Hero? Great! Only on the one though. Try new things!

I like this somehow, especially with the narrative. However, I think that this would really throw some warbands off balance. I'd need to think more about this though

Thanks for the reply!

The Dual Wielding nerf doesn't always translate into you missing more (although it might for WS2/3 warriors requiring a 5+, or moving from a 3+ to 4+ to hit for becoming the same WS as your enemy), but your enemies hitting you on a 3+ instead of a 4+. It's a soft fix, I know.

With no free dagger, it probably would be fine to leave daggers at like 3gc. Armor saves being stronger means that the +1 AS from the dagger really might be a pain for you. I think that fact that everyone defaults to mace/hammer/club is a pretty clear indicator of how much bang you get for your buck. Quantity is the clear winner every time, and you don't have to pay much for it! Now you do =P. Maybe not quite worth 10, but definitely worth more than 3gc. I was actually tempted to leave shields and bucklers at their base price just to make them that much more attractive.

The no double skill rule could be loosened up for lists that have extremely limited lists to pick from, or allowing doubling up after X levels. I feel like there is a lot of good stuff that gets overlooked though...

Modifying the WS chart (you hit your WS/WS+1 on a 4+, everything above on a 5+) was another tweak I was considering to go along with the Dual Wield nerf. I've never liked how at WS3 you suddenly get to hit for the rest of the game at a 4+ or higher.

Welcome to the forum.

Aside from giving +1 AS to the shield when its used in conjunction with a hand weapon my group hasn't used any of your house rules, nor do I see a reason to. In fact I know I'd lose all my players if I suggested a skill could only be used by one hero in a warband.   

Will that even work? Some warbands don't have all that many skill sets available and can't actually use some skills because of weapon restrictions. Are you limiting the warbands to the ones in the rule book? How many games will your campaign last? My group plays 25-35 games per campaign on average. Some warriors have 8-9 skills. That would be hard under your rules.

Are you intending on using the Living Rule Book rules or the original ones or something else?

If nothing else I'd like to hear how this experiment turns out.

Well, I think most people can agree that Dual Wielding is, by far, the most effective option. Armor is easily bypassed and over-priced. So the "reason" is to at least try and change that. It's cool if your group doesn't mind, or self-restrains. These players are pretty good at spotting the most effective choice in other gaming forms, so I'd like the "best" choice slightly more difficult to pick.

For skills, the idea is to encourage people to try out other skills. The fact that your group would be up in arms suggests that, like most groups, your group zeros in on the select few (and the most effective fighting style, no doubt). Again, nothing wrong playing it as written, I'd just want to develop a more narrative and unique wargaming experience.

Off the top of my head, I'd say something like "as soon as a hero is unable to select a meaningful skill that would benefit him (ie. Strongman and he doesn't use 2-handers), he may select a skill already chosen by another member." I honestly don't know how long the campaign will be, its only going to be a group of 6-8 people, so hopefully that won't even be an issue.

Using original rules + errata and original Warbands. Maybe some Warbands/items from the annual or something.

The more I think about it, the more I like the altered WS chart (anything above WS+1 requires a 5+ to hit) with the -1 WS from Dual Wielding.

Rathyr wrote:

Thanks for the reply!

Np more to come!

Rathyr wrote:

The Dual Wielding nerf doesn't always translate into you missing more (although it might for WS2/3 warriors requiring a 5+, or moving from a 3+ to 4+ to hit for becoming the same WS as your enemy), but your enemies hitting you on a 3+ instead of a 4+. It's a soft fix, I know.

Aye. This is your idea with dual-wielding, mine is just about having a harder time hitting, not being hit more easily however, luckily we can interpretate this how we want! I'd at least stay away from dual-wielding on WS2 guys and most WS3. However, as you say, the higher we go up, the less impact this will have.

Rathyr wrote:

With no free dagger, it probably would be fine to leave daggers at like 3gc. Armor saves being stronger means that the +1 AS from the dagger really might be a pain for you.  I think that fact that everyone defaults to mace/hammer/club is a pretty clear indicator of how much bang you get for your buck. Quantity is the clear winner every time, and you don't have to pay much for it! Now you do =P. Maybe not quite worth 10, but definitely worth more than 3gc. I was actually tempted to leave shields and bucklers at their base price just to make them that much more attractive.

About daggers: Just ran some calculations. To me we're looking at a weapon which is worth 66,7% of a mace in terms of stunning or killing the average opponent. The mace is about 90% as good as an Axe, so yeah, you get a bit more 'bang for the buck'. This is only if there's armour involved however, which might reduce Axe effienciency a bit. With your pricings, I'd go with Axe for 9gc, Mace for 8gc and a Dagger for 5gc it seems. So perhaps you weren't that off, since that could be Axe 10gc, Mace 9gc and Dagger 6gc just as well! This is comparing at certain values, and I haven't run a full test, but this should be pretty much on average. I'll make Shield calculations some day as well, but probably not 'till after New Years Eve ^_^

Rathyr wrote:

The no double skill rule could be loosened up for lists that have extremely limited lists to pick from, or allowing doubling up after X levels. I feel like there is a lot of good stuff that gets overlooked though...

Well, I find new combinations every now and then, I just think there'd be some problems on the road. Still, I like the idea of specializing, I just don't see it with as few skills as there's avaliable.

Rathyr wrote:

Modifying the WS chart (you hit your WS/WS+1 on a 4+, everything above on a 5+) was another tweak I was considering to go along with the Dual Wield nerf. I've never liked how at WS3 you suddenly get to hit for the rest of the game at a 4+ or higher.

I've tweaked the WS chart as well, but I guess it's just not easy to hit - it's just easier to wound once you've hit!

Rathyr wrote:

1.) No more than 50% of the warband can be equipped with ranged weapons.
- Previous group experiences with warbands just filled to the brim with missile weapons and not engaging made for a pretty lackluster time. Lack of terrain contributed to this, although my collection has grown since then (Malifaux Terraclips are amazing).

Personal taste I guess, but in my group we have not come across this requirement. In fact, I have most commonly come across this suggestion from people that either a) don't have enough terrain, b) don't realise that ranged weapons *cannot* auto-OOA stunned or KD models, or c) just don't like shooting. If everyone in your group is 'c' then by all means go ahead with the restriction. That being said, consider making pistols and thrown weapons exempt from the restriction.

Rathyr wrote:

2.) Dual Wielding weapons imposes a flat -1 WS penalty (extra arms with weapons on Mutants/tail fighting still triggers this).

In my group we use -1 to-hit for the offhand weapon. Personally, I don't like the idea that because you have something in your other hand it suddenly makes your main-hand more unwieldy but all that is gone over here and doesn't need to be repeated.

Rathyr wrote:

3.) Parry only has to match your opponents roll if you have a higher WS.
- Makes the situation where lower WS opponents benefited from Parry more than high WS creatures less jarring.

We are testing making parry a flat 5+ save with modifiers - +1 if you are higher, -1 if you are lower, additional +/-1 if you or the opponent are more than double. *Seems* to be ok so far, but hasn't had as much testing as I would like.

Rathyr wrote:

4.) +1 AS increase from Shield and Buckler, price increase to 10gc.
- Making armor a more competitive option.

We use +1 AS in melee only, but also give bucklers +1 to parry.

Rathyr wrote:

5.) Sling 5gc, Daggers 5gc, Axes/Maces 10gc.
- No dirt cheap dual wielding or sling barrage.

Slings are poo and don't need to be nerfed any more than they are. Granted, this is something of a trigger-issue for me, but honestly anyone having trouble with slings needs to L2P before swinging wildly with the nerf-bat. If you are having trouble with slings then why on earth are you in range of them? If there is lots of terrain then you should be hiding and making an approach with your whole warband so they get 1 turn of slinging at the most before you are upon them. If there is not enough terrain then you can out-range them with pretty much any other proper ranged weapon at all*. Either way, the problem is not with the sling.[/rant]. Sorry about that, but after playing this game almost since it first came out 9 times out of 10 the sort of person that protested against slings was very much the 'this is too powerful against me, we should change the rules' kind of person and it makes me all 'grrr'. You are probably not like that and I apologise.

Rathyr wrote:

7.) No hero can select the same skill as another hero in the Warband
- Just making the game more narrative and diverse.

I think this is a symptom of the whole only-dual-wielding-works thing. If armour saves are good and shooting is good then you need your armour-cracking guy, your dual-wielding guy, your sniper-hunter guy, your black-powder guy, your bow-guy, and your support-shooter guy. That leaves noone left to be your leader guy, or your caster guy so you will have to pick at least one to drop.

Personally, I have never liked the concept of banning or restricting things that are effective. In stead, I think the rules should make the most fun thing to do the most effective thing to do.

Front-loading dual-wielding with price increases only slows things down a little (1, maybe 2 games) and also helps make it so that once you start winning you will keep winning with your equipment advantage.

I do agree with you about the dominance of dual-wielding though. For what it is worth, this is what my group uses to discourage its use:

1) Offhand attacks are -1 to-hit.
2) Shields are +1AS in melee. Same price.
3) Bucklers are +1AS in melee and +1 to parry.
4) Toughened Leathers now count as a kind of light armour for equipping purposes and are no longer stinky.
This lets them be used by henchmen and more likely to be used by heroes (I know my Marienburgers wouldn't be seen *dead* in stinky leather). This also discourages the use of daggers as an off-hand weapon because someone with toughened leathers gets a 5+ save vs daggers. -1 to hit and a 5+ save is a pretty good disincentive, especially since 5 gold is not *too* much to spend on an expendable henchman so it tends to be around a lot. Even frugal warbands will buy leathers and then hand them to henchmen when they find better armour.
5) Spears are 5 gold, Two-handed, Strikes First, and +1I.
6) Staffs are 3 gold, Two-handed, Parry, Concussion.
7) Clubs are 3 gold, Concussion.
8 ) Hammers and Maces are 5 gold, Concussion, Armour Piercing.
9) Axes are 5 gold, Armour Piercing, +1S vs un-armoured.
10) Swords are 10 gold, Parry, +1S vs un-armoured.
11) Morning Stars and Flails gain Cannot be Parried.

We experimented with lessening the cost of proper armour also, but went back to default prices because it made armour *too* common.

*Pistols and thrown weapons are not proper ranged weapons, or, at least, are not weapons chosen for their range.

Lord 0 wrote:

Personal taste I guess, but in my group we have not come across this requirement. In fact, I have most commonly come across this suggestion from people that either a) don't have enough terrain, b) don't realise that ranged weapons *cannot* auto-OOA stunned or KD models, or c) just don't like shooting. If everyone in your group is 'c' then by all means go ahead with the restriction. That being said, consider making pistols and thrown weapons exempt from the restriction.

Yeah, I'm warming up to just letting people field as much range as they want. Knee jerk reaction to 'not enough terrain'! I think with my multiple Malifaux sets + all my old terrain that this shouldn't be an issue any longer.

Lord 0 wrote:

In my group we use -1 to-hit for the offhand weapon. Personally, I don't like the idea that because you have something in your other hand it suddenly makes your main-hand more unwieldy but all that is gone over here and doesn't need to be repeated.

Yeah, I read though the big ol' dual-wield thread. Nothing really wowed me for fixes. I personally don't mind the -1 WS applying to both hands, because hey, co-ordination is hard! With a tightened WS chart that I was talking about, that -1 WS *might* make you hit on a 5+ instead of a 4+, or let an enemy hit you on a 3+ instead of a 4+. I feel like WS is so underpowered compared to Str or Atk.

Lord 0 wrote:

We are testing making parry a flat 5+ save with modifiers - +1 if you are higher, -1 if you are lower, additional +/-1 if you or the opponent are more than double. *Seems* to be ok so far, but hasn't had as much testing as I would like.

See, I kind of enjoy the Parry rules (beating your opponents roll), I just think it needs to be tweaked. Not one for adding entire new rule sets if I can avoid it.

Lord 0 wrote:

Slings are poo and don't need to be nerfed any more than they are. Granted, this is something of a trigger-issue for me, but honestly anyone having trouble with slings needs to L2P before swinging wildly with the nerf-bat. If you are having trouble with slings then why on earth are you in range of them? If there is lots of terrain then you should be hiding and making an approach with your whole warband so they get 1 turn of slinging at the most before you are upon them. If there is not enough terrain then you can out-range them with pretty much any other proper ranged weapon at all*. Either way, the problem is not with the sling.[/rant]. Sorry about that, but after playing this game almost since it first came out 9 times out of 10 the sort of person that protested against slings was very much the 'this is too powerful against me, we should change the rules' kind of person and it makes me all 'grrr'. You are probably not like that and I apologise.

Well, keep in mind that this "nerf" is a couple gc increase... I can see it is a trigger issue for you =P. And again, terrain was a factor before (and the -1 to double shot rule wasn't in place). I really don't like the cost of the "weak" weapons in Mordheim, because they aren't that weak.

Lord 0 wrote:

I think this is a symptom of the whole only-dual-wielding-works thing. If armour saves are good and shooting is good then you need your armour-cracking guy, your dual-wielding guy, your sniper-hunter guy, your black-powder guy, your bow-guy, and your support-shooter guy. That leaves noone left to be your leader guy, or your caster guy so you will have to pick at least one to drop.

Personally, I have never liked the concept of banning or restricting things that are effective. In stead, I think the rules should make the most fun thing to do the most effective thing to do.

I would LOVE to be a larger overhaul of skills and weapons to make them all more appealing. Skills are particularly difficult to get to that level of a playing field. For me, this is the simpler fix for encouraging multiple builds.

Lord 0 wrote:

Front-loading dual-wielding with price increases only slows things down a little (1, maybe 2 games) and also helps make it so that once you start winning you will keep winning with your equipment advantage.

Well, -1 WS makes them more fragile (easier to hit) and more expensive to replace. Cheap armor makes other troops more durable and easier to replace. Replacing a guy with a sling and 2 clubs is like 8gc. Make that 20-25gc and it becomes a bit harder to swallow. Loading up on large number of attacks is not only the most effective, but the cheapest route. So make it more expensive, give it some drawbacks and make other options more attractive.

Lord 0 wrote:

I do agree with you about the dominance of dual-wielding though. For what it is worth, this is what my group uses to discourage its use:

1) Offhand attacks are -1 to-hit.
2) Shields are +1AS in melee. Same price.
3) Bucklers are +1AS in melee and +1 to parry.
4) Toughened Leathers now count as a kind of light armour for equipping purposes and are no longer stinky.
This lets them be used by henchmen and more likely to be used by heroes (I know my Marienburgers wouldn't be seen *dead* in stinky leather). This also discourages the use of daggers as an off-hand weapon because someone with toughened leathers gets a 5+ save vs daggers. -1 to hit and a 5+ save is a pretty good disincentive, especially since 5 gold is not *too* much to spend on an expendable henchman so it tends to be around a lot. Even frugal warbands will buy leathers and then hand them to henchmen when they find better armour.
5) Spears are 5 gold, Two-handed, Strikes First, and +1I.
6) Staffs are 3 gold, Two-handed, Parry, Concussion.
7) Clubs are 3 gold, Concussion.
8 ) Hammers and Maces are 5 gold, Concussion, Armour Piercing.
9) Axes are 5 gold, Armour Piercing, +1S vs un-armoured.
10) Swords are 10 gold, Parry, +1S vs un-armoured.
11) Morning Stars and Flails gain Cannot be Parried.

Some of those changes are too... finicky... for my tastes (+1S vs Unarmored, switching spears to 2H) but still a pretty good set all around. As you can see from before, I am not a fan of the dirt cheap equipment (moreso when the benefit of the more expensive stuff is pretty borderline). I really like the Morning Star and Flail 'No Parry' rules, that's perfect and thematic to boot!

Some of my thoughts around the other weapons.
1) Halberds gain "Strike First".
2) Double-handed weapons strike in initiative order on a charge.

Thanks for the feedback!

Just a quick comment since I'm on my phone: You're considering strike first om Halberds. Who not implement Pikes? We got the idea from the Tilean Mercenary Warband, but the rules for Pikes are like the old Whip rules, which sucked, so we made them +1S and Strike First for 20gc.

Rathyr wrote:

Halberds gain "Strike First"

Interesting. I'd be tempted to allow it to either function as a spear (i.e. strike first with the point) or as a vanilla halberd (+1 S with the blade).

Aipha wrote:

Just a quick comment since I'm on my phone: You're considering strike first om Halberds.  Who not implement Pikes? We got the idea from the Tilean Mercenary Warband, but the rules for Pikes are like the old Whip rules, which sucked, so we made them +1S and Strike First for 20gc.

I'm not sure what the difference is? If I have to introduce a new weapon (which is on no-ones weapon list), or simply tack on a existing rule onto an old weapon, I'm going to opt for the one that causes less confusion.

Alternate modes for fighting with a Halberd is neat, but starts to fall in the confusing category. Can you opt to Strike First, then switch to +1 Str in the second round of combat? Just making the Halberd *really* competitive is fine in my books. If every weapon option gets stronger except Dual Wielding, I'm happy. Perfect balance is going to be impossible, so ballpark and simple is the goal.

What have been people's experience with Lizardmen? One of the players is pretty set on them, and man, do Saurus looks mean (only 40gc!? and the new armor rules aren't going to play nice!).

This topic comes up about every 4 to 6 months. As a long time player I’ve played against players who like these changes but they haven’t really played them long. Mainly, it’s hard to see the Game Mechanics long term with all warbands. And how “+” or “-“ a point changes a great deal more then originally perceived. The main one I found is the +2 AS to shields. Sounds simple, Play against Dwarves. Dwarves have the best availability to get armor. This makes Heavy Armor and Shield, a 3+ AS. Giving dwarves a 50/50 chance to negate your wound. And with Dwarf Gromril Armor, it’s a 2+ AS. Combine that with “Hard to Kill” and “Hard Head” You’ll give up playing against them. Or even better, play Undead vs. Dwarves, since almost all of the Undead can’t wear armor. Your groups Undead player will either change warbands or give up playing this campaign.

I played Sisters of Sigmar in a campaign against 6 Dwarves in Gromril and Heavy Armor with shields and the Dual Wield -1WS penalty. I came in about 4 games late to the campaign. And already half the 6 or 8 players dropped out. The next game I planned on playing Amazons, with their weapons that cut through Armor. The campaign was over before the next game. Before someone tells me Amazons are not an official Warband, neither were the rules being played.

With your matching roll to Parry option, are you also going to increase the parry bonus for Master of Blades? Or are you just going to negate that bonus skill all together?

For Heroes not having the same skill as another Hero option. I don’t even know where to start on how that wont work for long. Example: Dwarves with Master of Blades and Monster Slayer. Big skills for Dwarves. Or Art of Silent Death for Skaven.

For your Shooting problem, increase your terrain. Buildings are easy to make cheap. When I first started playing, I went to retail stores and got their empty boxes they were going to throw away. In the U.S.A., the Post Office has free boxes. I would paint it and put it on the table. Not every building in Mordheim is destroyed. Just get boxes, big rocks, even big pine cones work for dead evergreen trees. Also, for warbands without or limited shooting ability get better bonuses in Melee Combat.

Shadowphx wrote:

This topic comes up about every 4 to 6 months.  As a long time player I’ve played against players who like these changes but they haven’t really played them long.  Mainly, it’s hard to see the Game Mechanics long term with all warbands.   And how “+” or “-“ a point changes a great deal more then originally perceived.   The main one I found is the +2 AS to shields.  Sounds simple, Play against Dwarves.  Dwarves have the best availability to get armor.  This makes Heavy Armor and Shield, a 3+ AS. Giving dwarves a 50/50 chance to negate your wound. And with Dwarf Gromril Armor, it’s a 2+ AS.  Combine that with “Hard to Kill” and “Hard Head” You’ll give up playing against them.  Or even better, play Undead vs. Dwarves, since almost all of the Undead can’t wear armor.  Your groups Undead player will either change warbands or give up playing this campaign.  

I'd argue that the fact that this same topic comes up every 6 months is a reason to keep re-examining the situation. I'm sure you will find plenty of players that have been playing a long time that don't enjoy the Dual Wielding dominance.

I've had my eye on Dwarves and Lizardmen this entire time with the shield increase. That's two warbands out of... a lot. I'll probably talk with my other players are talk about rolling back Saurus armor, and I don't have anyone interested in playing Dwarves. Ultra-armored targets are eggs in a basket. Losing a gromril wearing model to a crit is brutal. Gromril early on is going to set you way, way back on model count.

And while undead henchmen can't wear armor, Dregs/Necro/Vamp all can. Henchmen getting heavy armor is pretty late campaign, if at all, and high strength will be much more common place (so not really worried). Henchmen with shields are models without a second weapon. Ghouls and Wolves are still plenty scary (literally) late campaign. So mission accomplished?

Shadowphx wrote:

I played Sisters of Sigmar in a campaign against 6 Dwarves in Gromril and Heavy Armor with shields and the Dual Wield -1WS penalty. I came in about 4 games late to the campaign. And already half the 6 or 8 players dropped out.  The next game I planned on playing Amazons, with their weapons that cut through Armor. The campaign was over before the next game.  Before someone tells me Amazons are not an official Warband, neither were the rules being played.    

So a specific warband OVER-investing in armor got punished by another specific warband? And players didn't discuss and re-evaluate a houserule in a campaign based game after it had an unintended result, and instead dropped out?

I don't know what to take away from that besides be prepared to learn from your mistakes like an adult.

Shadowphx wrote:

With your matching roll to Parry option, are you also going to increase the parry bonus for Master of Blades? Or are you just going to negate that bonus skill all together?

So -1 AS, +1 attack, reroll parry, parry two attacks skill/equipment combo gets nerfed? And the dwarf can still get FULL benefit from the skill when fighting a higher WS opponent?  

'Negate' is a strong word to use here. And just wrong.

Shadowphx wrote:

For Heroes not having the same skill as another Hero option.  I don’t even know where to start on how that wont work for long.  Example: Dwarves with Master of Blades and Monster Slayer. Big skills for Dwarves.  Or Art of Silent Death for Skaven.

Yup, what you said really cements the type of element I'm trying to avoid. Those are the kind of skills that make me scratch my head and think, well, shoot, why take anything else? These are so over the top compared to the competition (fancy that, two skills based on Dual Wielding are ridiculous!   ). I grew tired of that kind of game design a long time ago, picking only the very best and avoiding the trap choices. I don't think the game will crumble with slightly more variety, but I guess I'll find out.

And it's fine if you do enjoy that type of gameplay. I enjoy the uber competitive, cutting edge gaming in many other forms. I just don't think Mordheim is the avenue for it for me.

Shadowphx wrote:

For your Shooting problem, increase your terrain. Buildings are easy to make cheap.  When I first started playing, I went to retail stores and got their empty boxes they were going to throw away.  In the U.S.A., the Post Office has free boxes.  I would paint it and put it on the table.  Not every building in Mordheim is destroyed.  Just get boxes, big rocks, even big pine cones work for dead evergreen trees.  Also, for warbands without or limited shooting ability get better bonuses in Melee Combat.  

Yep. Got terrain now. Malifaux + some home stuff. Should be plenty.

Going by your response to Shadowphx's feedback, I think you're right when you say that perhaps Mordheim isn't the way for you to enjoy your 'uber-competitive' avenue of gaming. Naturally, being a GW product it has a lot of grey areas, which even the Rules Review didn't fully address, so most of it comes down to the group you play with and what they find acceptable as 'patches' to the main rules version.

I have to say that, a lot of Shadowphx's post struck a chord with me, as I have seen a lot of the same situations develop.

More than that, I have to warn against excessive house-ruling in general, because it's a very slippery slope. I started playing with my brother and his friend, but they continually house-ruled areas they thought needed improving until we were no longer playing Mordheim but what my brother nicknamed 'Johnheim' after his friend's liberal attitude to changing rules. When you houserule one thing you tend to need to 'shore up' other rules which surround it, and eventually you have just changed the entire hand to hand phase, and the way each warband interacts with it, just because you didn't like Shields being under-used (as one loose example).

When I want to play Mordheim I play Mordheim, and I accept that it isn't perfect and play accordingly. I began a campaign with a group who were fantasy veterans, I ran Witch Hunters until I was winning a little too much; after a few games I started an Undead Warband, so that I had a natural handicap, as they're a lower power level- I didn't try to nerf the Witch Hunters' rules, and no one would have asked me to.

Your idea of raising the price of basic items also strikes me as a bad idea, because if you raise the prices of stock items people will just stick to a pair of daggers; if they're really interested in being cheap, you can't stop people being cheap. Daggers also don't have much downside until the mid/ late campaign, when multiple enemies have armour.

Lastly, I think it's interesting that you want to restrict skills to one per warband. I haven't heard that one before, but have never come up against someone really spamming a certain skill. I must admit to holding the opinion that most of the Special Skills Tables are better than I think they should be. I don't think that it's exactly a bad thing that someone tries to build a set style of skills on multiple characters, as there's usually a way to combat it even if they are really good in one area- in the case of the Dwarf with 2x Dwarf Axes and Blademaster I would engineer a situation where I can fill him full of arrows/ lead, by climbing buildings, creating kill-boxes when placing terrain and things like that. I love thinking outside the box when it comes to the meta as I'm very competitive myself; if you can't figure out a way to deal with threats save for changing the rules, I wouldn't say it's because of a problem with the game.

Mordheim creates a very unusual situation for people who want to be competitive, by it's nature, and I think that most of the competition should be approached from a narrative point of view- how can I build the best warband I can, and still keep it true to the back-story I've created for them? That's given me much more satisfaction than all the months I spent trying to tweak things and create errata myself. Good luck to you if you plan to keep at it, but just be wary- as the blind beggar said to Marius: "One does not leap into damnation, one walks there a step at a time"

The Ultra-Mega Bob wrote:

More than that, I have to warn against excessive house-ruling in general, because it's a very slippery slope. I started playing with my brother and his friend, but they continually house-ruled areas they thought needed improving until we were no longer playing Mordheim but what my brother nicknamed 'Johnheim' after his friend's liberal attitude to changing rules. When you houserule one thing you tend to need to 'shore up' other rules which surround it, and eventually you have just changed the entire hand to hand phase, and the way each warband interacts with it, just because you didn't like Shields being under-used (as one loose example).

Oh, for sure. I am very leery of overwhelming the game with fixes. As I've said all along, I want the changes to be as simple as possible, and do it in as few steps as possible.

The Ultra-Mega Bob wrote:

When I want to play Mordheim I play Mordheim, and I accept that it isn't perfect and play accordingly. I began a campaign with a group who were fantasy veterans, I ran Witch Hunters until I was winning a little too much; after a few games I started an Undead Warband, so that I had a natural handicap, as they're a lower power level- I didn't try to nerf the Witch Hunters' rules, and no one would have asked me to.

Yeah, after several years of pen and paper RPGs, I've stopped accepting games at "face value" and just going with the default settings (When I see one edition of D&Ders howling about X problem, I scratch my head. No one is forcing you to play the book the exactly way it is written). If something doesn't work right, try new things. I understand that if you are playing in a sanctioned setting that the "official rules" might be a burden to you, but yeah... that accounts for such a small %.

The Ultra-Mega Bob wrote:

Your idea of raising the price of basic items also strikes me as a bad idea, because if you raise the prices of stock items people will just stick to a pair of daggers; if they're really interested in being cheap, you can't stop people being cheap. Daggers also don't have much downside until the mid/ late campaign, when multiple enemies have armour.

Well, 5+ save from a shield alone might make that penalty more obvious earlier on. Prices changes are ultimately a pretty ineffective fix, as a smattering of gc won't do more than deter it slightly at the start.

The Ultra-Mega Bob wrote:

Lastly, I think it's interesting that you want to restrict skills to one per warband. I haven't heard that one before, but have never come up against someone really spamming a certain skill. I must admit to holding the opinion that most of the Special Skills Tables are better than I think they should be. I don't think that it's exactly a bad thing that someone tries to build a set style of skills on multiple characters, as there's usually a way to combat it even if they are really good in one area- in the case of the Dwarf with 2x Dwarf Axes and Blademaster I would engineer a situation where I can fill him full of arrows/ lead, by climbing buildings, creating kill-boxes when placing terrain and things like that. I love thinking outside the box when it comes to the meta as I'm very competitive myself; if you can't figure out a way to deal with threats save for changing the rules, I wouldn't say it's because of a problem with the game.

I really can't agree with that last line of reasoning. It basically gives designers zero responsibility in giving players a balanced product. "If I work twice as hard and engineer an ideal situation for dealing with this really obviously superior choice, then the game doesn't have an issue, as I still managed to deal with it."

If you can Sun Tsu your way out of a crazy situation, great job. That probably was legitimately satisfying, and we all strive for that kind of play. That doesn't mean that there isn't an issue within the game. Requiring significantly better play than your opponent because they decided to copypaste the same build across their heroes (and equipment) DOES strike me as a problem with the game.

I want to play a game where that obvious best choice is less obvious, or just unobtainable on every single model. And vanilla Mordheim does not offer that. Meaningful choices are important part of an interesting game for me. I don't like looking at options and thinking "Who in their right mind would take that" (looking at you, morning stars).

Hei Rathyr,

I'm in the middle of making a complex revamp of Mordheim weapons and armour, based on a statistical analysis of the various weapon combinations. The objective is to create more balance, so that there is more diversity and no obvious best choice. I'll send you my first draft if you are interested when it's finished (hopefully within the next month).

Quote :

Yeah, after several years of pen and paper RPGs, I've stopped accepting games at "face value" and just going with the default settings (When I see one edition of D&Ders howling about X problem, I scratch my head. No one is forcing you to play the book the exactly way it is written). If something doesn't work right, try new things.

Oh definitely; if a rule is definitely and obstacle to someone/ multiple people having fun, then by all means change it, that's part of the great thing about gaming with friends instead of always going for the 'official' competitive route. I just find that very rarely can one thing be changed without having a bigger impact that you expected- especially in a game like Mordheim where so many variables are in play- i.e. armour fixes will affect Lizardmen, Dwarves, Orcs, Beastmen, and Magisters/ Mutants with Chaos Armour, much more than it will affect Undead, so you create even more of a handicap for a warband, albeit unintentionally. Likewise, I guess dual-wielding fixes would benefit Skaven, Undead and the Possessed disproportionally, due to the number of unarmed attacks they can take without the usual penalties (like Ghouls, the actual Possessed models and Skaven with the Art of Silent Death, or even Rat Ogres). Would you then add another house rule to affect those attacks as well? There's that slippery slope again...

I don't mean there's always a problem with changing things, but ultimately I have found that you get a butterfly effect that's not worth the hassle.

Quote :

That doesn't mean that there isn't an issue within the game.

I'd argue that just because there are issues in the game doesn't mean they need to be fixed- so long as everyone knows what they are going into the game.

If you know your opponent will play Dwarves, and will most likely spam the build you mentioned, why would you go into a campaign looking to take him on in CC? There are plenty of ways to deal with a Dwarf warband like that with any number of spells, shooting, terrain (i.e. get to positions that require climbing for him to catch you), random encounters and so on, not to mention just using a superior CC character- Possessed and Vampires come to mind, although a suitable Beastman, Orc or Lizardmen hero should be able to at least match him. Then there are (at least in the early game) people who can hit at twice his strength to negate parrying altogether.

I find that if you have to spend a disproportionate amount of time gaining skills or equipment to counter a build like that, you've already left it too late; if you think a few moves ahead - and it should be fairly obvious if someone is the kind of player who would spam a copy/ paste hero build - you can counter it, or set your counter plan in motion and deal with it as soon as it crops up. After that Dwarf warband gets shot to bits for a few games, they'll invest in more missile weapons to fight back, and by then you should be aiming to beat them in close combat again. That kind of cycle, and staying on top of it, is the most challenging (and also most entertaining, at least for me) aspect of competitive game play.

(Sorry for not actually discussing your rules much, I just find this topic as a whole very worthy of discussion)

------------------------

Trying to actually address your rules specifically:

1) Dual Wielding: I haven't ever weighed in on the official thread here, but I feel like your idea of making it easier to hit people who dual wield is a bit weird- it's just plain punishing them for using it, but doesn't make sense; if someone was making a flurry of attacks constantly, they'd be less likely to take a hit, as you'd be less willing to engage, just watch any MMA match and see what I mean- people will rarely stand toe-to-toe and hit each other with flurries, usually one person will throw a flurry of attacks and the other person will back up or be more likely to miss as they try to get through the tangle of arms and legs :p

Imposing a to hit penalty on dual wielding seems a bit limp though, as you noted, because the chart is skewed to most people not needing 5s to hit; again this disproportionately affects certain people more than others- Dark Souls would be screwed, hitting at WS1 until they get an upgrade... seems overly harsh to me, and there are other native WS2 people (Young Bloods, Night Runners etc.) that would also take a bigger hit than other grunts.

About wanting to change the dominance of dual wielding *and* tinker with Shield bonus: why not say that Shields grant a +2 save, instead of +1, but ONLY when used with a Spear, or other pole arm (as in Halberds, Lances on the charge, and if you decide Pikes are a good idea).

That way you encourage spear armed henchmen and heroes with Ithilmar/ Gromril/ Heavy armour won't be able to take advantage of the shield bonus. It's fluffy because someone would be harder to hurt when you're mostly aiming around the haft of the weapon and the shield is exactly in that spot on their off-hand.
It's also not a fix which creates other gaps or needs secondary amendments, so it's neat and tidy
Halberds having Strike First sounds like you'll just turn Spears into the new Morning Stars...

As for other weapons, I disagree with giving anything extra Strength bonuses against un-armoured targets; it sounds messy and frankly, I don't mind novice warbands bouncing off each other because they are supposed to represent gruff treasure hunters, not seasoned soldiers- anyone can take money and be called a mercenary, even the Marienburger dockworkers and so on. Being able to break that stalemate through tactics, superior numbers, gaining upgrades and skills as well as superior equipment is how you're supposed to approach that kind of scenario, at least in my mind. Your mileage may vary, but I can see why things are the way they are- for the most part anyway (morning stars, I'm looking at you!).

I would definitely change two things about Mordheim that I cannot abide as they are, but the list is very small:

1) Morning Stars- why they are the same price, for a strictly worse native effect is beyond me. Would usually recommend the 'No Parry' rule when using them. I'd be hesitant to use the same rule for Flails, to separate the two and also because Flails let you get 'No Parry' through doubling the Strength of your opponent instead anyway.

2) Steel Whips- Really can't stand the errata for them, and obviously the original 4", no LoS requirement is just absurd.
I would change it to be a 2" range missile weapon, and say that you can only make half your base attacks, rounded up, at your base Strength (so no Mighty Blow). That way it cannot be parried and needs line of sight, because it's a missile weapon, it can't usually be used to attack up a building, and most people will get 1 attack with it until they have 3 attacks on their profile, which balances it just fine in my eyes. Might need a tweak to allow Resilient to affect it as well, but that's common sense.

The Ultra-Mega Bob wrote:

Oh definitely; if a rule is definitely and obstacle to someone/ multiple people having fun, then by all means change it, that's part of the great thing about gaming with friends instead of always going for the 'official' competitive route. I just find that very rarely can one thing be changed without having a bigger impact that you expected- especially in a game like Mordheim where so many variables are in play- i.e. armour fixes will affect Lizardmen, Dwarves, Orcs, Beastmen, and Magisters/ Mutants with Chaos Armour, much more than it will affect Undead, so you create even more of a handicap for a warband, albeit unintentionally. Likewise, I guess dual-wielding fixes would benefit Skaven, Undead and the Possessed disproportionally, due to the number of unarmed attacks they can take without the usual penalties (like Ghouls, the actual Possessed models and Skaven with the Art of Silent Death, or even Rat Ogres). Would you then add another house rule to affect those attacks as well? There's that slippery slope again...

I don't mean there's always a problem with changing things, but ultimately I have found that you get a butterfly effect that's not worth the hassle.

As Undead, would you rather be facing any of those armies with Dual Wielding instead of carrying a shield? Because that's the current situation, and it's not exactly ideal. Any equipment based changes are going to apply almost elusively to their heroes. Each and every warband will be affected by rule changes in subtly different ways, as they all rely on different sections to varying degrees. A net balance increase is what is being aimed for here, not some mythical level of perfect. Undead not getting better henchmen (but still getting better hero options) is a reality of any rule change, but not a reason to not try to make the game better.

As for Ghouls/Possessed... They aren't becoming massively better because the Dual Wielding took a -1 WS hit. One can (and it has been) argue that their inability to take equipment becomes a issue late game. If anything, this should make them stand out as a more unique element of Mordheim. So no, I wouldn't add another rule to add punish the fact that they have higher stats to make up for lack of equipment.

I fully expect to not be able to precisely predict the exact effects of these changes. I am fine with revisiting issues if they don't pan out.

The Ultra-Mega Bob wrote:

If you know your opponent will play Dwarves, and will most likely spam the build you mentioned, why would you go into a campaign looking to take him on in CC? There are plenty of ways to deal with a Dwarf warband like that with any number of spells, shooting, terrain (i.e. get to positions that require climbing for him to catch you), random encounters and so on, not to mention just using a superior CC character- Possessed and Vampires come to mind, although a suitable Beastman, Orc or Lizardmen hero should be able to at least match him. Then there are (at least in the early game) people who can hit at twice his strength to negate parrying altogether.

I find that if you have to spend a disproportionate amount of time gaining skills or equipment to counter a build like that, you've already left it too late; if you think a few moves ahead - and it should be fairly obvious if someone is the kind of player who would spam a copy/ paste hero build - you can counter it, or set your counter plan in motion and deal with it as soon as it crops up. After that Dwarf warband gets shot to bits for a few games, they'll invest in more missile weapons to fight back, and by then you should be aiming to beat them in close combat again. That kind of cycle, and staying on top of it, is the most challenging (and also most entertaining, at least for me) aspect of competitive game play.

See, still hearing the same thing in just different words. You need to predict your opponents build, be several moves ahead, out-play, out-maneuver, and assume that that will not be able to do the exact same as you. I don't think any Dwarf warband is going to go into the battle without some firepower to back-up their obviously awesome fighting style + awesome racial weapon + awesome racial skill.

Planning your entire campaign around trying to cope with an unbalanced element will remain a strong indicator of a problem with the game, not the player, in my eyes.

The Ultra-Mega Bob wrote:

1) Dual Wielding: I haven't ever weighed in on the official thread here, but I feel like your idea of making it easier to hit people who dual wield is a bit weird- it's just plain punishing them for using it, but doesn't make sense; if someone was making a flurry of attacks constantly, they'd be less likely to take a hit, as you'd be less willing to engage, just watch any MMA match and see what I mean- people will rarely stand toe-to-toe and hit each other with flurries, usually one person will throw a flurry of attacks and the other person will back up or be more likely to miss as they try to get through the tangle of arms and legs :p

Imposing a to hit penalty on dual wielding seems a bit limp though, as you noted, because the chart is skewed to most people not needing 5s to hit; again this disproportionately affects certain people more than others- Dark Souls would be screwed, hitting at WS1 until they get an upgrade... seems overly harsh to me, and there are other native WS2 people (Young Bloods, Night Runners etc.) that would also take a bigger hit than other grunts.

This fails one of the most basic discussion tests when discussing a game (for me on the internet). Realism. I really can't engage on it, because, well, there is no winning, and largely is a waste of anyone's time. (I could easily make argument that a "flurry of attacks" is less likely to land a meaningful hit than a single well timed strike, after your opponent has overextended themselves). We would go back and forth, arguing about a Katana vs a Longsword and folded steel and oh lord its already started please let it end.   

Lets just agree that it's a game that should aim for only a very broad sense of realism. Big sword sling slow. Heavy thing exhausting to use. Pointy stick good for getting things before they get you. Ambidexterity not as easy as it looks. Many inaccurate attacks is all over fantasy culture. Being "punished" for taking a great option is fine (see any weapon with a drawback) and is not weird at all, in my books.

I think the WS hit is less limp than it appears with the modified WS chart. Its a interesting blend of being easier to hit and hitting less often (as well as easier to Parry with my modification), but none are a guarantee.

Going dual wielding a WS2 model is probably a bad idea, until they get a WS bump. So is taking a Great Weapon on a I7 Elf. Or a Handgun on a BS 2 Dreg.  Is that a bad thing? If these models were defaulting to this weapon choice the first time around, mission accomplished if the player actually starts to care about the models WS profile and goes with a different option, as it no longer is the best choice in every single situation.

The Ultra-Mega Bob wrote:

About wanting to change the dominance of dual wielding *and* tinker with Shield bonus: why not say that Shields grant a +2 save, instead of +1, but ONLY when used with a Spear, or other pole arm (as in Halberds, Lances on the charge, and if you decide Pikes are a good idea).

That way you encourage spear armed henchmen and heroes with Ithilmar/ Gromril/ Heavy armour won't be able to take advantage of the shield bonus. It's fluffy because someone would be harder to hurt when you're mostly aiming around the haft of the weapon and the shield is exactly in that spot on their off-hand.
It's also not a fix which creates other gaps or needs secondary amendments, so it's neat and tidy
Halberds having Strike First sounds like you'll just turn Spears into the new Morning Stars...

I honestly think that doesn't even begin to address Dual Wielding. Shields only give a bonus when used with a select weapon group? It's neat and tidy, but it doesn't even begin to address it. Why wouldn't a hero in armor be able to benefit from using a shield and spear? Nothing you said prevents them from taking it.

Fluffy is not on the radar in radioactive demon infested meteor city. See above realism argument. I have no interest in getting involved in a historical fencing debate with different weapon groups (as badass as it is when we see it on the History channel). It's great when it makes 'realistic' sense (No parry morning star/whip/flail, in my books) and gives a needed bump. But the needed bump is always the top priority.

ALL two handed weapons need a strong looking at with Dual Wielding already being the status quo, and shields/bucklers getting a strong bump. They are already inferior choices. Spear + LA + Shield is a Strike First, 4+ save target. Halberd + LA is a 6+ save, +1 Str, Strike First. I think Spears will definitely still see play. Strike First is not something to be underestimated, and neither is a cheap armor save.

The Ultra-Mega Bob wrote:

As for other weapons, I disagree with giving anything extra Strength bonuses against un-armoured targets; it sounds messy and frankly, I don't mind novice warbands bouncing off each other because they are supposed to represent gruff treasure hunters, not seasoned soldiers- anyone can take money and be called a mercenary, even the Marienburger dockworkers and so on. Being able to break that stalemate through tactics, superior numbers, gaining upgrades and skills as well as superior equipment is how you're supposed to approach that kind of scenario, at least in my mind. Your mileage may vary, but I can see why things are the way they are- for the most part anyway (morning stars, I'm looking at you!).

For sure. I disagreed with that fix the first time I saw it. I dislike introducing entire new little rule subsections that are not seen anywhere else in the game. Aiming for simple changes that already exist within the rules is ideal (No Parry on Morning Stars + Flails when already on Whips? Other Polearms gaining Strike First? Bucklers gaining a smaller armor save than shield?) This and simple profile modifications are all easy connections for players to make.

Steel Whips are pretty good. But we both know that racial weapons in general are a fairly large cut above the rest. Halberds that set people on fire? 1-handed concussion halberds that work better vs Undead and Possessed? Sword/Buckler built into a two weapon set (and one of these sets are not even swords) with skills that make these two weapon sets even better?    The list goes on (and on and on).

I'm not concerned when I see the vanilla stuff all given a stern leg-up.

-- wrote:

1.) No more than 50% of the warband can be equipped with ranged weapons.

Enough terrain, hiding, making archers weaker in CC would be good as well.
But the original MH engine is probably not suitable to the latter.
I have had more than one campaign ruined by Reiklanders, Dwarf Gunline, DE Repeaters.
And the players just want to maximize shooting.
Introducing artificial constraints is clumsy, unelegant, and tends to be resented by the players.
Better would be to make archers weaker in CC somehow.
For example, if everyone had A2 but archers only A1, that would force the player to choose.
But alas - the vanilla MH engine is not set up to handle such subleties.

* wrote:

3.) Parry only has to match your opponents roll if you have a higher WS.
- Makes the situation where lower WS opponents benefited from Parry more than high WS creatures less jarring.

Maybe also no Crits while dual wielding. (And add Combat skill that negates the latter penalty.)

** wrote:

5.) Sling 5gc, Daggers 5gc, Axes/Maces 10gc.
- No dirt cheap dual wielding or sling barrage.

Yess.

** wrote:

6.) No free daggers!

- Pay for your weapons, seems easy enough.

Yess.

** wrote:

7.) No hero can select the same skill as another hero in the Warband
- Just making the game more narrative and diverse. Find an amazing combination of abilities for a Hero? Great! Only on the one though. Try new things!

You're a genius, boy. It is things like this that the game needs! Consider the idea stolen!